Mr. SMITH. The only ones that we had there were the two minimums, 35 in the East and 45 in the West and 45 on the Great Lakes, and that prevailed on the rivers, and that applies not to 5 percent of our men on the rivers. Mr. HEALEY. That is why you do not object to it, because it applies only to a very small percentage? Mr. SMITH. Those minimum wages we are perfectly satisfied to continue, and we are, as far as I know. There are exceptions to them, but they apply. Mr. RAMSAY. You are speaking of under the N. R. A. ? Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. Mr. RAMSAY. I am speaking about the Davis-Bacon Act. Mr. RAMSAY. You do not have any trouble getting bids with that, do you? Mr. SMITH. No; but as to the prevailing wage as applied to us, we are excepted. As I read to you, we are definitely excepted by the Department of Labor, as being an industry where the prevailing wage cannot be set in advance. Mr. HEALEY. The Bacon-Davis Act does not apply to your industry at all. Mr. RAMSAY. Do I gather from what you say that the BaconDavis Act is all right because it does not apply to you? Mr. SMITH. No, sir. I would like to comment on that. Mr. RAMSAY. Would this act be all right to apply to the steel industry and to everybody but you? Mr. SMITH. No, sir; I think that it is a bad bill. Mr. DUFFY of New York. The reason you object to the BaconDavis Act is because the place of performance cannot be determined before the bid is submitted? Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. On the last destroyers, bids were submitted for both the east and west coast, and you cannot tell beforehand where the contract is going. It is not like bidding on a building to be erected on a particular site. Mr. CITRON. Do you interpret this proposed act as meaning that eventually the Labor Department would set actual rates of wages, or, in setting the minimum, it would be the lowest in a classification in a certain area? Mr. SMITH. I think that it would be the lowest in each and every classification. That seems to be the holding of the act, that it can be done and probably that would be done. Mr. HEALEY. For Government contracts? Mr. SMITH. For Government contracts; and that means for everything else; yes, sir. It means that you have to extend it to all contracts, commercial as well as Government. Mr. CITRON. If it is the lowest, and the industry in general is above the lowest on a minimum set which you have in your industry, how does it affect the parts of the industry that have a high standard? Mr. SMITH. There is no assurance as to what the minimum wage would be in our industry. Our industry would undoubtedly be treated by itself. Mr. CITRON. What you are fearful of eventually is that the minimum set by the Bureau might be higher than what is the actual rate in an industry like yours? Mr. SMITH. This word "minimum" is a misnomer. It means that every wage in every classification, according to my interpretation of this act, will be set; in other words, the complete wage scale. That is exactly what will come out of it, if I can interpret the bill right. Mr. CITRON. Are you as fearful of the question of maximum hours as you are of minimum rates? Mr. SMITH. We want 40 hours. I am not disturbed beyond that. We are quite satisfied to work 40 hours in the shipbuilding side of the industry. I won't say for the moment what repairing requires under certain conditions. There must be a great deal of flexibility in repairing, because a ship comes in and it has to sail on schedule, but in the shipbuilding 40 hours is all right. Mr. RAMSAY. As I get your real objection, it is that you would have no confidence in a board set up to do these things? Mr. SMITH. I won't say that I would not have any confidence in the board, but I am doubtful as to what would come out of it, just as in the wages themselves, and I am sure of what would come out of it in the complications of handling the business after the wages were You are going to slow down the whole procedure in the industry, and, if you do, you are going to slow down for the time being the placing of men to work. set up. Mr. HEALEY. All right; will you proceed? Mr. SMITH. I think, Mr. Chairman, that between the questions I have covered everything that I had in my statement, and I think that I have made clear what my objections are, and I would like to file with your committee a copy of my statement. I do not know whether you care to have more than one. This is the statement from which I read. Mr. HESS. Approximately how many subcontractors or materialmen do you have in the construction of a ship? Mr. SMITH. In connection with one particular ship, it was very carefully listed, but I cannot give you the exact number. My recollection is that it was 659 on that particular one. Mr. HESS. Would that be a Government ship? Mr. SMITH. No; a merchant ship; and on a Government ship it would be much greater, that is, by and large, taking from the beginning to the end, from the small things to the large. Some of it is by contract and some by direct purchase, but you are in the same position. Mr. HESS. So, under this bill, in the preparation of specifications, they would have to have minimum hours and maximum wages for the various sections of the country for approximately 600 industries in a contract for the construction of a ship? Mr. SMITH. To take care of our particular industry; yes, sir. Mr. HESS. And it would necessitate on your part sending to each one of these subcontractors notice of the minimum wages and maximum hours for that particular industry? Mr. SMITH. On each and every article of material ordered, as far as I can see. Mr. CITRON. May I ask you this question: Are prevailing wages determinable in the case of the construction of new ships? Mr. SMITH. No, sir; you have exactly the situation that I described. You may have a dozen bidders geographically scattered all over the country, located in different geographical sections. Mr. CITRON. So, in your opinion, you would have the same difficulty in determining the prevailing rate of wages as you would have in determining minimum wages? Mr. SMITH. Yes; they are the same thing, of course. Mr. HEALEY. Mr. Smith, of course all of these Government contracts are public contracts, are they not? Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. Mr. HEALEY. From the very inception, they are advertised? The law requires that they be advertised? Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. Mr. HEALEY. So that everything in connection with them is a matter of public concern and interest, is it not? Mr. SMITH. Yes. Mr. HEALEY. And it ought to be a matter concerning which the public should have full and complete knowledge, the performance of any of their public contracts? Mr. SMITH. I think that it should have full knowledge, certainly. Mr. HEALEY. Then why should you have any objection, or why should any person or firm performing a Government contract have any objection, to an inspection being made of data in connection with the performance of that contract from its very inception to its completion? Mr. SMITH. Mr. Healey, the Navy Department has full access to all of our data now. They inspect every sheet of paper that is involved in connection with the prosecution of our naval contracts. Mr. HEALEY. Then the objection that you made at the very outset of your statement, that this might mean that there would be inspectors looking into your books and all that sort of thing, is not very sound? It is not very valid? Mr. SMITH. I think it is very valid. Mr. HEALEY. Do you not believe that the public ought to know those things in connection with the performance of a public contract? Do you not feel that it is proper for the public to know that? Mr. SMITH. To a limited degree, but I do not see where the public needs to know the details of every wage rate paid to every man in the plant. It is inconceivable to me that you are going to gain anything. Mr. HEALEY. It is not a question of what we would gain, but do you not believe that the public has a right to have access to all information in connection with the performance of a public contract, that such information should be thrown open to the public? Mr. SMITH. No; I do not. Mr. HEALEY. All right. Mr. CITRON. Private contracts are thrown open to the stockholders; they can go in and find out how you are performing it? Mr. SMITH. They can ascertain how you are performing the contract, how the job is coming along, but where you are laying open all of the details of the business to everybody in the United States, you are furnishing them with a lot of information, in the first place, that they do not want or care anything about, and, in the second place, they would not know what it meant if they saw it. That is the objection, I think, to going too far down the line into details and laying them open to the public. Mr. HEALEY. On all of these ships you have an inspector representing the Government? Mr. SMITH. Many of them. Mr. HEALEY. And they are there obviously for the protection of the public, in order that the right type of material will go into the building of the ships? Mr. SMITH. Correct. Mr. HEALEY. And to inspect all of that material? Mr. SMITH. Correct. Mr. HEALEY. Why, then, should not the Government know something about the hours that men work on these jobs, and the pay which they receive while they are working on these jobs Do you not believe that this is a matter of public concern and interest? Mr. SMITH. The pay in general is known. Mr. HEALEY. What objection do you have to your records, pay rolls, and so forth, being inspected insofar as they pertain to the men who are working on Government jobs? What valid objection can you have to the public knowing the rates of pay, and their hours of labor while they are performing that work? Mr. SMITH. I have tried to explain my point of view in connection with it, which is that if you are going into that, you are going to so complicate the conduct of any industry that you are just going to strangle it, so that it is impossible to make progress. Mr. HEALEY. You will admit that it is of public interest and public concern to know at all times the texture and the type of material which is going into a job, to inspect it at all times to insure compliance with the specifications? You will admit that this is a matter of public concern and interest, which should require inspection during the whole progress of that job? Mr. SMITH. I do.. Mr. HEALEY. Do you not feel that the public is somewhat interested in the working conditions of your employees while on Government jobs? Mr. SMITH. I think that the public now has it. When I said that I did not agree that they should know all about it, I felt that there is no occasion for their knowing many of the minute details of the business. The Department of Labor has the facts; they publish them, and I read them to you this morning. What more does the public want to know? Mr. RAMSAY. Then, if they already have them, it would not be any trouble to enforce this bill. Mr. SMITH. I think so. I honestly do. Mr. RAMSAY. You blow both hot and cold. You say that they do and that they do not know. Mr. SMITH. They do know, but this brings in a new angle; it brings in the status of each and every wage rate in your industry. Mr. HEALEY. Is the gentleman from Connecticut here? STATEMENT OF SIDNEY E. CORNELIUS, MANAGER, MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION OF HARTFORD COUNTY, CONN. Mr. CORNELIUS. My name is Sidney E. Cornelius, and I am the manager of the Manufacturers' Association of Hartford County in Connecticut. I appear here in the stead of more than 100 manufacturers in Hartford County to voice for them their individual strenuous opposition to H. R. 11554, known as the Healey bill, providing conditions for the purchase of supplies and the making of contracts by the United States. The factories I represent employ today more than 53,000 persons. Some of these manufacturers are principal contractors on Government work. Others might be designated as subcontractors, Still others are not, as a matter of practice or precedent, to be so regarded. Yet they are in accord that opposition to this legislation should be presented. Our objection in general is predicated upon the belief that the proposed statute is an attempt to accomplish by indirection that which legally could not be done, in view of recent and repeated decisions of the Supreme Court. To our mind, the bill is designed to permit agencies of the Federal Government to regulate and control the wages, hours of labor, and working conditions in all industrial establishments that, under ordinary conditions, are subject only to the regulations and laws of the several States in which they have their situs. Mr. WALTER. If your entire argument is based on that premise, I do not believe that we are interested in hearing the balance of your statement. Mr. WILSON. We are. Mr. MICHENER. I think we are. Mr. WALTER. That is not the law. Mr. HEALEY. I am sorry; my mind was on something else at the moment. Mr. WALTER. The witness stated that this bill attempted to do indirectly what we could not do directly, and I just stated that if his entire argument is based on that premise he might as well file his statement rather than read it. Mr. HEALEY. I think perhaps that is a point that might be made against this bill, and while the committee may not agree with that reasoning, nevertheless I think it is proper for the gentleman to proceed along that line if he cares to do so. Mr. CORNELIUS. I make that as a formal statement, and we can, we think, substantiate our belief. You must remember that we are presenting this as our belief. I have further objections to it, incorporated in this paper, that do not bear upon that particular statement, and I should like to proceed, Mr. HEALEY. Do you wish to read your statement? Mr. CORNELIUS. I would like to. Mr. HEALEY. Proceed. Mr. CORNELIUS. Argument to the effect that only those who, by choice, enter directly or indirectly into contractual relations with the Government are affected by the provisions of the proposed law is begging the question. It must be clear to you gentlemen and others familiar with industries centers that radical changes in any given number of industrial plants in the matter of working conditions, hours, and wages have a positive effect upon others in that community, Since it is not practical to conduct a plant on several bases of hours and pay simultaneously, it is obvious that any plant (contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers) must be operated both on its private |