contract to compel an eight-hour day in every industrial establishment in this country where a Government contract is used for any purpose. That is the intention, and that is the construction which has been placed upon that language for the last six years. Now, the question is whether or not the language is susceptible of that construction. The CHAIRMAN. My point is what the language means.

Mr. PAYSON. That language means, in my judgment, Mr. Chairman, that wherever any portion of a day is occupied by an employee of a contractor having so-called Government work, no more than eight hours' work can be exacted by that contractor from that man upon any other work.

Senator HARRIS. Exacted or permitted?

Mr. PAYSON. Either exacted or permitted upon any work. That, Senator Harris, has been the contention of the friends of this bill for the last six years. They have avowed that their purpose and their object in putting the language into the bill was to enforce an eighthour day upon private work and private contracts.

May I now have the attention of the committee for a few moments? The CHAIRMAN. You say that language means, not in that employment, but in any employment?

Mr. PAYSON. In any employment.

The CHAIRMAN. Not upon that contract?
Mr. PAYSON. Not upon that contract.

The CHAIRMAN. But upon any contract?

Mr. PAYSON. Upon any contract. The day is the unit. If any portion of the day is occupied by the employee upon work which ultimately is to go to the Government, that precludes the employer from permitting any employee of his thus engaged for any portion of the calendar day upon so-called Government work from working more than eight hours.

The CHAIRMAN. You think that is what the language means, then? Mr. PAYSON. I have no more doubt of it than that two and two make four in mathematics.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not further say that there is any legal mode of compelling the mind of any man who works eight hours for one contractor on Government work and then goes across the street in other employment and works additional hours, or the mind of the contractor who employs him, to be at all affected or controlled by this construction?

Mr. PAYSON. Probably not: but that is a phase of the matter that I have never considered, Mr. Chairman, because in practical operation in industrial establishments such a condition could practically never arise. It would practically never be the case that a man would work part of a day, eight hours, for A, and then go across the street and put in overtime for B, and so on.

The CHAIRMAN. I am trying to get your construction of those words.

Mr. PAYSON. I have confined myself closely to the construction of the bill as it applies to those who would come within its immediate operation.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not think it would in terms include such people?

Mr. PAYSON. Oh, I think not: still I have never considered that matter, and I would not want to commit myself as to it.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, if that be not so, then these words must relate only to requiring or permitting an employee of a man who has a contract with the Government to work over eight hours a day. The language must relate simply to that contract, and the scope of the. employment under that contract. How else could it be?

Mr. PAYSON. That phase of the matter I will discuss at length, Mr. Chairman; but at this time perhaps it would not be wise for me to go further than this: You will notice that the language is, "every conshall contain a stipulation.'

tract

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. PAYSON. Now, under that act, when a contractor executes a contract with the Government, he is required to include in that writing a stipulation that no workman of his shall work more than eight hours in any one calendar day, and that no one engaged upon Government work, and so on, shall work more than eight hours in a calendar day. That has been the contention of the friends of the bill, and the opinion of everyone who has had to do with it. In fact, an amendment embodying the idea suggested by Senator Harris has been proposed in the House committee on more than one occasion and has been rejected by the friends of the bill; and they will say to you, they would not accept it now if you asked them. I will venture that prediction.

If I can now have the attention of the committee for a moment in a formal way

The CHAIRMAN. Had you finished, Judge McCammon?

Mr. McCAMMON. I simply wanted to say, without arguing the case, that we stand in the position of respondents, and claim that the law infringes upon personal libery and individual liberty, is unconstitutional, is despotic, is outrageous, and is socialistic. Those, generally, are our defenses.

It has been assumed by Mr.Gompers

The CHAIRMAN. I do not like to interrupt you, but I wish you would give special attention to the question of the constitutionality of the bill. Mr. McCAMMON. Do you mean now?

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, no; I mean hereafter.

Mr. McCAMMON. We will have abundant opportunity, I hope, to present our views on that subject to the committee.

It has been assumed by Mr. Gompers (and probably I am wasting the time of the committee in referring to it, because the committee has virtually determined that the proponents of the bill shall be heard first, and shall state the reasons why it should be enacted) that the Senate committee does not want to hear any testimony; that it should, as it were, rush the bill through by reading up of nights, and probably during the day, all that has been said before other committees at other times, and he comes in here on short notice and asks that that shall determine the committee's action on the bill. Notwithstanding the fact

The CHAIRMAN. Allow me one moment just there. I am sure all the committee agree with me about this. This committee, on an important subject like this, intends for itself to examine carefully and seriously the matter before it. That is our duty; no one else can do it for us. Mr. McCAMMON. Undoubtedly.

The CHAIRMAN. You will have ample time to be heard on this matter consistently with the general purpose to report the bill.

Mr. MCCAMMON. Then I will only say one sentence more. All I was going to say in addition was that during two Congresses, notwithstanding the fact that the House Committee on Labor were deemed to be favorable and turned out in each case to be favorable to this bill, they gave us hearings for four months in one case and five months in another. Following, of course, your declared purpose that this bill must be considered and considered carefully by the individual members of the committee

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

Mr. MCCAMMON (continuing). To the end that they shall understand fully what the intention of the bill is and declare their opinion upon it in due time, we shall endeavor, after the friends of this bill have made their statements in favor of it, to present the reasons why we oppose its passage.

STATEMENT OF L. E. PAYSON, ESQ.

Mr. PAYSON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I represent in these hearings the Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company, whose yard is located at Newport News, in the State of Virginia; the Sterling Boiler Company, one of whose plants is located in Chicago and the other in Cleveland; the Bath Iron Works, a shipbuilding concern, with its yard located at Bath, Me., and the Hyde Windlass Company, also located in the same place.

I have been connected with this matter, Mr. Chairman, ever since the first bill on the subject was introduced in Congress, and have represented substantially the same interests. I mention this in order

to justify myself in saying that I am not entirely unfamiliar with the ideas of those who favor the bill as well as those who oppose its enactment into law.

The interests which are involved, Mr. Chairman, are of too great importance to be swept away by the casual statements made by Mr. Gompers at the opening of this hearing. When Mr. Gompers is pleased to say before this committee, in such a way that it might be assumed that it went without saying, that the purpose of this bill is to effect very beneficent objects for the entire American people without any injurious effect upon any, I can not by my silence permit the statement to go unchallenged.

I say to you, Mr. Chairman, representing the interests which I do, and which are typical, so far as this bill is concerned, of a hundred other manufacturing industries scattered from Maine at least to the Mississippi River, all kindred in character, that the operation of this bill, if it should become a law, would affect them all, without exception, not only injuriously, but, in many instances, absolutely disastrously. And I want to say, further, that although Mr. Gompers asserts the fact that on two occasions this bill has passed the House by a unanimous vote, so far as the record shows, it is also a fact that in both those instances it passed the House of Representatives under motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill; in neither instance was a word of discussion had upon either side; and in the present Congress not ten men in the House of Representatives voted upon it one way or

the other.

Further, through all the years this bill has been pending, while this volume of testimony taken before the House committee at two Con

gresses and before the Senate committee in one is addressed to the fact that the operation of this bill will be injurious to every manufacturing industry of this country, from the making of a spoon up to the building of a battle ship, there has never been a word of discussion in the House of Representatives, there has never been a reference in a report from the House Committee on Labor, there has never been a word dropped from the eloquent lips of Mr. Gompers, representing organized labor before the House Committee on Labor, as to the effect of this bill upon the industrial interests of this country-not a word. I do not propose at this moment to enter upon any discussion of the merits of the bill, Mr. Chairman, or to outline at any length what we expect the showing will be upon the question of fact before this committee. Let me say, however, that the title of the bill is misleading; and I am very glad the Senator from Kansas has fallen upon it at the

outset.

The bill is entitled "An act limiting the hours of daily service of laborers and mechanics employed upon work done for the United States, or any Territory, or the District of Columbia." Legally, there is not a thing in the body of the bill which applies to that title, because the bill only applies to private labor done by the employees of a private corporation. To be sure, the work is ultimately to go to the United States; but as to the work itself, the Government has no more interest in it while it is being performed than any of you gentlemen sitting around this table. For, in all these contracts, as the Supreme Court has decided in two or three instances not necessary to be cited here, neither the title nor any interest in the article produced vests in the Government until the final inspection and delivery to the Government. The title is therefore misleading in its terms.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we expect, and we have a right to expect, that where such a bill as this, which works a revolution in the industrial interests of this country, is presented to a committee, the gentlemen in favor of it shall adduce some facts before the committee tending to show that such legislation is proper.

The CHAIRMAN. They will do so at the next meeting.

Mr. PAYSON. I say, that is what we have a right to expect. That privilege has never been accorded to us until this meeting of this committee. In the House committee, both by the ruling of the chairman and the acquiescence of the committee, we were compelled to take the initiative in making the proof as against this bill in every meeting that was ever held.

The CHAIRMAN. That rule will not obtain here.

Mr. PAYSON. I am very glad to know it.

The CHAIRMAN. The persons proposing a bill of this kind always have the affirmative.

Mr. PAYSON. Of course; and we asked that that plan be pursued over there; but for some reason it was not done. Perhaps the less said about that the better; at all events, I state what the fact is.

This bill goes further than has ever been intimated here. It has been time and time again avowed by gentlemen representing organized labor-I refer to Mr. Gompers and those associated with him-that the object of this legislation, the intent and purpose of having it enacted into law, is to bring about an eight-hour day in private employment, as such. If I could make it any stronger than that, I would be very glad to do so; and I think Mr. Gompers would be glad to have

LG W- -2

me, because that is his avowed purpose. It has been expressed time and time again.

That is to say, Congress is to be asked to do indirectly by this bill what, if it were attempted to do directly by an enactment without any subterfuges as to words or sentences, would not receive consideration for one minute.

Senator HARRIS. Judge, will you pardon me for interrupting you there?

Mr. PAYSON. Surely; it will not interrupt me at all.

Senator HARRIS. Was not that perhaps the ultimate object of the eight-hour law which now exists with regard to Government work? Mr. PAYSON. No, sir; for this reason, Senator Harris: The existing law attempts to regulate only the relations between the Government and its employees on public work as such-public buildings, public docks, etc., and things of that kind, where the relation is entirely between the Government and its employees.

Senator HARRIS. Certainly; but as the Government is the greatest employer of labor, was it not an object lesson in its ultimate purpose? Mr. PAYSON. No, sir; I do not think so.

Senator HARRIS. Tending to the universality of the eight-hour law? Mr. PAYSON. I do not see how it could be, Senator Harris, because that is a matter which would not be within the purview or power of Congress, directly or indirectly.

Senator HARRIS (continuing). Through the influence of example? Mr. PAYSON. Oh, it might be persuasive, of course.

The CHAIRMAN. If I remember correctly, General Grant's proclamation indicated that that was the hope, the expectation, and the purpose of that legislation.

Mr. PAYSON. As to an eight-hour day in private employment?
The CHAIRMAN. I mean to lead persuasively to that end?

Mr. PAYSON. That may be; I am not prepared to say.

Senator HARRIS. By the influence of example?

Mr. PAYSON. It may be that that is so; it may or may not be. But applying the principles of this bill to a particular case, for the purpose of illustration, I will state that the Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company, which I represent, is a corporation organized under the laws of Virginia. Our relations to our employees are regulated purely by the laws of that State. Congress, I take it, has no more business to say how many hours our employees shall agree to work for us, in making a ship for me or in building a towboat for you, than

Senator HARRIS. You must understand, Judge, that I was merely alluding to the ultimate effect of the law.

Mr. PAYSON. AS I say, it may be said that it was persuasive. It may have been in the minds of the Congress that passed that bill that it was a step in the right direction, and all that sort of thing. That may be so, and doubtless was so. But as to asking Congress to pass any act which should be effective as to private employment, it seems to me that it goes without saying, Senator, that Congress would be stepping far beyond its power if it undertook to do anything of the kind.

Mr. FURUSETH. May I ask the judge a question? Mr. PAYSON. No, not now; not for a moment. what I have to say.

Wait until I finish

This bill, then, upon its face, is such a radical overturning of exist