the past years, and restrict the methods of unscrupulous, cheating contractors. It will be the means of bringing about a greater understanding between labor and employers throughout the nation. Mr. Chairman, we appeal to you and the honorable members of this committee to report favorably this bill to your Congress, and we further recommend that you and your committee will use its good offices to bend every effort for Congress to pass H. R. 11554. I want to say that my organization is 71 years old, and we have had an understanding with employers all over the nation on collective bargaining, and have had it for 71 years. Now, I want to say this, that Congressman Zimmerman made some accusations about Senator Walsh. Naturally Senator Walsh came to his own defense. I think it would sound a little better if I came to Senator Walsh's defense in this matter. I have a little responsibility in it. It was claimed that this bill came from Massachusetts, and I suppose, Mr. Healey, that you are included in it. Mr. HEALEY. I really do not think it is necessary to dwell for any length of time on that. Mr. MYLES. But I just have the letters; I have Attorney General Cummings' letter here to substantiate this statement. This bill originated just like the Bacon-Davis Act, and I think I have got my responsibility for the amendments to the Bacon-Davis Act, because as chairman of the building trades department of the American Federation of Labor, they authorized me to draft the bill and it was sent over in that form to Senator Walsh. He is in no way responsible for it, and the first bill that came out was given to Congressman Sweeney, known as House bill 775, and that was introduced in the first session of the Seventy-Third Congress, and it was handed over to Senator Walsh, who introduced it as Senate bill 2856. Now, it stayed over there until July 12, 1935, when Senator Walsh wrote me: I am enclosing copy of the report which has just been made by the Attorney General of the United States on my bill, S. 2856, which I introduced at your request. May I have the benefit of your suggestions concerning this measure, and also concerning S. 3055, later introduced by me. Now, Senate 3055, when it was first introduced had four pages, and it came out with 21, and the Attorney General's opinion is here and I will ask that it be put in the record, to prove that it was an administration bill, Senate 3055, and that Senator Walsh was not responsible for it. (The letter of the Attorney General referred to is as follows:) Mr. JAMES M. MYLES, Washington, D. C. UNITED STATES SENATE, Committee on Labor and Education, July 12, 1935. MY DEAR MR. MYLES: I am enclosing copy of report which has just been made by the Attorney General of the United States on my bill, S. 2856, which I introduced at your request. May I have the benefit of your suggestions concerning this measure, and also concerning S. 3055, later introduced by me. Sincerely yours, DAVID I. WALSH. JULY 3, 1935. Hon. DAVID I. WALSH, Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR: I have your letter of June 12, requesting my views regarding the merits of the bill (S. 2856), regulating wages paid in connection with construction contracts and public works projects financed in whole or in part by Federal funds. The existing law on the subject is contained in the so-called Davis-Bacon Act (act of Mar. 3, 1931; 46 Stat. 1494; U. S. C., title 18, sec. 276a) which provides that every construction contract to which the United States or the District of Columbia is a party exceeding $5,000 in amount, shall contain a provision to the effect that the rate of wages of all laborers and mechanics employed by the contractor or any subcontractor shall be not less than the prevailing rate of wages for work of a similar nature in the place where the work is conducted. The bill under consideration amends the present law by extending its provisions to contracts involving $500 or more. It also adds a provision to the effect that every construction contract financed in whole or in part by Federal funds, shall state the prevailing rate of wage "established by agreements secured through the rights of collective bargaining" for the various grades of mechanics and laborers for work of a similar nature in the locality in which the contract is to be performed, such wages to be paid in connection with the work to be performed under the contract. The bill also proposes to permit suits to be brought by laborers and mechanics employed on the work against the contractor for the wages thus fixed. While the purpose of this legislation, which is to maintain wage levels on public works, is highly commendable, it is my view that this end better achieved by a subsequent bill introduced by you on the same subject (S. 3055). The bill under consideration may give rise to difficulty in administration in instances where no prevailing rate of wages has been established as a result of collective bargaining. S. 3055, however, provides that the contract shall fix the minimum wages to be paid, thereby eliminating the difficulty just suggested. Moreover, S. 3055 applies to all Government contracts, which I believe is desirable, instead of being limited to construction contracts, as is the case with S. 2856. The bill under consideration also contains a provision that the expenses of suits for wages shall be borne by the Government, and paid out of the funds appropriated for the Department of Justice. I question the desirability of this provision. If the Government is to bear the expense of such suits, a special appropriation should be made for that purpose. I desire to call attention to a textual defect in the bill, in that it proposes to amend the United States Code. title 40, section 276a. As the code is not regarded as the official text of the existing law, the bill should refer to the act of March 3, 1931, rather than to the code. I favor the enactment of S. 3055 on the subject under discussion, rather than the bill referred to in your letter. With kind personal regards, sincerely yours, HOMER S. CUMMINGS, Attorney General. Mr. MYLES. Now, would you permit me to say this? I heard Mr. McGuire talk about Jefferson Davis, and the contract bill of 1860, and I have the message of Abraham Lincoln, that he made in 1861 for the benefit of labor, and which is about the nearest thing that I could find that has any reference to this present bill. I have that article, concerning that message, that I wrote, and if you want me to read it, all right. Mr. HEA EY. It refers to the present bill under discussion? Mr. MYLES. I would like to have this read, because of the opposition. I used a little caption on this Mr. HEALEY. Is this your own article? Mr. MYLES. This is Abraham Lincoln's. Mr. HEALEY. I thought that you were quoting- Mr. HANCOCK. That is a good endorsement of this bill by Abe Lincoln; is it? Mr. MYLES. I wrote it here, "Abraham Lincoln, the emancipator, 1861; Franklin D. Roosevelt, the redeemer, 1934.” Mr. HEALEY. How long an article is it? Mr. MYLES. This is worth hearing. It ought to be in your record. Mr. MYLES. In his message to Congress, in 1861, Abraham Lincoin said [reading]: I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me, and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of war, corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high piaces will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregate in a few hanus and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of our country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my forebodings may be groundless. Monarchy itself is sometimes hinted at as a refuge from the power of the people, In my present position I could scarcely be justified were I to omit to raise a warning voice against the approach of returning despotism. It is not needed nor fitting here that a general argument should be made in favor of popular institutions, but there is one point with its connections, not so hackneyed as most other, to which I ask brief attention. It is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else owning capital, somehow by the use of it, induces him to labor. Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor and could not have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital and deserves much the higher consideration. I bid laboring people beware of surrendering the power which they possess, and which, if surrendered, will surely be used to shut the door of advancement for such as they, and fix new disabilities and burdens upon them until all of liberty shall be lost. In the early days of our race the Almighty said to the first of mankind, “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread", and since then, if we expect the light and air of heaven, no good thing has been or can be enjoyed by us without first having cost labor. And inasmuch as most good things have been produced by labor, it follows that all such things belong of right to those whose labor has produced them. But it has so happened, in all ages of the world, that some have labored and others have, without labor, enjoyed a large portion of the fruits. This is wrong and should not continue. To secure to each laborer the whole product of his labor, as nearly as possible, is a worthy object of any government. It seems strange that any man should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing, bread from the sweat of other men's faces. This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Isn't that a good argument for that bill? Mr. HANCOCK. What did The Redeemer say? Mr. MYLES. He says that no man shall starve in this Nation. Do you want me to read that? Mr. HANCOCK. No, thank you. Mr. RAMSAY. He would not believe it, if you did. Mr. HEALEY. Thank you very much. [Laughter.] Mr. MYLES. You will have to pardon me for lending a little bit of comedy to this. I know that you are pretty busy. Many thanks. Mr. HEALEY. Now, Mr. MacIntire, will you come forward? STATEMENT OF JOHN A. MacINTYRE Mr. HEALEY. You were formerly with the Government Contract Division of the N. R. A.? Mr. MACINTYRE. I was. Mr. HEALEY. And, at my request, you have compiled some statistics with reference to a questionnaire that was sent out to manufacturers concerning the principles involved in this bill? Mr. MACINTYRE. That is right. Mr. HEALEY. Do you happen to have one of the questionnaires there? Mr. MACINTYRE. No, I have not, but I can get one. Mr. HEALEY. Will you get one of those questionnaires and give it to the clerk, so that it may go in the record? Mr. MACINTYRE. Yes. (The questionnaire referred to is as follows:) The Bacon-Davis Act as originally approved in 1931 and as amended in 1933, provides that on all contracts for building construction, including repairs and renovations in excess of $2,000, entered into by any agency of the United States or the District of Columbia all labor employed thereon shall be paid the prevailing rate of wage, such rate to be previously determined for the locality and stipulated in the invitation to bid and in the contract. I. In your opinion should the United States Government as a purchaser, in order to be consistent with its general policies, place the following stipulations in all its proposals and contracts for material, supplies,, and services: A. No children under 16 years of age shall be employed___ B. No prison labor shall be employed_. Yes No Yes No C. Definite predetermined standards of minimum wages and maximum hours shall be observed-- Yes No II. In your opinion would such requirements equalize the opportunities of obtaining Government contracts among competitors and thereby result in more general bidding? Yes No III. In your opinion should such requirements be confined to absolute minima of wages and maxima of hours, or should they follow the policy of the Bacon-Davis law and stipulate the generally prevailing wage in the trade or industry in question, such prevailing wage to be determined prior to the request for bids and not subject to change?_ IV. In your opinion would it be practical or necessary to go beyond the major productive step in imposing such requirements?__ V. Do you favor the enactment of legislation to accomplish these objectives and what should be the salient features of such a bill? (Please feel free to extend your remarks.) Yes No Yes No. |