with a sense of responsibility, that it will turn them into a careful judicial body which does its best not to upset seriously conditions which are operating to the advantage of industry and the workers, and that therefore the fear that has been expressed here of arbitrariness under those terms would in my experience not be justified. I therefore hope, Mr. Chairman, that with that provision for that board, and with care taken about not letting in home work, something of this nature will come to pass.

I thank you.

Mr. HANCOCK. Miss Miller, can you say what the standard work week is in New York, generally speaking?

Miss MILLER. Of course, the standard work week varies tremendously from industry to industry. We have work weeks, reached by agreement, as low as 371⁄2 hours in New York State. We have still, in cases, a 48-hour work week. It would make some difference whether you were talking about garments or machine trades or public works or what not.

Mr. HANCOCK. I might say that in Syracuse, on public works, they have a 44-hour week, and that seems to be satisfactory. Now, if this board that you speak of should, in its wisdom, see fit to establish a limit of 40 hours on Government contracts, they could not afford to rearrange their entire schedule on the possibility of getting a little Government business.

Miss MILLER. I do not know whether this board is required to set one single standard for the country as a whole or whether it is to operate, as has been the case in public works, on the prevailing conditions. It would be more than wages, of course, in this case. That I do not feel able to discuss, because I do not know what would be the function of the board in that respect. Of course, even today, in the needle-trades industries particularly, there are differences in the work week which nevertheless, with the difference in the speed to which the industry is geared, are manageable. I have inspected garment factories all through the State, and I realize there is a good reason for a higher rate in New York City, because I am quite convinced that the operator there turns out more per hour than the operator in many a small factory.

Mr. HANCOCK. In other words, this board would have the power to establish certain rates of wages and certain hours of labor for every contract that comes along?

Miss MILLER. As I have read it. I do not see that it is exclusive.

Mr. HANCOCK. Have you considered the fact that according to the bill it would be a political board? You notice that it is free from restrictions of civil service. Would not that create a rather dangerous situation?

Miss MILLER. That provision is possible of amendment.

Mr. HEALEY. I do not think you need to worry about that, because if the board were appointed under this administration it would be appointed without much concern about politics.

Miss MILLER. Mr. Chairman, the boards that I have worked with on minimum wages are volunteer boards appointed without any civil service, and I must say that their consciences have operated just the same. I would take my chances with a board that knew industry. I would not want it to be a board that was not familiar with industrial conditions.

Mr. HANCOCK. I think we agree on that.

Mr. HEALEY. Thank you very much, Miss Miller. We are much obliged for your splendid statement.

I will call Captain Van Patten, of the Navy Department.

STATEMENT OF CAPT. E. H. VAN PATTEN, SUPPLY CORPS, UNITED
STATES NAVY, PURCHASING OFFICER, BUREAU OF SUPPLIES
AND ACCOUNTS, NAVY DEPARTMENT

Captain VAN PATTEN. Mr. Chairman, I only received word this morning to appear, and, so far as I know, the Secretary of the Navy has not been notified of this bill, nor am I here to express his opinion. I will be glad, as purchasing officer of the Bureau of Supplies and Accounts of the Navy Department, to give you my opinions, if you desire them. But I think the Secretary of the Navy will be very glad, if you wish, to give you his opinions.

Mr. HEALEY. We shall be very glad to have your views.

Captain VAN PATTEN. AS I have gathered while sitting here today, this bill carries the purpose of the so-called Senator Walsh bill, S. 3055; and I would like to call the committee's attention to the testimony which I presented here in June, I think, of last year.

Personally, I think there are many commendable features in the bill, but we are charged with maintaining a very large Navy, and are building a larger one, and I fear the complications which will arise and the administrative difficulties in administering anything so complicated.

As I pointed out last year, in the purchase of lumber, we advertise widely. We admit lumber from all sections of the United States-Douglas fir, hemlock, spruce, and southern pine-based on the specifications of the various lumber trade associations. If our schedule of advertisement must carry the wages prevailing in those various producing areas and the maximum hours of labor, the schedule will be so voluminous, I am afraid we will never get our lumber. I am also aware of the fact, from my experience here, that since N. R. A.'s demise, industry generally has supported the code hours to a surprising extent; that is, the major industries. We have had no evidence of any "chiseling" or so-called sweat-shop work, because we do not purchase manufactured garments to any great extent. And my personal opinion is that if the Executive departments were given some leeway, based on perhaps the recommendation of the Secretary of Labor, as to when to include restrictions to obviate some particular sweat-shop conditions, we would go very much further and accomplish more than by trying to impose restrictions on industry, now endeavoring to coordinate its efforts. In my opinion, we will set up a class of Navy shops in which we will have to pay a tremendous premium for these imposed conditions, if the board appointed under this bill, should try to impose conditions which were not acceptable to industry.

Mr. HEALEY. Do you manufacture your clothing?

Captain VAN PATTEN. We have our own clothing factory in New York.

Mr. HANCOCK. What are your hours?

Captain VAN PATTEN. I am sorry I cannot tell you that, but I think the hours there are in harmony with the New York State laws. There is no objection there to the working conditions at all. Mr. HANCOCK. How about the hours of labor in your factories and navy yards?

Captain VAN PATTEN. We work a 5-day week there, based on the 48-hour wage scale. I think there are not any difficulties or any complaints in any of our navy yards or our factories. I think the conditions are all acceptable to labor. In fact, we have a great many people constantly trying to get in; so the conditions must be very satisfactory.

Mr. HEALEY. How about the wage scale in your clothing factory? Captain VAN PATTEN. I think the wages are higher than the prevailing wages for the same type of work in New York City. So far as I know, they are very satisfactory.

We operated under N. R. A. very successfully, but, as I understand it, the conditions which would be imposed here would entail the advertisement carrying the wages which would prevail and the hours which would be worked. Under the old codes we simply took a certificate that they were applying their labor and wages to the applicable codes. If there were any difficulties, we only heard of them through the N. R. A., and while we did have many delays, of course, yet through the fine cooperation given by the N. R. A. administration, we were able to get all of our essential materials.

But this bill is far-reaching. We use approximately 40,000 different items, and we had last year over 75,000 contractors supplying our various ships, navy yards, and shipbuilding industries. There is no phase of American industry that this bill will not touch insofar as it relates to our work.

Mr. DUFFEY of Ohio. You believe that the purpose or objective of the proposed legislation is meritorious?

Captain VAN PATTEN. Yes, indeed.

Mr. DUFFEY of Ohio. But that it might carry with it an undue burden of administration?

Captain VAN PATTEN. That is my fear; yes, sir. I am afraid it will tie us up indefinitely and throw all of our contracts into litigation.

Insofar as contractors are concerned, we are beset by the so-called jobber also, but not to the extent that the Army is.

Mr. DUFFEY of Ohio. You spoke of lumber a moment ago. Do you buy directly from the manufacturer or from the wholesaler or distributor?

Captain VAN PATTEN. We buy from the distributor and the manufacturer; principally from the distributor, because we load many of our transports on the West Coast, and many of the manufacturers do not have the capacity to load our ships. We buy largely through the distributors.

So far as the jobber in New York City is concerned, we have a law in the Navy-section 3722 of the Revised Statutes, I thinkwhich gives us authority to deal only with regular dealers. I think the Navy is the only executive department which has been benefitted by that law.

Mr. HEALY. That statute applies to the Navy principally?

Captain VAN PATTEN. Yes, sir. It is very difficult to operate under it, because of the Comptroller General's attitude toward rejecting bids, but we do try to apply that statute. We do investigate their plants, and we are still beset by them. They furnish a contract bond, and yet we know that if they should become the successful bidder they will go out and sell their contract.

Mr. DUFFEY of Ohio. You mentioned one point that struck my mind. Assuming that you put out bids for lumber, you have to deal with all the different species?

Captain VAN PATTEN. Yes, sir.

Mr. DUFFEY of Ohio. And usually you want that lumber at a specified time and place?

Captain VAN PATTEN. Yes, sir.

Mr. DUFFEY of Ohio. What did you mean when you said that it might be difficult to obtain your requirements if this legislation should pass?

Captain VAN PATTEN. As I understand the bill, our schedule would have to give the prevailing wages and maximum hours permitted in every section of the United States. If we want lumber at the Norfolk Navy Yard, we admit bids on Douglas fir in the Northwest, hemlock, spruce, cypress, and southern pine from the North, East, and South. We buy it on an f. o. b. basís, and then apply the transportation rates, or use our Government transportation, to get it to Norfolk.

Now, you can see that if we are going to admit southern pine from Alabama or Mississippi we would have to give the prevailing wages and maximum hours in those logging swamps, as well as the conditions prevailing in the Northwest. We would have to determine prevailing wages, and so forth, through the Department of Labor, and the schedule would be so voluminous, there would be so many exceptions and misunderstandings, and perhaps mistakes in typing or printing, that I am afraid we would never get our lumber.

Mr. DUFFEY of Ohio. You could not prescribe regulations to comply with the conditions that you have to meet?

Captain VAN PATTEN. I am afraid not. We advertise very widely. We do not buy in any particular locality, except fresh provisions for supplying our ships. We give manufacturers all over the United States an opportunity to bid. We have about 20,000 names on our mailing list, and we give the very widest advertisement. Our schedules would have to carry voluminous data as to conditions prevailing throughout the United States as to labor and wages, and I am fearful that we could not maintain the fleet.

Mr. DUFFEY of Ohio. In your quotation of prices, where is the f. o. b.?

Captain VAN PATTEN. We take it at the f. o. b. point and then apply either the land-grant rates or move it by Government transportation. We have Government carriers moving from coast to coast continuously.

Mr. HEALEY. You buy, you say, from distributors and manufacturers?

Captain VAN PATTEN. The law says that we shall buy only from regular dealers. That has been interpreted to mean a man who has actual control of the goods he offers to sell.

Mr. HEALEY. Do you have an idea that this bill would require that lumber be produced under minimum-wage and maximum-hour conditions?

Captain VAN PATTEN. That is my understanding from a hasty reading of the bill as I have been sitting here this morning.

Mr. HEALEY. You have not examined it closely?

Captain VAN PATTEN. I have just had occasion to peruse it here. Mr. HEALEY. This bill does not go beyond the principal contractor. Of course, he lets to a subcontractor with knowledge that it is a Government contract.

Captain VAN PATTEN. He must contract, under those conditions, with his subcontractor.

Mr. HEALEY. But this bill does not require that the raw material be supplied under those conditions. This bill does not go that far. Captain VAN PATTEN. Then I misunderstood it.

Mr. MICHENER. I think we should understand that fully, because the chairman is very familiar with it. I am not a member of the subcommittee. Does the chairman, then, say to us that it is not the purpose of this bill to make it applicable to anyone excepting the principal contractor?

Mr. HEALEY. The principal contractor is bound by the provisions of the bill, and he is eliminated from any penalty provided he gives actual notice of such representations or agreements to each employer. Providing he gives that notice, that eliminates him from any of the penalty provisions of the bill. Of course, there are provisions further on where the subcontractor may be canceled if the provisions are not lived up to. It does not reach the source of supply. It does not go down that far.

Mr. MICHENER. In other words, then, all that an automobile manufacturer, for example, would need to do to relieve himself of any responsibility would be to notify the man from whom he purchased the steel that this was a Government contract?

Mr. HEALEY. That is exactly the case.

Mr. MICHENER. Then, as a matter of fact, there would be no one responsible for anything beyond the work done by the original contractor?

Mr. HEALEY. That is true. If he sublets the contract, he lets it to the subcontractor with knowledge that this is a Government contract and with the statement of the conditions, representations, and stipulations.

Mr. MICHENER. That was one of the very important questions under the Walsh bill.

Mr. HEALEY. I know it.

Mr. MICHENER. For instance, if you take an automobile, you would have the steel, and you would go clear back to the hide that goes into the leather that makes the cushions.

Mr. HEALEY. This bill does not go that far. It was not intended to go that far, and it does not go that far.

Mr. RAMSAY. We purposely eliminated that.

Mr. DUFFEY of Ohio. Does not the bill also provide that the subcontractor's contract can be canceled in the event-he having been notified that it is a Government contract-that he does not live up to the minimum wages and maximum hours?