Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. LOVETTE. Of course, with these improved machines there is

, bound to be a curtailing and elimination of labor.

Mr. CALVIN. That is true. The author of this bill recognized that. He would not have introduced the bill otherwise. We believe that labor should have shorter work hours and shorter work weeks. It is no longer necessary to work more than six hours a day and five days a week.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand that certain large industrial organizations in the country have brilliant inventors at work all the time and those organizations pay the inventors for their product and put it on the market. Then the inventors proceed to devise other things that are brought up by those organizations, but those things are held back and not allowed to see the light of day, because they would kill the product already on the market. If those large industrial corporations may do that, not allow a subsequent invention to come out into use, why can Congress not say that it will not allow those things to be brought out if they will destroy labor?

Mr. CALVIN. It is true that inventions are being perfected and withheld from the public.

Mr. LOVETTE. As I said before, if improved machinery is going to destroy society, let us first destroy the machinery.

Mr. RAMSPECK. Mr. Lovette, if one could earn enough in six months to keep himself a year, do you not think he could find sufficient to do during the remaining six months, such as travel, read, indulge in recreation, to keep himself profitably and pleasurably employed?

Mr. LOVETTE. Perhaps that is so in some cases, but it would not apply to all humanity.

Mr. CALVIN. There is no more patriotic organization in the United States than the bona fide trades unions. I do not think I have to elaborate on that assertion. Going back to the World War, we find that of the 4,000,000 men who were under arms for the United States, 740,000 were members of the American Federation of Labor. Moreover, the transportation organizations, which are not affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, went to France, as you well know, and operated a very efficient rail service in France and other foreign countries.

We are an American organization and we are vitally interested in the perpetuation of American institutions; there is no place within the portals of the American labor movement for any political agitation looking to a perversion of American institutions. We have run the undesirables out of our organizations time and time again because they wanted to corrupt and disrupt our American form of Government, and we objected thereto.

Mr. LOVETTE. Suppose this bill is passed and it is immediately taken to the Supreme Court and held unconstitutional as the childlabor act was held unconstitutional, what would you then have to offer?

Mr. CALVIN. We have some peculiarities about our Government. One of them is that the legislative branch of our Government is subordinate to the judicial branch of the Government. I am not throwing bricks at the Constitution, but it seems to me that you people represent the sentiments of the people at large, while the nine

justices who sit on the Supreme Court really pass upon the judgment of all the people because you are representing all the people.

However, I do not believe that the Supreme Court would declare this act unconstitutional.

Mr. LOVETT. Just assuming that the Supreme Court would declare this act to be unconstitutional. What would you then have to offer?

Mr. Calvin. Mr. Lovette, that is one question I hesitate to answer. I am not saying that anything is wrong with the Constitution of the United States if it is properly applied, because if properly applied everybody would have plenty of everything.

It never was intended that anybody should go hungry in this country. I think that if the Supreme Court should disapprove this act it would be making a fundamental error in doing so after giving due consideration to all elements involved. It would be a national tragedy if the Supreme Court should disapprove this proposal.

Mr. "RAMSPECK. If sentiment becomes sufficiently crystalized in connection with this problem, the Constitution will be changed, if necessary.

Mr. Calvin. Public sentiment is the strongest governmental influence and when that public sentiment is courageously and honestly administered we are going to find that all forces of corruption will vanish before it and I am inclined to believe that the gentlemen constituting the Supreme Court of the United States recognize the fact that public sentiment throughout the length and breadth of the land has given serious consideration to the present economic conditions and recognizes the fact that a shorter work day and a shorter work week are necessary as a balance wheel to our progress; and I am sure that the Supreme Court would hold the passage of this bill valid and constitutional.

Mr. KOPP. I understood you to suggest that it would be difficult to regulate inventions, what should or should not be done with them.

Mr. Calvin. My contention is that the benefits accrued and accruing by reason of inventions and labor-saving devices should not be confined to a special group, a minority. My theory is that all the people should benefit by the progress of mankind, and these scientific inventions represent nothing more than progress of mankind.

Mr. KOPP. That is undoubtedly true. The question is how to properly distribute the benefits. I understand that we could repeal the patent act. That is simply a matter of policy. The purpose of protecting patents is to encourage invention. At any rate we have a right under the Constitution to do as we please about patent laws. The Constitution does not specifically protect the patentee. We may shorten the life of the patent or we may take away the right to a patent.

Mr. Calvin. In view of present conditions, if this measure becomes law you will be making a tremendous stride toward the equalization of the benefits of mechanized industry by shortening the hours, which will mean the employment of more workers. And, of course, employed workmen are what put money into circulation. This bill would go a long way toward stabilization and to enable us to regain our national equilibrium. I do not believe this bill would be good for all time, because this Nation is always moving forward and our scenery is changing all the time. The evolution of industry is more or less in its infancy, and therefore from time to time this bill will have to be improved. But, as I have said, the shortening of the work week and the work day at this time is a constructive movement.

Mr. Kopp. That inventions have, generally speaking, benefitted society is true. Some classes of society have suffered severely dur ing the period of transition, but, ultimately, the improved mechanisms have benefitted society generally. That has been the rule in the past, but it must be conceded that inventions are becoming a problem.

Mr. Calvin. That was true up to ten years ago; but since then inventions have benefitted only those who have been able to control them. Workers have suffered immeasurably as a result of scientific progress and the general progress of mankind has

Mr. LOVETTE (interposing). What have you to say in comparing the merits of the 5-day week and the 6-hour day and the 4-day weel and the 8-hour day?

Mr. Calvin. From the standpoint of productivity there would be very little difference, but our experience is that by shortening the work hours of day you increase production, usually. If the work hours are shortened the work becomes less tiresome, therefore, I think the 6-hour day and 5-day week would be better than an 8-hour day and a 4-day week.

The CHAIRMAN. It would be better from the viewpoint of health.

Mr. CALVIN. Yes; the worker's efforts would be reduced and his hours for recuperation would be increased. As has been suggested by the Chairman, I believe the 6-hour day and 5-day week would be better for mankind from the standpoint of the physical.

The CHAIRMAN. We have an example of that with the daylightsaving hours. Before daylight saving was introduced, we did not have ball games after supper, but now we have ball games every afternoon or evening. The children may play longer. We would have the same experience with the inauguration of the 6-hour day.

Mr. CALVIN. Yes. We are anxious to see this bill enacted into law. We believe it would go a long way toward minimizing the misery and suffering, and everybody knows the country is full of Such now. In every section of this country your constituents are suffering from exposure and hunger; there are helpless children and aged folks suffering from malnutrition; and we say that such a condition is inexcusable and indefensible in the United States, and we want it corrected. We have enough interest in our Government to want to see it perpetuated and its ideals and traditions carried forward. We believe that contented homes are nothing more than safety insurance policies for the Nation; that they safeguard the Government; but when 12,000,000 of workers have no visible means of support and are dependent upon charity and they have, many of them, children looking to them for food and clothing and shelter and schooling, those men will sooner or later revert to the primitive and be guided by animal instinct rather than correct reasoning, and the situation becomes dangerous while a majority of workers are at the present time unemployed.

I am speaking of all workers. Twelve millions are many, but in addition to those we have the dependents of those 12,000,000. In other words, 50 per cent of our Nation is without any form of proper existence or on materially reduced incomes with total unemployment possible.

The CHAIRMAN. We all know the great fight the American Fed. eration of Labor has made against communism and bolshevism. Now, do you not see a great danger not only to the institutions of our country but to the morale of our people involved? You have testified that 300,000 young boys are roaming aimlessly and hopeless around the country. Only last night a policeman told me of two or three boys he had picked up here. He said those youngsters would go on the street and beg till they got, say, a half dollar and then the officers pick them up. Those boys are asked, “Why do you do that; do you like to do it?” The answer is, “No; but there is no work for us.” Think of these young boys in such great numbers roaming about the country and on our streets panhandling. The officer expressed the view that the morale of those people is gone. Do you not think that this condition is one that presents a great menace, one of the worst menaces the country could possibly face?

Mr. Calvin. Yes; those young boys, who are panhandling on the streets to-day and wandering aimlessly about the country, constitute our future generation, and what an education they are getting now! They are being thrown constantly among radical communists, criminals of all kinds who would pervert all American institutions, and the minds of these young men are sill receptive and elastic so that they are indelibly impressed by all the wrong they are learning to-day as they wander aimlessly and hopelessly around the country. All this is fundamentally and morally wrong. It is criminal that such conditions should exst; and I am confident that any step in this direction must be taken here in Washington to regulate the hours of employment.

Mr. LOVETTE. As a result of your experience and observation in and of the labor problem, do you think it is possible to have the States pass a uniform law governing the hours of labor.

Mr. CALVIN. I think it would be a tremendous task, Mr. Lovett, because we have some States that would very strenuously object to any regulation of the hours of employment; but if we had this national precedent it would allow us to go into those States.

Mr. LOVETTE. And to regulate them through the State legislatures in harmony with the Federal Government.

Mr. CALVIN. I am going to Mr. Ramspeck's State the first week in February. As I have said, I think this step should be taken in Washington, and action here would fortify us in our efforts in the States.

Mr. RAMSPECK. It would be almost impossible to get the States to act singly. The Legislature of Georgia is in session. If a law limiting the hours of employment to, say, 30 a week were proposed there it would be said that if it were enacted the State of Georgia could not compete with the States of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Alabama in the textile industry because the latter States had no laws limiting the hours of employment. The trouble is that no State is willing to take the lead.

Mr. Calvin. Yes; that is true. The right start has been made here in Washington. The action of the Federal Government would be influential. You have an influence over all the States. If we

should go into the States separately we would have a conglomeration of laws, even if successful in having them enacted. The competition between States would be obviously unfair.

The CHAIRMAN. How long since we tried to put through the child-labor amendment?

Mr. CALVIN. Six or seven years ago.

The CHAIRMAN. At that time I appeared before the Committee on the Judiciary in connection with the child labor law and the chairman, Mr. Graham, asked me whether this should not be left to the States, whether the States through a campaign of education should not do this. How many States have child labor laws?

Mr. Calvin. Six States have ratified the proposed amendment. The CHAIRMAN. How many States of themselves have put into effect laws prohibiting child labor?

Mr. CALVIN. I do not know any.

The CHAIRMAN. If we should leave this matter to the States we would be dead before anything would be done about it.

Mr. Calvin. That is right. Washington is the place to do it.

Mr. RAMSPECK. In the textile industry of the South we have long hours. I want it understood, though, that I am not in favor of those long hours. I think they are too long, but textile mills in your State of Massachusetts, Mr. Connery, complain all the time that they are at a disadvantage in competing with the mills in the Southeast because of that fact and yet we do have differing conditions that enter into the attitude of the inhabitants of the States that work long hours. For the sake of the general welfare it seems that we have to forego our States' rights theory in order to face an unfortunate condition. Somebody has said here that we are facing a fact and not a theory. For the sake of the general welfare it is going to take national action to meet this serious emergency, I think.

Mr. Calvin. I know your time is almost up; but I want to say this, in conclusion: That since the beginning of this depression many committees of experts consisting of economists, technocrats, sociologists, financiers, and so forth, have been formed to investigate the situation and to determine, if possible, the cause of the depression and to suggest remedies, and almost without exception the cause of the depression is ascribed to a lack of confidence.

Now we all know that millions of persons with empty stomachs can not have very much confidence in anything. I challenge anybody who says that lack of confidence is the real cause of the existing depression. Obviously, the cause of this depression is unemployment; a lack of consuming power due to unemployment. Until we get these idle men restored to positions or absorbed into industry, we are not going to get out of this depression. This technological progress has caused several millions of men to lose their positions, and, as I have said, even if business should become normal we could not absorb all the people back into industry. Only by shortening the work day and the work week may we take these idle men back into industry; otherwise they have no hope of reemployment.

I have nothing further to offer. The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further questions, we thank you, Mr. Calvin, for your statement.

« PreviousContinue »