a woolen mill, or a silk mill, or a shoe factory, or a steel mill, or on the railroad, do not think that he is a crook. Do not think that every man in business is a crook. A great many people have the wrong impression. There may be some who have, unfortunately, disregarded the laws of good, sound business; but I can tell you how to stop much of that.

The gentleman who preceded me stated that the management of 5 per cent of the mills is unethical and that 85 per cent of the management of the mills seems to be good, sensible business people. Because 5 per cent are unethical is no reason why all business people should be classed as crooks and traitors to their country and have it said against them that they are trying to injure labor.

I say in all sincerity and seriousness that any man, in an occupation that is not hazardous, that does not want to work eight hours a day does not want to work at all.

If we cut the hours of labor to less than eight a day just because we think that is going to give us more time to run around and have nothing to do and say that the workers shall receive the same income for a 5-day week and a 6-hour day as they received for a 6-day week and an 8-hour day, we are putting that much greater burden upon industry and retarding business in such a way that fewer persons may have work than if industry were on an 8-hour-day basis. I might state here that so far as the industry producing 900 per cent more merchandise to-day than it did in 1900 is concerned, I believe that one thing this committee might recommend is the taxing of labor-saving machinery. I believe that would be one of the best solutions of the unemployment problem. Why not provide that if a machine displaces only one man it shall be taxed 5 per cent; if it displaces two men it shall be taxed 10 per cent; if it displaces three men it shall be taxed 15 per cent; and so forth, making a graduated scale for operator replaced.

If there are looms that produce the amount the gentleman who immediately preceded said they do and I realize that to-day an automatic loom takes the place of 20 operators-there is no reason why those looms should not be taxed 100 per cent on the value of their product, if necessary, thus retarding their use in order to place a greater number of persons at work.

It is said in some quarters that we should not tax improved machinery that is displacing workers in such large numbers because such would be a handicap to invention; but we want to give labor work and I think that would be one of the wisest solutions of this problem; and the funds derived from that tax could be turned into the Federal Treasury.

If we should adopt a minimum wage law whereby a manufacturer would not be permitted to reduce his wages below a certain figure, that might be one of the best things possibly to stabilize industry and help the American workman. I want to explain this from my own experience, being, as I have told you, I am a manufacturer trying to keep up wages where we should like to have them. We are and have been for many years confronted with this proposition: We do not want to cut wages; but the question is whether we are going to be compelled to do so. If other manufacturers who are driving hard to meet to-day's competition cut their wages-they

buying materials on the open market at a certain price, because people are willing to sell and the man will practically always buy where he can get the best value for his money-we are going to be confronted with the proposition of facing the man who has cut wages to the point where he does not care for the welfare of his employee.

The gentleman who immediately preceded me stated that 5 per cent of those in industry are blameworthy, and we have to suffer on account of those, because they go out to get the business. Practically all of us will buy merchandise where we can buy it for the least money, regardless of from where that merchandise comes, America or elsewhere. We do have a few patriotic Americans who say they will buy American goods regardless of costs, but when something touches the pocketbook of the average man it influences him very much to buy foreign goods.

Our plant to-day is up against the proposition of cutting wages, because we have to successfully compete with the other fellows or close the plant.

There is no alternative. We have arrived at the point where we can not continue as we are going and sell our merchandise. How are we going to regulate that? If you should provide a minimumwage law whereby women may not work for less than, say, 30 cents an hour, and men may not work for less than, say, 40 or 50 cents an hour-I am not saying what the wages should be-and have that law apply uniformly throughout the United States so that the condition of employment will be the same in our plant as in every other like plant, such would be very beneficial. Under that law there could not be a lowering of wages below a certain figure. Under that law the merchant on one side of the street would know what he has to pay for labor and he would at the same time know that the merchant on the other side of the street would have to pay the same. That law would stabilize wages so that they could not go to the point of extinction.

Mr. HARTLEY. Would such a law be constitutional?

Mr. RICH. No, it would not be constitutional; but we should not take the line of least resistance, change the Constitution.

I have heard this many times, and I have proposed it to a number of labor organizations, and the only one I have had to object to it is Mr. Frye of the Labor Temple. For the life of me I can not understand his attitude with respect to this. I know it is going to be difficult, but we accomplish things only by doing the right thing whether it is difficult or not. If you are going to regulate the hours of employment make the law provide for an 8-hour day regardless of the number of hours to be worked per week. In the best interest of employers and employees do not provide for less than an 8-hour day. That would be the best thing in the end, because the experienced man knows that the man who does not want to work 8 hours a day does not want to work at all. If it is necessary to regulate the hours of industry, do not provide for less than an 8-hour day, I say.

The gentleman who immediately preceded me has stated that 50 per cent of the looms of the country are in operation day and night and the remaining 50 per cent are not in operation. I think he is

right in that statement. Why? Simply because of the extreme competition. If you regulate the hours industry may work-and this is against my interests as a manufacturer-those who buy the fabrics in the great centers of population will give an order to-day for, say, 100 pieces of cloth to be delivered to-morrow; and every manufacturer is trying to reduce his losses to the minimum, and if these buyers in the cities who make up this fabric find they can not get their orders to-day they will place them ahead. They will not place them ahead to-day because they think it is a seller's market and the manufacturer will do everything he can to get out that order. It is not because he wants to do that, but he is compelled to do it. I might state this, incidentally: The last four months of last year were the biggest four months in operation we have ever had in 102 years, yet we went into the red. We are driven to these things as manufacturers because our laws permit us to operate that way. We will not help industry or labor by that method of operation.

I will be glad to work with this or any other committee in an effort to put these things into operation.

This great word "technocracy "-you could not do anything more helpful to labor than to regulate mass production or high-speed machines. You have all heard the statement about the steam shovel and its work. We have many operations that put more men out of employment, proportionately, than does the steam shovel. Then why permit it under such stringent times as these? Let's stop it by one law; it can be done.

Let us prohibit the Government from being in business. I have found that we have the Government in 200 different kinds of businesses. Everything the Government manufactures costs the taxpayers more money than it would cost to buy it from manufacturers, because the Government is not efficient.

The CHAIRMAN. This committee feels honored that one of its members, Mr. Shannon of Missouri, is making such an able and courageous effort on that matter.

Mr. RICH. And I am doing everything I can to help him. I love him. He is one of the finest and most able fellows in the Congress and he is body and soul interested in the subject of the Government in business. I hope you will eliminate the Government from business, because that would be one of the best things for the citizens of our country generally. Politics and business do not mix. It is a shame to see politics in action here when the country needs the guidance and assistance of the best and ripest minds to help restore confidence. A lack of confidence is the great trouble to-day. We should establish a uniform system of costs to-day, so far as the Government departments are concerned. That is something very essential and vital to the general welfare of the country. People are coming here with the single thought that the American Treasury is nothing but a barrel of money and we can take from it anything we want through purely selfish motives. If we should obey the law, "Do unto others as you would that they should do unto you," we would not need all the laws we have on the statute books.

If you will put these six things I have mentioned into effect and help through this committee you will do ten times more good than anything else I can suggest would do.

As for this bill proposing so many hours of work a day, if you want it so that one will work only two, three, or four days a week, I am for that, but please do not provide for a 6-hour day or a 4-hour day or any other number of hours per day short of eight. That would do more injury to this country than it will do good; it would not help industry and it would not help labor; and let us believe that we have a few honest manufacturers and that all men in business or engaged in manufacturing are not crooks. We have too long gone on that assumption.

Not a man here will invest in anything if he thinks he will lose. Where can you find a man who will do that when he is concerned? We want to work with labor and we want labor to work with us. Do not let those who shout and wave the red flag deceive you.

Mr. RAMSPECK. You agree with the principle of this proposed bill, which is that we need to spread the available work?

Mr. RICH. I do.

Mr. RAMSPECK. The thing to which you object is limiting the number of hours worked per day?

Mr. RICH. Yes.

Mr. RAMSPECK. You do not object to limiting the number of hours to be worked per week?

Mr. RICH. No; I am in sympathy with that.

The CHAIRMAN. You brought out something interesting in reference to the seller's market. If hours of employment were uniform throughout the United States this matter could be worked out satisfactorily. Under present conditions, a buyer says to you, "I am in the market for some goods and I want them delivered immediately, and if you can't deliver them immediately I will go elsewhere for them; " but if there were a uniform law throughout the United States that prospective buyer could not get the goods quicker than you could manufacture them, and that would keep up the price for you and others.

Mr. RICH. The manufacturer to-day is driven to things that he does not want to do. We are confronted with that right now. We call our people together and counsel with them. We do not want to cut wages; they are too low now. We have been compelled to cut wages and we may be compelled to do so again; but, to help our employees and regulate and try to take the hard way of changing the Constitution so that we can make a minimum wage so that one may not pay less than, say 30 cents an hour to women, or say 40 or 50 cents an hour to men-I am not suggesting the rate of pay-and compel the fellows who do not want to do the right thing to go along with the fellows who do not want to do the right thing, would be a happy solution. We are creatures of circumstances and there are many things we can do to help, and I do hope that we may tak the hard row and change the Constitution and provide a minimu wage so that the fellow in, say, Massachusetts will have to pay th same as the man in, say, California pays.

Mr. LOVETTE. Can you give us some of the advantages of the 8-hour day over the 6-hour day? Can you point out how the overhead expense is affected?

Mr. RICH. I came to this meeting thinking it would start at 10 o'clock, yet it was 17 minutes after 10 when it started. If business

should operate on that basis, you well know what the result would be. Industry expects every man to be on the job when the whistle blows at 8 o'clock in the mornings. It takes so much time for a man to start at his work. He works three hours in the morning and then he will leave his immediate work and start to wash up. He will prepare 5 or 10 minutes early to leave his work in the evening. He loses time both in the morning and the evening. Labor is not wilfully trying to steal that time, but there is the incentive for him to get ready to leave his work. Go down town here any evening at 4.30 and around the various departments of the Government you will see employees coming out of the buildings 10 or 15 minutes before quitting time.

The CHAIRMAN. I hope you are not suggesting putting in a timeclock for use of the members of the Committee on Labor? [Laughter.]

Mr. RICH. Somebody has been dilatory whether we so consider it. We are here to work.

The CHAIRMAN. In justice to members of the committee, I must say that I think attendance on the meetings of the Committee on Labor is probably better than the attendance on the meetings of any other committee in the Congress. I think we have had less difficulty than other committees in getting a quorum. You spoke of work. No one knows better, I am sure, than our colleagues, Mr. Rich, that there is plenty of work done by every Congressman in his office before he goes to his committee work in the morning.

Mr. RICH. Referring to the matter of the increased cost of operation, if we should operate three days a week we could close our plant for the remainder of the week; we could let our fires go out in the summer time and bank them in the winter time, keeping up just enough steam in winter to avoid having the plant freeze. We could avoid many operating expenses that would not subtract from labor. However, if we should shut down in summer that would mean a reduction of coal consumption and that would affect the miners of coal. The manufacturer must watch these items carefully, because, as I have said, the gap between success and failure in business is very close.

Mr. LOVETTE. I am attracted by your interesting statement in reference to keeping your employees at work during this economic depression. How well have you succeeded in that attempt?

Mr. RICH. Our workers in both plants work 90 per cent of the time.

The CHAIRMAN. And what is your average wage?

Mr. RICH. Spinners about 50 cents, weavers about 46 cents, spoolers about 43 cents, et cetera.

Mr. RICH. I live in the country, and you may find conditions different in the city than they are in the country in the matter of operating a plant. I may say that the plants are going to the country more and more and

Mr. RAMSPECK (interposing). How have you prorated the work among your employees?

Mr. RICH. Our instructions are that the work must be divided so that each worker may have his share, and our employees are making a living.