the Supreme Court, is on record in unqualified indorsement and approval of "scientific management. For years past he has been a voluntary attorney and arbitrator for the labor unions, and it will be recalled that he won nation-wide distinction as attorney for the shippers in their protest before the Interstate Commerce Commission against the large increase in freight rates which the railroads insisted upon having four years ago. The brief which he presented before the commission at that time is remarkable for its brevity, its clear reasoning, and its convincing force; and the following extracts from the document are directly pertinent to the present situation: "Under scientific management, the management of the business assumes toward the workmen a wholly new function. Instead of the prevailing 'putting it up' to the employee to do his work with such stimulus as may be given through force or inducement, the management, under the new science, assumes the responsibility of enabling the employee to work under the best possible conditions of perfect team play. It undertakes to instruct him definitely what to do and the best method of doing the particular work. It undertakes to provide him the best tools, and with machines in the best condition. It undertakes to furnish him with assistance to perform those parts of the operation requiring less skill than his own. It keeps him constantly supplied with appropriate material. Acting in full cooperation with the workmen, the management thus removes all obstancles to the workmen's full performance and supplies all aids necessary to secure full performance. The management thus assumes the burdens of management, and relieves labor of responsibilities not its own." (P. 14.)

"The larger wages are made possible by larger production; but this gain in production is not attained by 'speeding up.' It comes largely from removing the obstacles to production which annoy and exhaust the workman-obstacles for which he is not, or should not be made, responsible." (P. 35.)

"The claim has been made that scientific management and labor unions are inconsistent; that the organization of labor presents insuperable obstacles to the introduction of scientific management in railroads and other indutries where unionism is potent. This claim, we believe, is wholly unfounded in fact. Collective bargaining is alike an important function under scientific management and under the old system. (P. 55.)

If public hearings be granted, any needful number of workers under the bonus and premium plans will appear before the Labor Committee of the House to give personal testimony to their satisfaction with the new system of wage payments. To indicate the character of this testimony, the committee of ten have begun to collect letters from such workers, and these will be laid before Members of Congress as promptly as possible. The following are sample letters which have already come to hand:

[From John Geo. Kreis, Gang Boss, Acme Wire Co., New Haven, Conn.]

"As gang boss for the past five years, I have had a very good opportunity to study the conditions an operator has to work under, both before and after this system had been installed in this factory, and I am glad to say that I have found everyone of my operators to be better satisfied since working under this system.

"My operators also make more money and do not have to work so hard. The result is that they are healthier, better dressed, and more prosperous, and thereby also become better citizens. Hoping this bill does not go through, I remain, etc.

[From Theresa Godino, employee of the Acme Wire Co., New Haven, Conn.]

"I have worked four years at machine work for the Acme Wire Co.

"The last three years under the Taylor Bonus System. I have made more money under better conditions than the first year I worked here.

"I have worked on piecework in another factory, and I am better satisfied with the bonus system here."

[From S. F. Gilla, employee of the Sewell-Clapp Envelope Co., Chicago.]

"With my experience in scientific management I have found a betterment of conditions in S. C. Env. Co. Very efficient in labor and produce. With my part of work at time study on task and bonus have found it very interesting and educating.

"The old method of payment means just one pay envelope on pay day, while the bonus plan makes a willing worker and puts an extra red envelope into his hands with lots to gain and nothing to lose."

[From E. S. Smiley, employee of the Eastern Mafacturinung Co., Beaver, Me.]

"I am pleased to reply to your questions as to how I regard the conditions under the Taylor system and conditions under the old way, and will say: First, I get more money in wages; and second, that there is no lost time. And in many other ways I find the Taylor system much better for the work people."

Thousands of such letters, from operatives in every line of industry and in every part of the United States, can and will be collected should that be necessary.

As to how our leading engineers and inventors and our foremost employers in engineering lines feel upon the subject the following letters give speaking testimony. We are glad indeed to be able to introduce these letters with one from Thomas A. Edison, who began life as a newsboy, then became a telegraph operator, then educated himself in electrical science, and through his numerous and revolutionary inventions has probably given profitable employment to a larger number of men and women than any other man alive to-day.

[From Thomas A. Edison, dean of American inventors.]

"In my opinion, the bill introduced by Congressman Tavenner is based on a fallacy. It is an attempt to prevent efficiency, and would be disastrous to labor and to the public.

"The worst enemy of all the workers is an inefficiently managed shop, and yet the labor leaders can not comprehend the fact-possibly because it is based on mental processes of a primary character.

"There are many ways whereby labor leaders can improve conditions by legislation, but this bill of Congressman Tavenner is not one of them."

[From Dr. Elihu Thomson, past president, American Institute of Electrical Engineers.]

"I agree with you most heartily in the stand you take. I would indeed go so far as to require enlistment to fill places in arsenals and shipyards.

"You are plainly right in pointing out that the move probably contemplates including all contractors working for the Government.'

m. M Herr, president, Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co., East Pittsburgh, Pa.] "This bill is reactionary and bad for both the interests of the Government and its employees. If enacted into law, no Government employee could be paid on any system except the stated day wages, now practically obsolete in all progressive and modern industries. It would close the door absolutely to any possible improvement in the manner of compensating labor, whether skilled or unskilled, no matter how beneficial such a plan might be to the employee.

"The bill does away with all improvements in ways of paying labor thus far devised, and absolutely prevents exact and scientific methods or other possible improvements from being considered. It is against the interests of both Government employees and the Government itself, and will decidedly set back all progress that has been or can be made in wage payments.

"The payment of labor at a fixed rate per day tends to destroy individual initiative and to level down instead of properly and fairly rewarding the better workers. "This bill is pernicious and should be defeated.”

[From Coleman Sellers, jr., president, William Sellers & Co. (Inc.), Philadelphia, Pa.] "This measure appears especially vicious; it is inimical alike to the true interests of the workman and of the employer.

"Its object is clearly to prevent increase of output, and to limit the earnings of the workman to the rate of wages decreed by his union.

"It is intended to hamper the efforts of the employer to improve methods, and to prevent the efficient workman from realizing the advantages which should accrue to him on account of his superior skill, intelligence, or industry.

"Time studies and analysis of procedure are not made to force men to work harder, but to make their labor more efficient by eliminating wasteful or useless effort, by improving methods, and by introducing devices and appliances which will improve output without increasing labor."

[From Otto H. Falk, president, Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co., Milwaukee, Wis.]

"To any unprejudiced person a mere reading of this bill should be sufficient to reveal its true character and show how entirely inconsistent it is with any just principle for a fair basis of compensation and dealings between an employer and employee.

Of course, the only reason a proposed measure of this kind has any standing at all is because of the backing given to it by organized labor, and the fact that it has such support demonstrates better than any other argument the injustice of the position of organized labor in this regard. If the principle be true that 'the laborer is worthy of his hire,' there is no good reason why a suitable bonus or reward should not be paid for extra effort or ability."

[From John A. Topping, chairman, Republic Iron & Steel Co., New York.]

"House bill H. R. 8665, should it become a law, places a premium on inefficiency, extravagance and waste; furthermore, it suggests class legislation of the most vicious type.

'In view of all that has recently, been written in support of preparedness, cooperation, and efficiency, it is hard to conceive how reactionary legislation of this kind could command serious support in Congress, for this bill ignores the practical lesson taught us by the great European war, which has brought home to us with telling force what organized efficiency, thrift, and cooperation has meant to Germany in her present struggle.

"The influence of the proposed bill should be obvious, for if passed, it would stimulate inefficiency, wastefulness, extravagance, higher costs, and additional burdens for the taxpayer to carry.'

[From Elmer L. Corthell, Dr. Sc., president, American Society of Civil Engineers.]

"It is my decided personal opinion from careful study of industrial conditions in this and other countries, covering many years, that the result of the proposed act will lead fast to industrial and commercial disaster.

"My professional experience has brought me into rather intimate relations with nearly all the countries in the world; consequently, I can speak with knowledge. "All observing and fair-minded men who have had the opportunity to trace the development of trade unionism appreciate its disastrous effects upon the industry and foreign trade of Great Britain, in which we are becoming a close second.

"Every effort should be made to remove rather than increase the burden on our industries. This bill, if enacted into law, will lead to irreparable injury and loss to the industry, commerce, and particularly the foreign trade of this country."

[From John F. Wallace, formerly chief engineer of the Panama Canal, now president of Westinghouse Church, Kerr & Co. (Inc.)., engineers and constructors, New York.]

"I would say that this bill is so boviously to the disadvantage not only of the United States Government but also to all employers of labor as well as to labor itself, that it it difficult to conceive of its finding favor with our Senators and Representatives, who, if they are not, should be broadminded enough to see that efforts of this kind to turn back the hands of the clock of modern civilization and the efficiency upon which it is necessarily based are antagonistic to the best interests of all concerned.

"The prosperity of the American Nation outside of the personalities of its broad and progressive citizens has been due to the introduction of labor-saving machinery and the substitution of brains for manual labor in all classes of human endeavor, and it should be apparent to employees in the mass as much as to employers that increased efficiency in production has not only bettered the condition of workmen but also increased the available profits out of which the compensation to labor is paid.

"While this bill is apparently only directed against government employees, it will doubtless eventually be construed to cover not only employers of labor who work directly or indirectly for the United States Government but also extend the same restrictions to private employers of labor.

"Your efforts in giving this matter publicity and securing the necessary cooperation to check it should be much appreciated."

[From Henry D. Sharpe, treasurer Borwn & Sharpe Manufacturing Co., Providence, R. I.)

"I beg to state my emphatic protest against all such efforts to interfere with the simple and natural relation of employer and employee, either in Government shops or by indirect means in the great industrial works of the Nation, for the following

reasons:

"1. There is nothing in so-called scientific management, or similar plans, that is unethical, unfair, or subversive of corrective relations between employer and employee. Congress itself, by one of its committees, some years ago made an investigation following the remarkable results attained in the Watertown Arsenal, the report being a general indorsement of methods there used.

"2. Critics of scientific management, or any bonus systems of reward, are either theorists, cranks, or those who have axes to grind, including the leaders of so-called organized labor.

3. The industrial leaders in our country, who really know about industrial life, not only deprecate the practice of Congress in this matter, but consider the policies so advocated as absolutely contrary to an enlightened practice.

"4. Congressmen are ignorant to the point of stupidity in pursuing the subject as they have, in the face of so much intelligent practice in all our leading industries which encourage payment of work by performance, the workmen themselves thoroughly appreciating such methods of rewarding their labor.

5. Payment of work according to performance is the only really American way to remunerate the industrial worker-America is supposed to bespeak opportunity, and opportunity to earn an increased wage according to performance should be his. "6. The present tendency of legislation is strangely out of harmony with what is generally known-that a very great deal in our American life is utterly inefficient as well as extravagant. Why should not the Government lead in national economy by insisting upon having its own industrial work conducted efficiently? This means efficiency of labor, the workman's cooperation being secured by added remuneration. It does not mean faked up figures which please the eye of Congressmen but deceives no business man in this country as to the extravagant way in which national workshops are run.

7. Congress in enacting such legislation is making itself ridiculous and serving nothing but the habits of lazy people, as well as committing a downright injustice to the workingman who wants to make his way even in Government employment."

[From William L. Ward, president Russell, Burdsall & Ward Bolt & Nut Co., Port Chester, N. Y.J

"By exercising patience, forbearance, and promptly adding to our fighting strength on land and sea we may escape a serious war with some foreign country.

"But all thinking men, and most men who only think occasionally, feel assured that after the foreign complications are settled nothing can prevent a strenuous commercial war with competitive nations one that no high-revenue wall can protect from serious losses unless we use the utmost skill and energy, abolish all slap-dash methods of manufacturing, abolish all waste of effort, waste of material, waste of plant investment, and organize our industries on common-sense, scientifically efficient lines. "It will not be a contest with weakened nations, but a trade conflict with people hardened and disciplined by the sacrifices they have endured. Their fight will be a trade fight for very existence; ours to hold and add to our wealth. If we are hampered by unwise restrictions, if our Government enacts laws to discourage effort, if the demagogue is to be in the saddle, we had better save our money for ships and armament and retire from business.

"We can not successfully cope with these coming events unless we develop far more strength, resource, and ability than we have at present. Our legislators must recognize the bigness of their positions and should deal with the situation not for the benefit of a class or for party advantages, but for the insurance to the whole people of the United States of their rights to carry on their enterprises in a manner to make for our success at home and abroad.

"We will have to be more temperate in our living and have a greater consideration for the rights of both labor and capital than ever before. Employees of all classes must have a greater share of the profits. The employer must be allowed to direct the efforts of the employee in order that the output per man per year shall be greater than that of any other nation. The health and well-being of the employee must be safeguarded, and finally the cost per piece or per pound must be as low as that of any other nation or our exports will be killed and business initiation prostrated.

"We have every requisite in this country to command the trade of the world. Are we big enough and broad enough to do it, or can we only learn the lesson through war and great hardship? Time will tell.”

Mr. DUNLAP. Before we adjourn, Mr. Towne was questioned very closely upon the subject of contributions being raised to carry on the work of this committee of ten. I want to confess that I was the first contributor to that fund in the shape of my traveling expenses to come down here to Washington to find out what this situation is. I am a newspaper man. I have been at the game for 42 years. I have been all through it. This system has been introduced all over this country. I know its power, its following, and as a newspaper man

I am going to see whether or not Congress will pass any such bill as this myself, regardless of this committee.

(Whereupon, at 11.20 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned to meet at 10 o'clock a. m., Friday, March 31, 1916.)

COMMITTEE ON LABOR,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D. C., March 31, 1916.

The committee this day met, Hon. Edward Keating presiding.
Mr. KEATING. The committee will come to order.

Mr. Emery, whom do you wish us to hear first this morning? Mr. EMERY. My first witness is Dr. William Kent, of Montclair, N. J., who is the author of very well known books on this subject. He has written quite extensively, and among his books are Investigating an Industry and Mechanical Engineers' Pocket Book. Dr. Kent has been interested in this matter from the very beginning.

STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM KENT, OF MONTCLAIR, N. J.

Mr. KENT. Mr. Emery has introduced me as the author of several books. This book [indicating] was published originally 21 years ago, and since that time there have been 100,000 sold. This book [indicating] was published 2 years ago, and over 1,000 copies have been sold. I am a consulting engineer by profession, and have been connected with manufacturing industries in one way or another-as an employee, as superintendent of a department, as general manager, and as salesman. I think, therefore, I have been able to look at this labor question from all sides. I have been a student of political economy for over 40 years, and have done considerable work writing on economic subjects. I think that is a sufficient qualification.

I believe I was the first man to adopt the Halsey premium system. I think that was about 1888. I met Mr. Halsey on Broadway, and he told me he had a system that he intended to install the next year, if he got the opportunity. I asked him if he had any objection to installing it in a factory of which I was general manager. He stated that he had not, and I started in right away.

At the time I started

in with it an apprentice was getting a dollar a day and was doing some work that I did not know much about. He was a little raw on it. I told this man that if he exercised his ingenuity a little bit he might find some way of getting rid of lost motion, and that he might do higher class and faster work. Now, Halsey had recommended that I be very careful about starting this thing, and advised me against giving too high a premium, because he said that no one knew how fast the work could actually be done, and that we might be astonished at the amount that could be accomplished in a certain time. We started in and made a bargain with this man by which he was to get one-quarter of a cent for each piece that he made above 100. In about a week he was making 300 instead of 100, and his wages went up correspondingly. We started gradually, trying one man after another, and in about six months the system was introduced in the whole factory and worked well.