FOLLOWING WITNESSES GAVE TESTIMONY EQUALLY AS PROBATIVE AS THE FOREGOING TENDING TO SHOW THE DAMAGING EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED LAW UPON THE INDUSTRIES SET AGAINST THEIR NAMES

Pages are stated for quick reference.

At page 157: John D. Battle, executive secretary, National Coal Association, Bituminous Mining Industry.

At page 362: Julian D. Conover, secretary, American Mining Congress.

At page 368: Lewis C. Madiera, III, executive director, Anthracite Institute, Anthracite Producing Coal Industry.

At page 370: W. L. Haehnlen, chairman of board of the Tonopah Mining Co. of Nevada.

At page 371: A. E. Bendelari, president, Eagle-Picher Mining & Smelting Co., lead and zinc.

At page 372: Charles M. Seymour, metal miners and smelters, Tennessee, Missouri, Kansas, and Oklahoma.

At page 385: Edward J. Harding, Associated General Contractors of America, Inc.

At page 472: James L. Davidson, secretary, Alabama Mining Institute.

At page 477: George J. Earl, Jr., New York and New Jersey branch of the National Metal Trades Association.

At page 258: James W. Hook, president the Geometric Tool Co., New Haven, Conn.

At page 381: Charles R. Hook, president the American Rolling Mill Co., Middletown, Ohio.

At page 405: Walter S. Tower, secretary, American Iron and Steel Institute.

AUTOMOBILE

MANUFACTURERS AND OTHER MANUFACTURERS OF A GREAT VARIETY OF PRODUCTS EXPRESS THE OPINION THAT THE BILL COULD NOT BE ENFORCED; THAT IT WOULD BE DESTRUCTIVE OF LABOR, OF CAPITAL, AND OF LAND, USED IN THE BROAD SENSE OF MATERIALS

They pointed to increased costs, increased prices, increased sales resistance, decreased market, reduced output and production, increased unemployment, reduced purchasing power, and increased real wages.

They testified that it would tend to mediocrity and lower levels of skill and labor, block the movement of economic law, and bring a penalty for it; they pointed out that the bill ignores the strain that individual industries are now suffering, assumes that all separate industries are equally prosperous, and that they are competent to bear the extraordinary burden of reduced hours without reduced pay. Their testimony tends to show that the bill would not work as a relief measure because of its tendency to create idle industries and throw workmen upon relief rolls. Also, that it would not work as as a recovery measure because of its tendency to paralyze industry that is unable to find capital with which to carry the added load.

The effect of their testimony was that the bill would lower the standard of living generally.

We point to statements as follows:

At page 298: Robert C. Graham, vice president of Graham-Paige Motors Corporation, representing the Automobile Manufacturers Association.

At page 356: Jack E. G. Frost, assistant to the president of the National Automobile Dealers' Association.

At page 375: Sidney E. Cornelius, manager the Manufacturers Association of Hartford County, Hartford, Conn.

At page 377: A. L. Viles, president and general manager of the Rubber Manufacturers Association, Inc.

At page 461: F. C. Jones, president National Electrical Manufacturers Association.

At page 474: J. M. Manley, commissioner, Industrial Association of Cincinnati.

At page 482: Manufacturers' Association of Connecticut, Inc. At page 483: John W. O'Leary, president Machinery and Allied Products Institute.

MANUFACTURERS OF BOXES AND OF TOYS TESTIFIED TO THE SAME GENERAL INCREASE IN LABOR COSTS OF 33% PERCENT, AND TO PROBABLE REDUCTION IN THE VOLUME OF PRODUCTION

At page 155: R. W. Darnell, Chicago Paper Box Manufacturers' Association.

At page 320: Norman G. Hough, president and general manager National Lime Association.

At page 330: J. E. Cuff, vice president American Flyer Manufacturing Co., a toy industry.

At page 416: W. A. Coventry, president Toy Manufacturers of the United States of America, Inc.

At page 466: C. D. Hudson, manager National Wooden Box Association.

THE CONSUMERS-GOODS INDUSTRIES COMMITTEE SUBMITTED A BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE BILL, TO BE FOUND AS FOLLOWS

At page 409: Industries represented and list of dislocations, cost burdens, and other injuries.

At page 410: Conditions varying widely between different industries impossible to regulate by horizontal, universal rule.

At page 411: Financial incapacity of industry to adjust itself to the 30-hour week.

At page 412: Effects of price increase resulting from wage in

creases.

At page 415: Would promote strikes.

See also pamphlet by Roscoe C. Edlund, in behalf of the Consumers Goods Industries Committee.

The Manufacturing Chemists' Association, represented by James J. Riley, president Barium Reduction Corporation, South Charleston, W. Va. (hearings, p. 334): Developed the peculiar inability of this industry to comply with the 30-hour bill.

At page 335:

It is not feasible to maintain a sufficient staff or a sufficient inventory for any emergency. Many operations of the chemical industry are continuous and in a multitude of delicate chemical operations-such as finishing an obstinate nitro

glycerine charge-it is essential that a single skilled operator complete a given operation.

The American Trucking Associations, Inc. (hearings, p. 468): Opposed the bill and asserted that it would protect an unfair competitive condition with rail and water carriers, as well as between employers and those who own and operate their own trucks.

PUBLISHERS' AND EDITORS' OPPOSITION TO THE BILL WAS PRESENTED

AS FOLLOWS

At page 439: Harry B. Rutledge, managing director National Editorial Association, also secretary of the Code Authority of the Graphic Arts Code:

* * * A recent survey made by the graphic arts coordinating committee shows only 35 percent of the towns reporting a sufficient number of skilled workmen to operate the local plants on a 30-hour basis.

At page 440: The Graphic Arts Code presents an extremely complicated problem for its authorities owing to the classified wage scale, the differentials governed by both volume of business and population of the cities, as well as by the publication of a newspaper in the plant, and to place the entire printing industry on a 30-hour-week basis and try to make the required adjustments would hopelessly confuse code administration if not make it utterly impossible. It would plunge the industry into a chaos from which it would require years to recover. At page 441:

* A 30-hour week under these conditions means smaller and poorer newspapers, with closing their office doors their only alternative.

At page 252: Guy L. Harrington, National Publishers Association, (200 of the leading periodicals or magazines of the United States, having a total combined circulation of approximately 50,000,000 of individual copies monthly):

At page 253:

The immediate effect of this bill would be to suddenly increase costs to a point impossible of absorption. Many magazines would be placed on a losing basis, all unnecessary employees would be eliminated, and drastic attempts would be taken to speed up the output of those already employed. Those publishers who could not meet the increased cost would, if unable to negotiate loans, be forced into bankruptcy.

At page 256:

* * There are certain operations in some branches of printing that would be impossible of performance under a 30-hour week. In many operations in printing as well as in industry in general, a 30-hour week would entail a large percentage increase in unproductive time.

At page 258:

A 30-hour week means a reduction of at least 40 percent, probably more, in our national production of the year 1929, which was then $665 per capita. Would this Nation be self-sustaining on a per capita production of $400 per year? Obviously it would not if present living standards were maintained.

Harder work, more work, longer hours, not shorter hours, increased production, saving and thrift only will lead to prosperity. Thus and thus only may we meet our obligations and become self-sustaining.

Harvey J. Kelly, the American Newspaper Publishers' Association (more than 400 publishers of daily newspapers throughout the United

States) (hearings, p. 276): A strong argument was presented for special exemption of the newspaper-publishing industry based on the fact that it has the highest level of sustained employment experienced. At page 281:

It should be remembered that a newspaper cannot, in the absence of revenue business, shut down like a manufacturing concern or a commercial print shop. A newspaper must serve its readers. It is like a train which must make its run

whether or not it has revenue passengers aboard.

At page 284: Here will be found a statement of restrictive rules and regulations of unions rendering it impossible to operate on a 6-hour basis because of inherent difficulties in regard to news and advertising.

At page 285:

The act would inevitably result in decreased employment in the newspaperpublishing industry.

At page 295:

We predict that if it becomes a law, hundreds of thousands of man-hours of now available employment in this industry will cease to exist because of the number of daily newspapers which cannot survive and because of the number of editions which, of necessity, will be discontinued.

MANY OF THE FOREGOING WITNESSES GAVE EVIDENCE TENDING TO SHOW THE NECESSARY CURTAILMENT OF EXPORTS AND INCREASE OF IMPORTS, WITH CONSEQUENT REDUCTION OF WORKERS IN DOMESTIC ENTERPRISES WHICH THE 30-HOUR BILL WOULD CAUSE

We point to only a few of them as typical:

At page 396: Ralph E. Flanders, president Jones & Lamson Machine Co., Springfield, Vt.:

Owing to the fact that our type of industry, which is a capital-goods industry has had practically no demand in this country for years, we have been forced to cultivate our foreign markets to the limit of our ability, and have been sustained by them. The employment that our men had has been nearly 75 percent on account of foreign orders in the last 4 years, and any increase in the cost of those goods at that time, and at the present time, would make a very serious difficulty in the way of our continuing to sell abroad.

The situation at the present time is more nearly on a cost basis of comparison of prices than it has ever been before.

*

The proposals would call for a one-third increase in the wage rate. That would mean one-third increase in labor cost to us, because the 40-hour week is already so low compared to what workers are used to that they are fresh at the end of the day. That is, there is no advantage, such as we have had in time past, in going from 60 hours a week, as I used to work when I was a boy, down to 50 hours a week, whereby you got in a larger number of fresh hours a day and increased the output.

The men are now fresh at 40 hours. There would be no increase in output. There would be an added 33% percent in wage rate, which in our case would make directly a certain increase of about 12 to 15 percent in cost, and, indirectly, as I described, a much larger one because everything we buy would be correspondingly increased in cost.

At page 413: The Consumers' Goods Industries Committee:

Effect on foreign trade.-Again the Government is struggling to promote our foreign trade. This bill would practically exclude us from the export markets of the world. How could we compete with Japan-or even Europe?

Moreover, it would seriously hamper the domestic producer in competition with the importer. The tariffs have been established with a view to equalizing labor costs and protecting the American manufacturer against cheaper labor abroad. This tariff equalization would no longer be effective if labor costs to

the American manufacturer were arbitrarily, by Government fiat, suddenly increased one-third. This country is already Japan's largest customer-larger even than China-with 400,000,000 people, or India with 300,000,000.

It is true that the Connery bill in the House pretends to make provision to equalize this disadvantage, but the means suggested would be utterly ineffective to that end.

I. THE BILL IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH A FREE GOVERNMENT

It is contrary to natural right.

The pursuit of happiness, which involves freedom to exercise one's spirit, intelligence, and skill, was one of the natural rights proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence.

Another natural right is equality of treatment by government. The bill would curtail the liberty of workers to sell their services, to increase their productivity, to improve their standard of living; whereas, it would leave unhampered by its direct prohibitions "officers, executives, and superintendents and their personal and immediate clerical assistants."

The bill is in direct contradiction of the American theory of Gov

ernment:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. * *

-Declaration of Independence.

This bill is unnatural because it proposes to convert the lawful acts of employment and service into misdemeanors and punishable offenses. In this respect it discriminates between citizens holding one man guilty and another man honest though each does the same thing, namely: Work, contract.

The bill proposes to destroy the natural independence and dignity of labor; it discourages self-discipline, self-government, self-improvement. It proposes to flatten out on a lower level or standard than now exists the entire body of labor universally throughout the United States.

It is wholly inconsistent with the democracy of labor and the right of bargaining, collectively and otherwise.

The penalty for this drastic violation of the principles upon which a free Government was founded would inevitably be suffered.

Many of the foregoing witnesses referred to this. We cite only the following:

G. W. Dyer, The Southern Industrial Council, (hearings, p. 352): At page 355:

This bill provides for an all powerful boycotting system to punish and destroy indirectly those that it cannot reach directly for the crime of exercising what are conceded to be constitutional rights. If a factory, shop, hotel, or other business enterprise not engaged in interstate commerce does not conform to the mandates of Congress, the Federal Government, through all of its agencies is ordered to boycott such enterprise in every way possible. Government agencies are not permitted to patronize such business concerns. The Government must refuse to make any loans to such enterprise and must refuse to renew any loans made. Not only is it a boycott, but it makes everybody that does any business with the Government line up and destroy people who are doing nothing but exercising their constitutional rights. I never heard of such a preposterous condition taken by any Government in the history of civilization. I would like somebody to point