on in methods of production so extremely 25 years that it amounts to an absolute and of the division of the wealth proorked a revolution. One purpose of this en division of the available employment. ment and we think of unemployment as o us since 1929. Studies have been made, and the resultant statistics make it very army of unemployed was being created, while the volume of production increased e volume of employment was being steadully examined the statistical reports and au of the Census, of the Bureau of Mines, tatistics of the Department of Labor, and merce, and the statistics which I desire eans, of course, that the productivity of in 1921, although in 1929 the number miles hauled were enormously greater farm products was much greater, and the turing establishments had enormously ly you did not understand me. It follows ducing more over that period. r was producing more over that period. had greatly increased. I have statistics on concur in the statement made by Mr. erday that the production per man has alvin comes into my office frequently and tatistics, and I presume he went over those misunderstood my interpretation of them. wledge of the increased per capita output of depression began. There is a knowledge of some establishments and in some industries, an approximation. Conferences I have had neers, economists, and from the little data I ment-the Government has not collected much dicate that in some industries the per capita approximately 25 per cent since 1929. In some it has increased a great deal more than that ncreased less. abject I will give you statistics for the mining e taken from the reports of the Bureau of Mines. e 622,000 bituminous miners; in 1929 there were is miners. In 1919 there were 155,000 anthracite work week could not be adopted successfully as a permanent polic on account of the nature of the business carried on. 6. It is an unconstitutional, unjust, and unwarrantable regulatic of private manufacturing. The Constitution gives to Congress t power to regulate commerce among the several States. To say th the Connery bill is a regulation of commerce itself in manufactur goods between the various States, and not a regulation of the bus ness operations incident to the manufacturing of the goods carri on within the States themselves, is to give no interpretation of t true facts. THU The Federal Government has not been given the constitution right to determine the hours and wages that are to be put into effe in private industry. In fact it goes beyond the constitutional rig of even the individual States themselves to regulate, generally spea ing, the hours and wages of people working in private manufact this ing lines. However, under our Constitution, governmental system if this right, which is questionable, were to be given to any of o governments, it certainly should be considered as a regulation subject matter within the limits of the State under the State polF HO power of the various States. IN CON to be For these reasons which have been outlined above, we believe th proposed measure would prove vastly more harmful than beneficMAN. as a means of alleviating unemployment in the United States. The CHAIRMAN. The committee stands adjourned, to meet morrow morning at 10 o'clock. PATRICE (Thereupon, at 12.05 o'clock p. m., Wednesday, January 25, 19ly in the committee adjourned, to meet at 10 o'clock a. m., Thursda of emp January 26, 1933.) ent P Cours ced a the la SIX-HOUR DAY-FIVE-DAY WEEK THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 1933 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The committee this day met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. William P. ATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. FITZPATRICK, A REPRESENTA- The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please be in order; and the Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Chairman and gentleman of the committee, F work week could not be adopted successfully as a permanent policy on account of the nature of the business carried on. 6. It is an unconstitutional, unjust, and unwarrantable regulation of private manufacturing. The Constitution gives to Congress the power to regulate commerce among the several States. To say that the Connery bill is a regulation of commerce itself in manufactured goods between the various States, and not a regulation of the business operations incident to the manufacturing of the goods carried on within the States themselves, is to give no interpretation of the true facts. The Federal Government has not been given the constitutional right to determine the hours and wages that are to be put into effect in private industry. In fact it goes beyond the constitutional right of even the individual States themselves to regulate, generally speaking, the hours and wages of people working in private manufacturing lines. However, under our Constitution, governmental system, if this right, which is questionable, were to be given to any of our governments, it certainly should be considered as a regulation of subject matter within the limits of the State under the State police power of the various States. For these reasons which have been outlined above, we believe this proposed measure would prove vastly more harmful than beneficial as a means of alleviating unemployment in the United States. The CHAIRMAN. The committee stands adjourned, to meet tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. (Thereupon, at 12.05 o'clock p. m., Wednesday, January 25, 1933, the committee adjourned, to meet at 10 o'clock a. m., Thursday, January 26, 1933.) SIX-HOUR DAY-FIVE-DAY WEEK THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 1933 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The committee this day met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. William P. Connery, jr., chairman, presiding, for further consideration of H. R. 14105. STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. FITZPATRICK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please be in order; and the first witness to be heard this morning is Mr. Fitzpatrick of New York. Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Chairman and gentleman of the committee, I am heartily in sympathy with the proposed legislation to reduce the hours of employment, which I believe is the only solution of the unemployment problem in our country. I have been advocating less work hours for many years, and in the Seventy-first Congress I introduced a bill to shorten the hours of all Federal employees. During the last 25 or 30 years we have had great inventions of machinery, mass production and efficiency which are responsible for laying off millions of working people throughout the country. Big business has taken advantage of the machine age, which they had a perfect right to do under our form of government; on the other hand the country failed to meet the machine age by enacting laws to reduce the hours of labor. I have stated on many occasions that we will never have this problem solved by voluntary distribution of labor by capitalists, as the competition is so keen in our country that it is not practicable for one man to volunteer to cut down the hours of labor while his neighbor would continue working his employees a greater number of hours. Therefore, I believe it is necessary to enact mandatory legislation so as to to compel all employers of labor to comply with the proper distribution of labor. It has been suggested that it might be advisable to do away with some of the machines. With that I do not agree, as I am a great believer in machinery, provided the working people receive their share of the benefits. While I realize the Federal Government can not enact laws to regulate the hours of labor throughout the different States, I would, however, favor a law prohibiting any State which fails to shorten the hours from shipping its goods into a State that has passed a law to shorten the number of working hours. |