TESTIMONY OF CHARLES H. DALTON 
 
 WITH THE 
 
 ARGUMENT OF R. D. SMITH 
 
 BEFORE THE 
 
 COMMITTEE- ON LABOR, 
 
 OF THE 
 
 MASSACHUSETTS LEGISLATURE, 
 
 Remonstrating Against More Frequent Payments of Wages. 
 
 18 85 . 
 
 [Reported by Geo. C. Burpee.] 
 
ABSTRACTS OF 
 
 TESTIMONY OF CHARLES H. DALTON 
 
 WITH THE 
 
 ARGUMENT OF R. D. SMITH, 
 
 BEFORE THE 
 
 COMMITTEE ON LABOR 
 
 OF THE 
 
 MASSACHUSETTS LEGISLATURE, 
 Against More Frequent Payment of Wages. 
 
331 .Tj 
 
TESTIMONY OF CHARLES H. DALTON, 
 
 Mr. Chairman: The question of the expediency of legislating 
 upon the period of payment of wages, is no novelty. It has been 
 before successive legislatures for several years. I have listened to 
 the evidence on both sides, and so far have heard nothing new iu 
 favor of a restrictive law. I understand this examination is for the 
 purpose of ascertaining whether legislation is desirable to compel 
 more frequent payments than is customary at the present time ; not 
 whether more frequent paj’ments are desirable. I had occasion, last 
 3’ear, in referring to this matter, to mention the depressed condition 
 of manufacturing throughout the country, and measureably in Mas¬ 
 sachusetts, as perhaps one reason why caution should be exercised 
 in any further effort at restrictive legislation. If the suggestion had 
 any weight then, it has much more force this year. Two 3'ears ago 
 the manufacturers of woolen, cotton and all varieties of textile fab¬ 
 rics, and man3’ other manufacturers, found that the3 T had been selling 
 their products for twelve months on a falling market. That is, 
 the margin for profits was growing less and less. During the past 
 year this process has been going on in an increasing ratio. The val¬ 
 uation of corporate manufacturing property alone has decreased in 
 Massachusetts some four and a half million, as shown by the records 
 of the state, and the stocks of goods have been accumulating. Hap¬ 
 pily that it comes last, if it must come at all, the wages of the oper¬ 
 ative have felt this pressure and have been reduced. Worse than 
 all, there is a good deal of machinery today idle in Massachusetts. 
 In the cit3 r of Lowell there are several thousand looms now idle, with 
 the prospect of an increasing number in the near future. And I can¬ 
 not but think that any legislation that is likel3 7 to restrict the natural 
 course of manufacturing in Massachusetts—I do not speak now of 
 the United States, for we are confining this investigation to our 
 own state—should be approached with great caution. The immedi¬ 
 ate cause of the depression referred to is not difficult to discover. 
 The goods that are made in Massachusetts are chieffy consumed in 
 the Mississippi valle3*. The3* are used b3 r the farmers, who till the 
 soil. The farmers are our great customers—a class of persons with¬ 
 out whom all our industries here in Massachusetts would never have 
 existed, and without whose successful labor we should be unable to 
 continue manufacturing. The farmers, as we all know, are paid, 
 by a law of nature, once a year. We pa3 T , as is the custom in Mas- 
 
4 
 
 sachusetts, not universal but in a majority of cases twelve times a 
 year. It is now proposed that the operative of Massachusetts, in¬ 
 stead of being paid twelve times as often as their customers in the 
 Mississippi valley shall be paid either twenty-six times as often or 
 fifty-two times as often. We are aware that the Western farmer is 
 unable to pay the prices he formerly did for the products of our in¬ 
 dustry. The last current prices for the standard cotton cloths of 
 Massachusetts are as follows: Standard sheeting, 1883, eight 
 cents; 1884, seven and three-quarters cents; 1885, six and three- 
 quarters cents; cotton being higher in 1885 than in 1884 or 1883. 
 And print cloths, which are reconized as the barometer of the cotton 
 cloth trade, are quoted as follows; In 1883, three and eleven-six¬ 
 teenths cents ; in 1884, three and fifty-four one hundredths cents ; in 
 1885, three and eleven one-hundredths cents. These figures indicate 
 the price that the Western farmer is able to pay us for the products 
 of our industry. 
 
 Now have the industrial classes of Massachusetts suffered during 
 the past year as compared with previous years, relatively or posi- 
 tively ? I heard it said here at one of the hearings that the evidence 
 of the savings banks of Massachusetts was not such as was worth 
 considering. I do not give the exact language, but it was in words 
 to that effect. Our state takes great pains to collect in an intel¬ 
 ligible form the results of the operations of the savings banks, and 
 they are worthy to be studied by students of politics, not only here 
 but in other states. I find that there was an increase in the past 
 3 T ear in deposits of over ten millions of dollars, which is about the 
 average of the last three or four years ; that the number of open 
 accounts is 826,000, or over forty per cent. # of the whole popula¬ 
 tion, or about 70 or 75 per cent, of the adult working population of 
 Massachusetts, are represented in the savings banks accounts. 
 There was an increase in the number of persons who opened ac¬ 
 counts, over and above those who closed their accounts, of 19,998. 
 The average deposits in 1884 were $70.06 ; in 1883, $61.75 ; show¬ 
 ing an increase of $8.31. As one evidence of the use of this sav¬ 
 ings bank fund of two hundred and sixty millions of dollars, I will 
 say that nearly 7 twenty-three per cent, was loaned upon such securi- 
 tres as those manufacturing corporations offer upon what is called 
 personal security’, an increase of over a million dollars last year 
 from what it was the previous year. As regards the local character 
 of these deposits. The city of Lynn has been mentioned here as a 
 place of extreme prosperity 7 , which I believe is true, and where set¬ 
 tlements are made weekly 7 . I find that the average amount of each 
 deposit in all the savings banks of the State is $318.00. The average 
 in Boston is $281 ; the average in Lynn, where weekly pay¬ 
 ments are the rule, is $232 ; the average in Lowell, where monthly 7 
 payments are the rule is $332; being over four per cent, above 
 
5 
 
 the average of the State, and over forty per cent, above the 
 average of the city of Lynn. The amount per capita In the State is 
 $131 ; the amount per capita at Lynn, with a population of 38,000 
 —which is the last census—is $108 ; the amount per capita at 
 Lowell, taking the population at 59,000— according to the same 
 census—is $168. I don’t consider this last statement as positive 
 evidence of the relative condition of the employes in the two places, 
 because Lowell is the older city. Let us compare the deposits of 
 the savings banks iu Massachusetts with those of New Hamp¬ 
 shire, where the operatives are earning more money per day 
 than they are in Massachusetts, from the fact that they are not 
 restricted by the ten hour law. The average of deposits in the 
 State of New Hampshire is $358, or over twelve per cent, above 
 the average in the State of Massachusetts. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. R. D. Smith.) Is that all the savings banks in the 
 State ? 
 
 A. That is all the savings banks in the State. These facts are 
 taken from reports published by the savings banks commissioners of 
 New Hampshire and Massachusetts. 
 
 Q. How much is the average deposit in New Hampshire? 
 
 A. The average account in New Hampshire is $358, and in 
 Massachusetts it is $318. 
 
 Q. Mr. Russell.) Is that confined to the operatives in the 
 
 two States? 
 
 A. It is not confined to operatives. The law does not confine 
 benefits of savings banks to any class in the community. 
 
 Mr. Dalton. The increase in New Hampshire in 1884 over 1883 
 was seven and four-tenths per cent. In Massachusetts the in¬ 
 crease was four per cent. The per centage of increase in the 
 deposits was nearty double in New Hampshire to what it was 
 in Massachusetts. Now the advocates of such restrictive laws as 
 are before this committee, refer to England as having adopted this 
 class of legislation, and we are told that it would be well for us to 
 imitate her. Let us see how British savings compare with our own. 
 I find that, by the latest official report that I can get, the “Official 
 Abstract,” so called, of the government, in 1882 the total deposits 
 in all the savings banks in the United Kingdom, including the post 
 office savings banks, which can be reached in every town and 
 village, and which receive the smallest coins of the realm on deposit — 
 the total amount of deposits were 83,750,402 pounds sterling, equal 
 to $418,752,010. We have in Massachusetts $270,000,000. The 
 amount per capita in the United Kingdom was $12. 
 
 Mr. R. D. Smith. We have got one-eleventh of their people 
 and one-half their deposits. 
 
 Mr. Dalton. The increase between 1881 and 1882 was $11,- 
 346,985 ; and ours was over $10,000,000 in Massachusetts alone. 
 
6 
 
 Nine hours is a day’s work in England. I noticed that one gentle¬ 
 man at a previous hearing gave as a reason for the enforcement of 
 weekly payments, that it would make the laborer more independent. 
 There can be no greater misuse of language than to say that a man 
 would be more independent if obliged to receive his pay once a 
 week, whether he wished to or not. I do not understand how the 
 Legislature of Massachusetts can make its citizens more independent 
 than they are to-day by any compulsory legislation. It can restrict 
 and limit independence by legislation ; but the constitution secures 
 all the independence there is for the people. The suggestion that 
 has been made here that the manufacturing corporations of Massa¬ 
 chusetts have had the benefit of a great deal of legislation, and that 
 the employes have had none, is reversing the truth. The value of 
 the charters of the manufacturing corporations of Massachusetts 
 is well known to everybody. They can be had by anybody for the 
 asking. The principal rights that charters give are to sue and be 
 sued. I do not know that beyond the right to aggregate capital, 
 there are any other privileges belonging to manufacturing corpora¬ 
 tions. Railroads do have special privileges, because they can take 
 other peple’s property without making a bargain with the owner. 
 But it is not so with manufacturing corporations. I find by the tax 
 commissioner’s last report that the number of corporations in the 
 State is 1,609. The valuation of this stock in 1884 was $309,400,- 
 000. In 1883 the valuation was $313,900,000 ; showing a reduction 
 of $4,500,000 during the last year in the valuation for taxable pur¬ 
 poses. It was shown here last year, and it is well to repeat it, that 
 the industries of Massachusetts are chiefly controlled by private 
 persons and not by corporations. There is a notion, that manu¬ 
 facturing is carried on chiefly by corporations; whereas the reverse 
 is true. By the latest state census, which is the last source of in¬ 
 formation I am able to refer you to, it appears that the corporations 
 employ 101,000 persons and that private establishments em¬ 
 ploy 160,000 persons. The corporation wages are reported as 
 being $38,000,000, and the private establishment wages are reported 
 as being $79,000,000. I am giving you State authority. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Russell.) Can you give ns in connection with it 
 the average wage paid by’ corporations and by private individuals. 
 
 A. I cannot. 
 
 Mr. R. D. Smith. You can tell how’ many are employed, and 
 then y ou can divide the amount. 
 
 Mr. Russell. I asked that, because the same report gives the 
 answer to my question. 
 
 Mr. R. D. Smith. It would be $38,000,000 divided by’ 101,000 
 and $79,000,000 divided by 160,000. It makes the corporation 
 wages rather higher, I should think, from a glance. 
 
 Mb. Dalton. Now the corporations of Massachusetts are owned 
 
1 
 
 by persons of small means today. They were originally founded 
 by persons of large properties seventy years ago; people who with¬ 
 drew their capital from commerce and put it into manufactories. 
 For illustration, the Merrimack Manufacturing company, which I 
 represent and of which I am the servant, originally had five stock¬ 
 holders ; who averaged $120,000 of stock. I had the books ex¬ 
 amined yesterday, and found there were 729 stockholders upon the 
 books, with an average interest of $3,430 each. But, as a matter 
 of fact, there are probably 1,000 stockholders ; because a very large 
 proportion is held by trustees, often representing several persons 
 each. The proportion of stockholders to employes is as one to 
 three. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. R. D. Smith.) How many persons are there hold¬ 
 ing single shares in your company ? 
 
 A. Three hundred and four persons hold single shares, 153 own 
 two shares each, and 73 own three shares each. And this disintegra¬ 
 tion is going on constantly throughout all the corporations in the 
 State. 
 
 Q. Do operatives hold your shares? 
 
 A. Yes, there are operatives that have held shares for a long 
 time. 
 
 Q. Whether some of this class of shares are held by trustees? 
 
 A. I don’t recall any such case. I know of one instance where 
 a share held by a trustee is divided among nine persons. Now is 
 there any necessity for this compulsoiy law in order to protect those 
 who are troubled by the trustee process ? That has been referred 
 to here, this and in previous years, but if there is any' injurious ef¬ 
 fect upon employes by reason of the trustee process it should be 
 corrected in the law itself and not in an indirect manner. 
 
 Q. You mean by changing the trusttee law ? 
 
 A. Yes. And not by making some new law. I have undertak¬ 
 en to lean, whether the operatives of Lowell are troubled by the 
 trustree process. I have had the records of the Merrimack manu¬ 
 facturing company’ for the year 1884 explained and I find there were 
 two hundred and thirty-two trustee writs served upon the company, 
 amounting to $1,940, out of $800,000 wages paid. That is about a 
 quarter of one percent. Then in regard to assignments. During the 
 y’ear 1884 there were seventy assignments amounting in all to S4.6G5, 
 which is about one-half of one per cent, of the wages paid. The 
 operations of the trustee process and of assignments are too trifling 
 for the consideration of this committee. In regard to the payment 
 of operatives at times other than on pay days. Throughou tthe year, 
 there are more or less persons coming to the counting room with a 
 ticket from the overseers to get their pay. There is a paymaster at 
 the Merrimack manufacturing company^,—which i3 a typical com¬ 
 pany of thpse on the Merrimack river,—every day at twelve o’clock 
 
8 
 
 whose duty it is to pay all who present a ticket. In 1884 such pay¬ 
 ments averaged about one hundred a month. I hold in my hand a 
 package of these tickets for a summer month; 161 orders for paying 
 persons who wished to leave and did leave, and 128 for persons who 
 wanted something on account. It is such a well known method that 
 there is never practically an}’ difficulty, for an operative wishing to 
 leave or wanting an advance on account, in getting the money. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Stratton.) You are speaking of the Lowed oper¬ 
 atives ? 
 
 A. I am. 
 
 Q. Now I want to ask you one question. You are speaking 
 about their leaving their employment. What do you know of the 
 custom of the mills, whether or not they oblige their operatives to 
 sign oppressive contacts about leaving in order to obtain employ¬ 
 ment? 
 
 A. Your question is whether they can leave without giving 
 notice. 
 
 Q. Yes. 
 
 A. There are no oppressive contracts. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Russell.) Was there not a change in practioe when 
 the law was changed a short time ago ? 
 
 A. For many years the present custom has been practiced 
 in the Merrimack Manufacturing company. I have never known 
 it otherwise since my connection with that company. You can 
 see the good sense of that. A corporation has no interest in 
 keeping an unwilling operative. 
 
 Mr. Stratton. I know that is true in some places. 
 
 Mr. R. D. Smith. That they forfeit their wages by leaving? 
 
 Mr. Stratton. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Dalton. I know of no such corporation. 
 
 Mr. Sargent. Private industries do that; it is never done by 
 corporations. 
 
 Mr. R. D. Smith. Are there any such instances as that? 
 
 Mr. Stratton. Yes. 
 
 Mr. R. D. Smith. They have not been brought out at any of 
 the hearings. 
 
 Mr. Stratton. That is the reason I asked the question. 
 
 Mr. R. D. Smith. It is a very proper one. 
 
 Mr. Sargent. It was brought out last } r ear, that it occurred at 
 the Merrimack wollen mills,(a private concern), not at the Mer¬ 
 rimack Manufacturing Co. 
 
 Mr. Stratton. I didn’t know but it was the custom. 
 
 Mr. Dalton. It is not the custom in the corporation that I rep¬ 
 resent, and that one is a typical of all the corporations on the 
 Merrimack river. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. R. D. Smith.) When any man wants to leave in 
 
9 
 
 the middle of the month is there any difficulty in his getting his 
 order like that and getting his full pay? 
 
 A. None. 
 
 Q. At any time? 
 
 A. At an} r time? 
 
 Mr. Stratton. I simply ask the question because I do know of 
 one instance. You were speaking for a large community and I 
 wanted to know what the practice was. 
 
 Mr. Dalton. I have never known of any instance. Perhaps we have 
 the technical right, but we should not exercise it. I do not put it 
 on any philanthropic ground, but that it would not be for the 
 interest of any corporation to take that attitude toward their em¬ 
 ployes. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Russell.) You are aware that there was some 
 abuse of that sort? I cannot say what year, but there was a law 
 passed requiring corporations who make such a requirement of their 
 help to be in the same condition. 
 
 Mr. R. D. Smith. What is that? 
 
 Mr. Russell. That is, if they require their help to give two 
 weeks notice they must also give the operative two weeks notice of 
 discharge. And also to forfeit the pay. There has been a law 
 passed making the law work both ways, since which there has not 
 been so much abuse. 
 
 Mr. Dalton. I know of no such law. 
 
 Mr. Sargent. That was a law passed some years ago. 
 
 Mr. Dalton. I want to emphasize this a little, that there is no 
 difficulty to-day on the Merrimack river, and I am confident that this 
 is true throughout the State, since the same motive would guide the 
 intelligent manager in the western part of the State as in the eastern. 
 Employes wishing to leave before pa}* day find no difficulty in getting 
 their pay promptly ; or, if they require an advance on their pay at 
 any time during the month, they can get it. It was mentioned here 
 by one person that the arrests for drunkenness was very much larger 
 in Lowell during ten years in proportion to the population than they 
 were in Lynn. I find that in the year 1882, which is the only one 
 that has been examined, the whole number of arrests was 2,005 ; of 
 those, 337 were classed as operatives. Out of 16,000 operatives 
 337, or less than one a day, were arrested for drunkenness. 
 
 Mr. Sargent. I will state, if you will allow me, that the reason 
 why the year 1882 was taken, was that it was the last year that we 
 could get at, the record of 1883 being in use at the station house, 
 and it was the first year that they kept a record of the employ* 
 ment. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. R. D. Smith.) One question, Mr. Dalton, before 
 3 *ou leave that. What do the}* do with those people arrested for 
 drunkenness ? I mean what becomes of them ? 
 
10 
 
 A. Some of them are sent up to the poor farm, and some are 
 fined. 
 
 Mr. Sargent. It is usually one and costs for the first drunk, 
 which is $5.25, or ten days. 
 
 Mr. Russell. Do you state that as the penalty for the first 
 drunk ? 
 
 Mr. Sargent. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Russell. It is one dollar for the first drunk. 
 
 Mr. Sargent. One and costs ; the costs are $4.25. 
 
 Mr. Russell. Five dollars and costs for second offence. The 
 judge cannot go beyond the law. 
 
 Mr. Sargent. He don’t, sir, but it is five dollars, and costs for 
 second offence, or a direct sentence. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. R. D. Smith.) Then are these people taken back 
 by you ? 
 
 A. Sometimes. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Russell.) As bearing upon that I would like to ask 
 a question ; if you keep back a certain amount of wages, why they 
 need to go to the county house for a one-dollar fine, when there is 
 certainly more or less due them. 
 
 M. Sargent. Sentence is for second or third offence, or for com¬ 
 mon drunkards. 
 
 Mr. Russell. That is only ten days. 
 
 Mr. Sargent. They are usually sentenced for being common 
 drunkards, one and costs, or ten days is for first offence. 
 
 Mr. Dalton. The number is limited and is decreasing. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Russell.) Do you make it a practice, when any of 
 your help are arrested, to find out about them? Do you advance 
 their wages for the sake of helping them out of their difficulty ? 
 
 A. That is a detail I do not know about. My impression is, 
 that the staying out in consequence of drunkenness during the 
 month is very trifling. After pay da} 7 is when the temptation comes. 
 Even then the per centage is very small. But we don’t want it in¬ 
 creased in Massachusetts. I wish to ask your attention to this im¬ 
 portant condition while considering this series of laws, namel} T , that 
 we can only make them for a ver} 7 small part of the country, and 
 that we are surrounded by states which, so far, have not seen fit to 
 imitate the restrictive legislation of Massachusetts, for example, the ten 
 hour law. This law has been in operation in this state ten or twelve 
 years, and no other state in the country has adopted it. The effect 
 of the law is apparent. In our neighboring states the people on the 
 same class of work are earning higher wages ; a consideration which 
 appeals to the most energetic and ambitious of employes, the class 
 which Massachusetts ought to keep at home. But high wages do 
 attract energetic and high grade workers. In this connection I 
 notice in the Boston Journal, on the 10th of January, a communica- 
 
11 
 
 tion in regard to the Amoskeag company of New Hampshire. I saw 
 Col. Livermore of that city a few days ago and asked him if the 
 statements were true, as represented. If you will allow me, I will" 
 read a few lines. 
 
 The correspondent says :— 
 
 “At present the wages in the mills in Manchester are about eight 
 per cent more by the da}' than those are in Lowell; it being the pur¬ 
 pose of the mill managers of this city to maintain this difference on 
 account of the eight per cent, more time which the operatives here 
 work as compared with the hands in Lowell. The Massachusetts 
 ten-hour law prevents Lowell mills from running more than the 
 legally stipulated daily hours; but in New Hampshire, there is no 
 law restricting the hours of labor. The average time worked in 
 Manchester is 10J hours per day. Our manufacturers can afford to 
 pay this higher rate of wages, because it enables them to have their 
 mill property at work a proportionately greater time than the Mas¬ 
 sachusetts mill owners can. It amounts to the same thing as having 
 a mill plant eight per cent, larger without the cost of building the 
 addition, and at the same time the production of cloth is believed to 
 be proportionately greater.” 
 
 I asked Col. Livermore if this was a correct statement, according 
 to his personal knowledge, and he said it was. A few days before 
 I saw the managers of the Nashua mills and carefully went over 
 with them a comparison of the wages earned, being the same rate 
 per hour or the same rate per job as in Massachusetts mills—it is 
 mostly job work, and we came out just the same, the earnings were 
 between seven and eight per cent more money than those in Massa¬ 
 chusetts, doing the same class of work received, which is only just 
 and proper? 
 
 Q. (By Mr. R. D. Smith.) Is the number of hours which the}' 
 work, is that per cent, greater than ours? 
 
 A. Just about eight per cent. They work nearly Go hour a 
 week ; between 64 and 65. Sixty-four and eight-tenlhs would be ex¬ 
 actly eight per cent. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Harwell.) Then practically it is about the same 
 rate per hour as in Massachusetts ? 
 
 A. Yes. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Conway.) Are they not the only two exceptions 
 you can name, the Manchester and the Nashua mills? 
 
 A. I think it is equally true down in Maine. 
 
 Mr. R. D. Smith. It is true in Maine and in Rhode Island. I 
 want you to explain a little more fully something which perhaps I 
 do not understand, and that is what advantage the manufacturer has 
 whose operatives are working a few more hours, in getting more 
 product out of his plant. Do you understand what I want? 
 
 A. A concern, for instance, investing a million dollars in cotton 
 
12 
 
 manufacturing in Massachusetts, would turn out, under our laws, 
 about a million and a half dollars’ worth of product. In New 
 Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island, Connecticut, or Vermont, a 
 million dollars invested in cotton manufacturing, would turn out not 
 less that $1,650,000 worth of product upon the same plant. Of 
 course the fixed charges for insurance, for the management, cost of 
 the buildings and machinery, interest on buildings and machinery 
 would be the same in one State as in the other; whereas, the product, 
 the usefulness of the investment in the State, the operative and the 
 owner would be as $1,500,000 in Massachusetts, to $1,650,000 in 
 New Hampshire. If you go further south it would be more like 
 $1,500,000 of product in Massachusetts to $1,850,000 in Georgia or 
 North Carolina. 
 
 Q. Why is that? 
 
 A. Because they work so much longer time. I was consulted 
 recently by a private manufacturer whose family own a manufacturing 
 establishment, valued between $1,000,000 and $2,000,000, in regard 
 to the advisability of making the concern a corporation. We went 
 over the pros and cons and decided it was unadvisable that any 
 change should be made from private ownership, and the change was 
 not made. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Farwell.) Then, instead of a charter being valuable, 
 in such cases it is really a disadvantage to a man to accept a char¬ 
 ter? 
 
 A. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Farwell. That is my own idea about it. 
 
 Mr. R. D. Smith. They have one advantage, Mr. Farwell, and 
 that is they avoid the personal liability. 
 
 Mr. Farwell. I understand they can avoid that by special 
 partnerships. 
 
 Mr. Dalton. You can avoid personal liability under the limited 
 partnership law. 
 
 A. (Bj t Mr. R. D. Smith.) I want to ask you something which 
 seems to me to correspond to the idea expressed by the members 
 of the committee, and that is, whether an individual a can carry on 
 business and make it more money-making than a corporation, gen¬ 
 erally speaking? 
 
 A. As a rule corporations are managed lavishly. The ma¬ 
 chinery and plant are kept in high condition. Corporate property 
 is a trust. 
 
 Q. There has been something said by some gentleman here 
 which tends to show that by far the larger number of manufacturers 
 are private persons and not corporations, and that the woolen and 
 cotton mills are all corporations. Have you the figures giving the 
 comparative number of cards employed in woollen and cotton cor¬ 
 porations and private firms? 
 
13 
 
 A. I think Mr. Coe has those. 
 
 Q. You have not got them? 
 
 A. No. 
 
 Mr. R. D. Smith. It is just half. 
 
 Mr. Dalton. Of what? 
 
 Mr. R. D. Smith. Of the sets of cards. 
 
 Mr. Russell. The point made in previous hearings was that 
 they were largely corporations. 
 
 Mr. R. D. Smith. I have understood that they were almost ail 
 corporations; but somebody said that in this particular, in cotton 
 and woollen it was just half, or that seven hundred and odd setts 
 were run bj T private manufacturers and the remaining six hundred 
 by corporations. 
 
 Q. (B} t Mr. Smith of West Newbury.) I would like to ask the 
 witness if he thinks that small private concerns can manufacture the 
 same kind of goods cheaper than large concerns. 
 
 A. There is economy in operating cotton machinery on a large 
 scale. 
 
 Mr. Smith of West Newbury. I inferred from your answer that 
 you thought private concerns could manufacture at greater advantage 
 than large ones. 
 
 Mr. R. D. Smith. No, that is not it. It was whether more 
 economy could be introduced. I had in mind some of the Rhode 
 Island manufacturers ; the Slater mills, for instance. 
 
 Mr. Dalton. The manufacture of woolen cloth in Massachusetts 
 and New England, has been more successful in private than in 
 corporate hands. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. R. D. Smith.) How is it in cotton? 
 
 A. The other way. The processes are very simple, and they 
 can be combined on a large scale and so reduce expense. I think 
 corporations pay higher wages on the average in cotton manufac¬ 
 turing, the advantage of corporations in Massachusetts, under our 
 laws, is that a large number of persons are enabled to pool their 
 money and carry on manufacturing of a simple character; but it 
 must be of a simple character. I mean that the successful corpora¬ 
 tions are those whose business is rather simple, like the cotton busi¬ 
 ness. When it comes to woollen, which is more intricate, it has not 
 been so successful. You will find that the silk manufacture, for ex¬ 
 ample, and all higher grades of manufactures are much better in private 
 hands, than they are in corporate. The advantages which we pos¬ 
 sess in Massachusetts, and our disadvantages, are both easy to see. 
 We are far away from the sources of supplies, we are far away from 
 the market for our goods, and we have a harsh climate to work in ; 
 it is a good stimulating climate, but it is an expensive one. We 
 have to use a great deal of coal, food and clothing in such a climate. 
 We must have expensive houses. We have no mines or forests. 
 
14 
 
 Our farms are worth something because we have built up manufact¬ 
 uring towns among them ; otherwise they would be deserted. We 
 have here our accumulated skill and our accumulated capital to work 
 with. It is a delicate business to meddle with these two factors, 
 least we take a still further back seat in the company of states than 
 we occupy today. We have got today a goodly number of manu¬ 
 facturing corporations, and I will admit for the moment that you can 
 do just what you see fit with them. I will not say anything about 
 the constitutionality of any legislation. But how about the future ? 
 I find that General Francis A. Walker, chief of the census bureau, 
 estimates that the country in 1900 will have 80,000,000 people. If 
 Massachusetts is going to hold her own in connection with the other 
 states, relatively with the whole countrj r , we ought to have added to 
 our corporate capital $100,000,000, and taking all manufacturing 
 capital we should have $250,000,000 more. Are we likely to get 
 this proportion of new money invested in Massachusetts if we go on 
 enacting these restrictive laws, which, as I said earlier, reduce the 
 independence under which we have been living all our lives, hereto¬ 
 fore, rather than increase it. M} r belief is that if the question was 
 put today to the gentlemen sitting around this table: “Will you 
 put your $20,000 apiece into a mill in Massachusetts or into a mill 
 in Connecticut?” I have no doubt but that the unanimous vote would 
 be not to put it in Massachusetts. As a citizen of the United States, 
 I do not care whether Massachusetts is to lead in the future as it has 
 done in the past, or whether the industry goes to some other part of 
 the country; but as a Msssachusetts man I do care, and of course 
 we all care. I cannot see any advantage to accrue to the interests 
 of Massachusetts at large by this class of legislation, nor do I be¬ 
 lieve it is for the interest of the working people themselves. You 
 may sa}- the cost of making weekly payments is trifling. It will cost 
 the Merrimack Company a few thousand dollars. It takes four 
 clerks to make up the pay-roll, which is comparatively a simple mat¬ 
 ter ; but it takes four clerks to make it up once a month, occup} r ing 
 two weeks. It is going to cost a good deal of money in the State. 
 Out of the 1,609 corporations in Massachusetts, I will take 1,000 
 upon which such a law will be operative. If it costs an average of 
 $1,000 for each corporation, that amounts to one million dollars. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Russell.) Will it? 
 
 A. One treasurer told me it would cost his company between 
 $10,000 and $15,000. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Stratton.) For clerk hire? 
 
 A. For clerk hire and the other labor in making up the detail on 
 the mill floor, where there is an intricate kind of work. 
 
 Q. You don’t intend to reckon the interest on that? 
 
 A. No. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Bennett.) How much more would it cost your company ? 
 
15 
 
 A. I say we have four clerks. Half their time, or two weeks 
 per month, is employed in making up this pay roll. 
 
 Q. It would not cost you four times as much to make it up 
 weekly ? 
 
 A. I should not think it would cost quite four times as much. 
 
 Q. Twenty per cent, more ? 
 
 A. There is a great deal of the work that is precisely the same 
 on every pay-roll. It does not occur to me at this moment where 
 there would be less work. We should have to count the money 
 four times instead of once, put it in envelopes four times instead of 
 once, have four sets of tickets instead of one. If there is a place 
 where the multiple would not apply, it does not occur to me. 
 
 Q. Have you ever had any experience in paj ing more frequently 
 than once a month? 
 
 A. No ; never had it asked for. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Smith of West Newbury.) How long does it take 
 to pay off 1000 operatives? 
 
 A. The Merrimack manufacturing company now pay about 3000 
 employes . in one day. The mere mechanical act of handing the 
 money to the individual is a trifling matter that is done very rapidly. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Gunn.) Do you take receipts from the operatives 
 at the time the money is delivered ? 
 
 A. No. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Gunn.) What are the wishes of your operatives so 
 far as you know as to more frequent payments ? 
 
 A. I have never heard any expression of a desire for a change. 
 
 Q. There has been no complaint, so far as you know under the 
 present s 3 T stem ? 
 
 A. There has been no complaint. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Smith of Dudley.) You sa\ T that the wage opera¬ 
 tors in Lowell pay more money into the savings banks than those in 
 Lynn ? 
 
 A. That is what the State records say. 
 
 Q. Well, has any cause been assigned for that? 
 
 A. I have not assigned any. 
 
 Q. Don’t the people in Lynn invest a great deal of money in 
 houselots and after a time build up little houses for themselves, to 
 be the owners of their own homes ? 
 
 A. I should not think that would be more likely to occur in 
 Lynn than it does in Lowell, especially as I understand that labor 
 is more steady in Lowell than in Lynn. I don’t know the fact, but 
 I am told so. I have seen a newspaper statemen of the number of 
 days in the \ T ear for which work was supplied in Lynn, and it was 
 below that in Lowell. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Bennett.) Is it not a fact that the operatives in 
 Lowell live largely in boarding houses? 
 
16 
 
 A. Not so largely as formerly 7 . Of the operatives of the Mer¬ 
 rimack company twenty to thirty^ per cent, live in the corporation 
 houses. 
 
 Q. Is it not a fact that the laborers in Lynn are better housed 
 than in Lowell. 
 
 A. I think not. There are no houses of the class in any part of 
 the country that are superior to the boarding and small tenement 
 houses in Lowell. 
 
 Q. I had reference particularly to houses of their own 
 
 A. You will find Lowell surrounded with a great village of de¬ 
 tached cottages spreading in every direction. 
 
 Q. I was accounting for this difference of deposits in the savings 
 banks on this principle. 
 
 A. I wish to confine myself in this evidence to matters of fact 
 rather than to express opinions. These facts that the State supplies 
 to us indicate that the wage-earners of Massachusetts are a very 
 prosperous class of people. They do not appear here to ask y 7 ou 
 for protection or further legislation. 
 
 Q. In case they were paid more frequently and didn’t receive as 
 much money at a time, would it not be an advantage? 
 
 A. I cannot see any advantage. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Smith of West Newbury.) One question I want to 
 asky 7 ou, Mr. Daiton. You have stated one reason why you think it 
 would be a disadvantage to a corporation to pay more frequently 
 than once a month. Are there any other reasons why it would 
 work to the disadvantage of corporations besides the extra clerk 
 hire ? 
 
 A. I fear in the course of years it would reduce the general 
 standard of character of the people of Massachusetts. 
 
 Q. You think they are not able to stand the pressure? 
 
 A. They are just as much subject to temptation as we all are, 
 some can and some cannot. But I speak of the general average. 
 In England, they pay once a week. The English operatives are 
 coming to this country in a steady stream, and are growing pros¬ 
 perous and better in every way. We need not ask wiry they come. 
 
 Q. Then your reason is that it is not so good for the operative? 
 
 A. I do not speak of operatives as a single class, but of the 
 general character of the people of Massachusetts. Because this 
 payment of wages once a week is not going to stop with the opera¬ 
 tive, it is going to permeate all the occupations of the people. 
 
 Q. I understand. But these are your two principal reasons for 
 not wanting to pay oftener than once a month. Have you any 7 other? 
 
 A. It involves a waste of money, and Massachusetts has no 
 money to waste on the cost of her industries. There is no margin 
 for a waste. We have got to put our goods into the market as 
 cheaply as anybody 7 , or fail. 
 
17 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Bennett.) But the inference that frequent paj-ment 
 is to be a disadvantage ? 
 
 A. If there is any more labor in it, it is. If it is to cost 
 half a million or a million dollars it is so much more burden on 
 industries and a waste. 
 
 Q. You believe cash payments would be desirable for all busi¬ 
 ness? 
 
 A. I consider anything paid once a month as cash. I think it 
 is spending too much time in not doing any business to pay— 
 
 Mr. Bennett. If the witness wants to say that cash payments 
 are not desirable— 
 
 Mr. Dalton. What is cash, every hour, eve^ da}^, every week 
 or every month ? 
 
 Mr. Bennett. In speaking of paying parties—the butcher and 
 baker—we consider cash payment to be as near the time when the 
 goods are purchased as possible. I would not care if it was done 
 the veiw minute ; I think it would be better for the laboring people 
 and for the man they purchase of. 
 
 Mr. Dalton. Business cannot be transacted in that way with¬ 
 out a waste. For instance, the purchase of coal. A man who can 
 buy a ton of coal and have it all delivered at once, put in and paid 
 for at once, will get his fuel cheaper than the man who buys by the 
 basket full, or 100 pounds at a time. So with a barrel of flour. The 
 flour that is distributed in bags costs the consumer more than it 
 costs the person who buys by the barrel. 
 
 Mr. Bennett. The mere fact that he pays cash for it does not 
 imply that he shall buy by the bag. 
 
 Mr. Dalton. If the operative is to settle all his bills once a 
 week, I suppose you hardly think he would have weekly earnings to 
 buy supplies in their commercial unit? Such as coal, flour, etc. 
 
 Mr. Bennett. I think it would be possible for him to pay for 
 this sort of things and get them at the lowest possible price, even 
 if he received his pay once a month. 
 
 Q. (B} t Mr. R. Smith.) I want to ask a question on the same 
 ground that the senator has proceeded upon, and that is whether the 
 persons who are saving money and putting it into the savings banks 
 of Lowell are not, as a matter of convenience, having books and 
 proceeding with their butcher and baker on the monthly system ? 
 
 A. So I understand. 
 
 Q. Although they have money with which they could purchase, 
 they do proceed on the credit system for convenience ? That is, 
 the} T purchase for cash, but they prefer to buy on credit rather than 
 take the trouble ? 
 
 A. Yes. They have got the cash. They have put in $200,000 
 or $300,000 into the savings banks more than they have taken out. 
 
 Mr. Sargent. Tliej r have taken out largely and put it into tele- 
 
18 
 
 phone and moter stocks, to their disadvantage within the last two 
 years. 
 
 Q. (Ity Mr. R. D. Smith.) I want to ask you about the cost of 
 housing in Massachusetts; for iustance, the cost of a house at 
 Lowell in which the people are housed who are at work, as compared 
 with the cost of the houses which are used in connection with the 
 rest of the cotton mills at the South. 
 
 A. The cotton mills of Georgia, at Graniteville, for instance, 
 build their best-class single tenement cottagas for operatives, for 
 $190. They build a cheaper house which costs $160 ; but their best, 
 which is a very neat, comfortable cottage, set upon posts, with the, 
 air underneath—they have no cellars —cost $190. The houses that 
 we build at Lowell, cost between $1,000 and $1,100 each. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Smith of Dudley.) Single tenements? 
 
 A. Single tenements, one family shelter. We build them in 
 groups of eight, and they cost between $1000 and $1100. This year 
 they probably cost a little less, bebause the price of labor is less. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. R. D. Smith.) That is what they cost? 
 
 A. Without the land. That is the cost of the superstructure. 
 
 Q. So that in this State you have operatives whose houses cost 
 vfcry much more. Of course the interest is the difference ? 
 
 A. Five hundred per cent. more. 
 
 A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Their cotton comes from the adjoining plantation ? 
 
 A. Yes, it is raised in the State. 
 
 Q. What is the difference in the carriage of cotton ? 
 
 A. It is about three-quarters of a cent a pound. 
 
 Q, That it costs 3 -ou to get it here ? 
 
 A. Yes, half a living profit on coarse goods. 
 
 Q. Half the entire profit? 
 
 A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Now I wish to take the coal, and I wish to know how much 
 of the cost of the coal to }~ou at Lowell is, the mere transportation 
 of it from the mouth of the mine. 
 
 A. I understand the mine owners in Pennsylvania are getting 
 from sixty to eighty cents for coal put on board the cars at the 
 mouth of the mine. That coal will cost about $4.50 to $4.75 at 
 Lowell. 
 
 Q. Then all but about sixty to eighty cents is transportation? 
 
 A. Yes, sir. The cost of coal to the Merrimack manufacturing 
 company is $80,000 to $ 100,000 a 3 T ear. Some of our rival works 
 are in Penns} r lvania, and the same amount of coal would cost them 
 from $45,000 to $55,000. Those on the seaboard would save fifty per 
 cent., and some of them inland would same more, because they are 
 nearer the mines. 
 
 Q. Now is there anything in which labor or the natural product 
 
19 
 
 of the earth enters into your cotton mill that you can get cheaper 
 in Massachusetts ? 
 
 A. Nothing except ice. I have said on another occasion that if 
 it hadn’t been for accident which drove the Mayflower north of Cape 
 Cod this country never would have been settled. 
 
 Mr. R. D. Smith. I have always thought it was a great mistake, 
 their coming north. 
 
 Mr. Dalton. Mr. Smith’s question reminded me of this fact, that 
 we have had heretofore the advantage of water power over certain 
 other localities, — not that we have all the water power of the coun¬ 
 try ; but our water power is now all applied, and any development 
 in the future of the possible $250,000,000 in the next fifteen years, 
 which I say we are entitled to, comparatively, if we are to hold our 
 relative position, the power has got to come from steam. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Farwell.) Is not that true in Lowell to-day? 
 
 A. Yes ; half the power of the Merrimack company is steam. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. R. D. Smith.) They have equal power with you in 
 Maine and New Hampshire, which are competing States? 
 
 A. Yes. 
 
 Q. One thing which has been said here is that the Legislature 
 has got these corporations in its hand and can make them do what 
 it chooses, I want to know, suppose Massachusetts keeps 
 long as she now is as a manufacturing State, keeps her rela¬ 
 tive position with other States for the next ten j^ears, how large a 
 proportion of capital will have to be invested here as compared with 
 3 ’our present capital, confining it, if you please, to spindles. Do I 
 make nyself understood? I want to show that although a mill can¬ 
 not move away from here, 3 *ou can prevent capital from being in¬ 
 vested here, and how much capital should be invested to keep 
 Massachusetts up with the rest of the countaw? I think that is a 
 fair question to put. 
 
 A. Assuming that the country has twelve million cotton spindles, 
 forty per cent, of those spindles, or four million six or seven hun¬ 
 dred thousand are in Massachusetts. Assuming that there will be 
 required to meet the growth of the countay in the next decade 
 4,000,000 more cotton spindles, there would be 1,600,000 spindles 
 for Massachusetts if she is going to maintain her relative proportion 
 of that industay. One million six hundred thousand spindles at ten 
 dollars each is $16,000,000. 
 
 Mr. Draper. That refers to the cotton industay alone? 
 
 Mr. Dalton. Yes, that is $16,000,000 for the spindle, loom and 
 power to run it. But that always means a town growing up around 
 it with every variety of allied industry. That is just one item if 
 we are going to continue our relative proportion. 
 
 Q. I want to ask 3*011 how much in the manufacture of ordinary 
 cotton—such as 30 U are engaged in—how large a proportion of its 
 
20 
 
 cost was the cost of the raw material ? 
 
 A. About two-thirds. 
 
 Q. Then the remaining one-third comes in wages, T suppose, and 
 the interest on the investment which is paid to the manufacturer? 
 
 A. Yes. 
 
 Q. And in tins competition of which you speak you are obliged 
 to la}' down your goods so that they can be sold side by side with 
 the goods of these other States? 
 
 A. Yes. They go on to the same platform, into the same mer¬ 
 chants hands in New York, St. Louis and Chicago. 
 
 Q. There is one thing which perhaps was brought up before I 
 came here—if so you need not answer—about the system of credit 
 which was spoken of in regard to railroads. I want to know whether 
 any part of your product is sould for cash. 
 
 A. We sell upon thirty or sixty days. A discount is allowed 
 for anticipating payment. It is the ordinary commercial method. 
 
 Q. Now is most of your selling done on longer credit than that? 
 
 A. It is chiefly on sixty days, at present. Any buyer is entitled, 
 by the custom of trade, to discount his bill in ten days and save his 
 interest. These methods change from year to year and are depend¬ 
 ent upon the conditions of business and the value of money, etc. Is 
 it in your mind to ask how soon we get our money after we have in¬ 
 vested it. 
 
 Q. Yes. 
 
 A. It is eight, nine or ten months from the time we buy our cot¬ 
 ton at the South, and bring it across the continent, 1,000 or 1,500 
 miles, keep an average of two or three months’ supply on hand, pass 
 it through the mills, pay the labor, pay freights, pass the cloth 
 through the print works, take orders in January for goods to be de¬ 
 li verhcl in February, March or April, before we get the money back 
 we put into the co'ton and wages-. The money invested in cotton 
 and labor in January is received back in October. There are a 
 great many goods sold on four months. I only now speak of the 
 cotton business, but the bulk of the woollen business is done on 
 four months; a little is done on less, and a great deal of it is done 
 on more. 
 
 Mr. R. D. Smith. I wanted to show that there is no part of our 
 business that is strictly cash, as in railroad business. There is a 
 part that is strictly cash in the railroad business. 
 
 Mr. Farwell. It is strictly cash paid out for the raw material. 
 
 Mr R. D. Smith. He pays out, but he receives nothing back. 
 
 Mr. Dalton. There is some reason. The planter gets his pa}’ 
 but once a year. He settles but once a year. He cannot do it any 
 oftener. He is working with nature as a corporation, and she pays 
 but once a year. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. R. D. Smith.) Don’t nature pay but once a year? 
 
A. You can get but one crop of cotton or corn per annum. 
 
 Mr. Benneet. I understand counsels to say that the Old Colon}" 
 receipts were half or one-third cash. The fact is, as stated yester¬ 
 day that they are three-quarters cash. 
 
 Mr. R. D. Smith. That is so much better for me. That shows 
 that 1 always underrate the force of evidence in my favor. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Carleton.) You sincerely believe, Mr. Dalton, that 
 monthly payments are better than weekly for operatives? 
 
 A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Then wouldn’t it be better to pay them once in three months? 
 
 A. No. Two generations have grown up under the present 
 system. They are used to it and had better continue it as the}" have 
 prospered under it. 
 
 Q. You have got them right where it is for their benefit? 
 
 A. It is a natural growth. 
 
 Q. How many operatives are there in Lowell ? 
 
 A. About 16,000 on the books of the corporation. 
 
 Q. What proportion of them have money in the savings banks? 
 
 A. That is impossible to say. Savings bank authorities don’t 
 keep such a record. It is impossible to say. 
 
 Q. You made the remark that you w r ere surprised when you 
 heard it said that the evidence of the savings banks was not worth 
 considering ? 
 
 A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Would you be surprised to know that a very large majority, 
 more than half at least, much more than half of the deposits in the 
 savings banks belong to the persons who are not poor ? 
 
 A. I should say that that would be likely to be true. I hope 
 it is. 
 
 Mr. R. D. Smith. Of course they are not poor if they have 
 money in the bank. 
 
 Mr. Draper. It is assumed in this hearing that all operatives 
 are poor? 
 
 Mr. Carleton. The reason I asked the question in that way was 
 I understood the gentleman to say that the operatives or wage-work¬ 
 ers are very prosperous. 
 
 Mr. DaCton. Yes. This is the way I put it; that the evidence 
 of the State records as spread before us is that the operatives, the 
 wage-earners of Massachusetts last year were very prosperous, and 
 saved much money. 
 
 Mr. Carleton. Consequently they could not have been very 
 poor. 
 
 Dr. Dalton. They are very prosperous. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Carleton.) Now another remark of yours—that you 
 don’t see how the operatives or wage-workers can be any more inde¬ 
 pendent. 
 
A. Not by legislation. 
 
 Q. Are they not dependent upon corporations ? 
 
 A. Not at all. They are very independent, as independent a 
 class as there is in the world. I will make no exception. Those we 
 call the wealthier classes are tied with as powerful anchors to their 
 daily duties as the operatives. 
 
 Q. Then you as an individual don’t see how they can be more 
 independent? 
 
 A. Not by legislation. It is a fact shown by the records of the 
 corporations of Massachusetts that high wages, high prices and high 
 dividends go together, and there is never any reduction of wages 
 when business is active. 
 
 Q. What usually follows a reduction in wages ? 
 
 A. Stoppage of machinery. 
 
 Q. So far as prices are concerned? 
 
 A. It does not affect prices of goods. 
 
 Q. When men associate themselves together in corporate bodies, 
 what is their object in so doing? Is it not to make money? 
 
 A. They will go to the poorhouse unless they do. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Russell.) Now you spoke of New Hampshire cor¬ 
 porations giving more pay than is received here. It is my experi¬ 
 ence, which has been trifling, that in order to get help away from 
 Massachusetts, from Lowell and Lawrence, the manufacturers there 
 were obliged to give more pay, to draw them up into the country. 
 Can you agree with me that that is the reason ? 
 
 A. No ; that is not the reason, but the additional pay that opera¬ 
 tives earn there. Operatives will give up a situation where they 
 can work only ten hours, and seize upon the chance of earning 
 more money. There is no lack of good operatives in New Hamp¬ 
 shire. 
 
 Mr. Russell. I believe you in that respect; but I believe the 
 reason why there is good labor in New Hampshire is because they 
 pay more. The operatives would prefer to liveTn larger places. 
 
 Mr. Dalton. Manchester is a large manufacturing city. It is 
 the largest town in New Hampshire and a very prosperous one. The 
 same price is paid for the same service in New Hampshire as in 
 Massachusetts. The operatives make eight per cent, more time and 
 receive eight per cent, more money. 
 
 Q. Can 3 r ou tell me the comparative production of your mills be¬ 
 tween the first and last week of the month, among the operatives 
 working by the piece ? 
 
 A. In the spinning there would be nothing perceptible. On the 
 loom it depends on how it is filled. If the operative can wind off 
 several pieces of cloth, she would be apt to strip it. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. R. D. Smith.) That is, take it off? 
 
 A. Take it off. That depends upon the character of the machin- 
 
23 
 
 ery. The loom does not make any more goods and could not if the 
 operative was paid daily. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Russsell.) I wish to state my experience, what lit¬ 
 tle it has been, and see how you can agree with me. The first week 
 of the month the operative has so long to wait for his wages that he 
 works with less courage. When it comes to the last week of the 
 month, the week nearest his pa}^ day, lie exerts himself to his ut¬ 
 most and he does a considerable amount of work in excess of the 
 amount done the first week. 
 
 A. What per oentage should 3*011 say that was. 
 
 Mr. Russell. It is something; I have not calculated it. 
 
 Mr. Dalton. Are } t ou a manufacturer? 
 
 Mr. Russell. No ; I am an operative. 
 
 Mr. Dalton. Then you know these facts, if you are familiar 
 with manufacturing ; a spindle goes at a certain speed; it does not 
 go any faster or slower the first of the month than it does the last 
 of the month, or the last hour of the day than the first. The gain 
 would be in the greater energy of the girl in tying broken ends. Is 
 that what- } t ou mean ? 
 
 Mr. Russell. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Dalton. That is physically possible, of course. The loom 
 goes at the same speed all through the month ; so the onl}- difference 
 would be the weaver would put in a new bobbin when one had run 
 out, or tie up an end a little quicker. That is physically possible. 
 I agree with you to that extent. 
 
 Q. You think she would display more energy? 
 
 A. I say it is physically possible. 
 
 Mr. Dalton. Do you think there will be larger product from 
 the machinery of Massachusetts ? 
 
 Mr. Russell. I do. 
 
 • Mr. Dalton. Do }'ou think it would encourage them to work 
 harder ? 
 
 Mr. Russell. I do. And I think it is for the manufacturers’ 
 interest to pay them. 
 
 Mr. Dalton. That would innure to the advantage of the State if 
 the machinery would turn out more work ; but you could more easily 
 accomplish this by extending the hours instead of making the oper¬ 
 atives work harder in less hours. 
 
 Mr. Russell. If your motive was to discourage the operative, 
 it would be so. 
 
 Q. (B} t Mr. Russell.) Is it not a fact that this legislation you 
 have spoken of has drawn to Massachusetts one of the most skillful 
 classes of operatives in the country ? 
 
 Mr. Dalton. I think the ten hour law has worked the other 
 way. The only legislation which has raised the question whether 
 Massachusetts is a desirable place for capital is the ten hour layr. It 
 
has kept capital out of the State, and necessarily population also; and 
 in the future it will continue to act in the same way. 
 
 Q. Is it not a fact that Massachusetts leads in manufacturing in¬ 
 dustry in proportion to population ? 
 
 A. Yes. She has in cotton manufactures ; she does not in many 
 other things. 
 
 Q. And also against very stringent natural obstacles? 
 
 A. Yes. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Conway.) Do I understand you that the ten hour 
 law had a tendency to drive capital out of the State ? 
 
 A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Has not Massachusetts gained its proportionate share' of the 
 increased investment in manufacturing during the past decade ? 
 
 A. Yes. 
 
 Q. How do you make those two statements agree ? 
 
 A. They do not seem to go together, and yet may agree. The 
 peculiar advantages we possed before this ten hour law was put in 
 force was the investment of three or four large dams, supplying 
 water powers unequaled elsewhere. We had made that plant in 
 Massachusetts, and it has been developed steadily in large manufac¬ 
 turing industries, in towns like Lawrence, or Lowell and Hadley. 
 The impetus of sixt} T years will go on for a limited time, with the 
 dams built and with a large investment in the water-shed of New 
 Hampshire. But now our margins are getting small, our water pow¬ 
 er is exhausted and the local causes will no longer be operative in 
 the same degree in the future as in the past. If weekly payments 
 are a good thing w’e shall adopt them. 
 
 Mr. Russell. If they are are a good thing in 3^our opinions. 
 
 Mr. Dalton. We shall know it as soon as anybody. 
 
 Mr. Russell. There is quite a difference of opinion in that 
 regard. 
 
 Mr. Dalton. Many now pay once a week. But we are consid¬ 
 ering the wisdom of legislation. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Bennett.) Provided 3’our operatives should vote for 
 more frequent pa3 T ments, as they have done in the Lowell carpet 
 mills, what would 3 T ou do? 
 
 A. I should not recognize a vote as the best way to arrive at it. 
 
 Q. (63^ Mr. Smith of West Newberry.) Wouldn’t you consult 
 them at all? 
 
 A. I should consult, if the matter was under consideration, with 
 the most intelligent persons in the business. 
 
 Q. Do you mean operatives ? 
 
 A. Operatives, overseers and managers. 
 
 Q. (B3 t Mr. Bennett.) You say you have 4,000 operatives? 
 
 A. About 3 , 000 . 
 
 Q. If they should decide by a majority of three to two to request 
 
25 
 
 weekly or fortnightly payments, would that influence you in the' 
 matter ? 
 
 A. It never occurred to me to take a vote of the operatives as 
 to how to run the mills. 
 
 Q. I mean if that should come up? 
 
 A. I should think it was worth while to look into the matter, to 
 see whether it was wise or not. A vote would not be conclusive. 
 Business is not conducted by town meeting methods. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Russell.) You gave us the figures in regard to the 
 report of the bureau of statistics of labor for 1878, showing the rela¬ 
 tion of individual firms to corporate firms. Did you find these 
 figures in there which I copied from that sheet: average yearly 
 wage paid by corporations, $383.47 ; average wage paid by private 
 firms, $474.37 ; making a balance of $90.90 that individual firms pay 
 more than corporate firms. Can you give us any information *why 
 that is so? 
 
 A. Cotton manufacturing is chiefly done in corporate companies 
 on a large scale. It is a business especially useful to the community 
 because its simplicity and lightness enables a large proportion of 
 females and youths vviili little experience, to earn good livings. In 
 your machine shops, iron works and all heavier kinds of work, this 
 class of persons would find no occupation at any price, lienee 
 the comparative^' lower rates in cotton mills. Take the machine 
 shop in Lowell, and you will find that the wages there are higher 
 than the 3 T are in the cotton mills, but you ma\ r find in the cotton 
 mills some of the women and children of these mechanics working 
 in the shop. 
 
 Q. I have not the figures with me now, but if }T>u have been to 
 all our hearings perhaps 3011 will remember the figures that have 
 been brought ouc to show that the class of business general^ done 
 b 3 T individuals rather than b 3 ’ corporations pa 3 ' two or three dollars 
 more a week. 
 
 A. It ma 3 ’ be so. I contract with a man to make the boxes for my 
 goods. He employs carpenters at $1.50 or $2 per day. He cannot 
 emplo 3 r girls, but his carpenters girls may be at work in the mill. 
 
 Mr. Russell. The statistics give us the average for male adults. 
 I confine it strictly to that—it being $9.45 in the cotton manufacto¬ 
 ries and something like $13 in private establishments. 
 
 Mr. Dalton. If that is due to this corporate system it would be 
 well to grant no more charters to corporations. 
 
 Mr, Russell. I thought it was in line with the argument made 
 b 3 ’ Mr. Hayes of Lynn, that it was owing to the fact that large cor¬ 
 porations went outside the limits of the State and imported a cheaper 
 class of labor. 
 
 Mr. Dalton. Do you think he knew anything about it? 
 
 Mr. Russell. I am asking you. 
 
26 
 
 Mr. Dalton. experience is, that it is not true. We do not 
 have to import them; they come fast enough voluntarily, 750,000 
 two years ago. 
 
 Q. Do you think they are coming principal^ into the industries 
 controlled by corporations? 
 
 A. No. The West is filling up faster than we are. 
 
 Q. Those who come to the State of Massachusetts, do they go 
 principally into the industries controlled by private firms, or do they 
 go into industries controlled by corporations? 
 
 A. I don’t think the}" care. 
 
 Q. What is the practice? 
 
 A. They go in proportion to the demand. 
 
 Q. (By Mr. Stratton.) Would you object to a national law on 
 this question ? 
 
 A. I should not advocate it. 
 
 Q. The argument you use as to the industries of the country 
 outside of Massachusetts is simply used for the purpose of helping 
 your remonstrance on this question? You do it for that purpose? 
 
 A. It is a consideration always worthy of being taken into ac¬ 
 count by the Legislature, as of the utmost importance to the future 
 welfare of the Commonwealth. 
 
CLOSING ARGUMENT OE R. D. SMITH. 
 
 Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee:—In saying the 
 few words which I have to offer at the close of this hearing, it seems 
 to me that I can add very little to the testimony. As practical men, 
 as manufacturers, as gentlemen who have made the subject which we 
 have before us a subject of study, you know much more about it 
 than I do, and I could not, I think, properly occupy your time with 
 telling you, as I might possibly tell a jury, what is the fair deduc¬ 
 tion from the evidence which has been offered before you. More¬ 
 over it is said to be true that evidence, when properly arranged, 
 presents the strongest argument. And I think }’ou will say that on 
 our side of this question we have presented you a very few witnesses, 
 a few who are competent to speak of that they know, and who have 
 presented our side of the case with fulness and with knowledge. 
 And therefore, to the testimony which you have heard, as well as that 
 which the chairman called yesterday, I mean that from Mr. Draper, 
 I think that I can add nothing. 
 
 1 have seen with regret this question discussed here as though 
 there were a contest between labor and capital. There is not in this 
 country any contest between labor and capital. The interests of 
 labor and the interests of capital are precisely the same. Every¬ 
 body knows here that capital is nothing but accumulated labor; that 
 just as soon as labor is accumulated it becomes capital, that it. itself, 
 is dead and useless, unless it is assisted in the work of reproduction 
 by labor again. And what is labor without capital to employ it? 
 It is barbarous. It is the work of the hands by the rude savage, 
 living by the product of bow and spear. It is nothing. Just as soon 
 as a man gets a spade in his hand, just as soon as he owns a mule, 
 he becomes to that extent a capitalist. Capital and labor are the 
 complements of each other, the}’ depend upon each other and they 
 can only succeed in combination with each other. And it seems to 
 me that the history of Massachusetts shows a record of the most 
 wonderful prosperity, of the most wonderful success in the face of a 
 sterile soil and a harsh climate, that has ever been seen in the world , 
 and that this is attributable, in a great measure, to the fact that there 
 has been no conflict between labor and capital, that there has been 
 no class legislation in favor of either, and that we have lived under 
 perfectly equal laws. 
 
 Something was said, rather wittity, I believe b}’ one member of 
 the committee, that it was a mistake that the Mayflower came to 
 
28 
 
 these shores ; that the accident by which she was driven north of 
 Cape Cod, when she intended to go to the Virginias, led to the 
 settlement of this country, which would otherwise have been a des¬ 
 ert. I do not agree at all that it was a misfortune. I think you 
 will agree with me, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, that the people 
 who came here in the early settlement of this country were not cap¬ 
 italists, that they came here almost as naked as they came into the 
 world, that they had deserted everything for the sake of religion, 
 and that they came to fight the forest in this wilderness ; and that 
 all the accumulations which constitute our vast and unrivalled pros¬ 
 perity, have been the accumulation of labor, of laborers allowed to 
 work under free and equal laws. With that prosperity it seems to 
 me we should hesitate to interfere. 
 
 I trust, Mr. Chairman, that you will see that this is a case in 
 which y*ou are asked to interfere in in a matter in which 
 we are doing well enough. It is a health}* maxim to “Let well 
 enough alone.” No country has yet been seen outside of Massachu¬ 
 setts, having two millions of people, where, on the whole, so large 
 a number of the population are free, are well governed, are well 
 housed and well clothed, and allowed to do what they 7 please as they* 
 will, simply 7 under the restraint which the law places upon ihem, of 
 not injuring others. One gentleman of this committee, representing 
 Essex County 7 , represents a district more populous, a more busy 
 hive of machinery and of labor than any 7 county in England except¬ 
 ing one. And all these things have been brought about by allowing 
 men to act freely 7 , to make their own contracts, without any class 
 legislation, with no right of primogeniture to interfere with equal 
 distribution and to create a privileged or idle class. 
 
 Now gentlemen, it seems to me that the question here is not 
 whether it shall cost the manufacturers $500,000 more, and that that 
 sum shall be added to the cost at which we can lay 7 down the products 
 of our industries. I mean S500,000 more in clerk hire. This was 
 estimated at a million, I have divided it by 7 two. Nor does it seem 
 to me that the question is whether the manufacturer shall borrow 
 money twenty* day s earlier in order to pay these operatives their- 
 wages. The question is whether, for the first time in the history of 
 the State, you are to indulge in class legislation. 
 
 And this is just as distinctively* class legislation, as if you should 
 provide that the manufacturers should not make such bargains as 
 they choose with their operatives, but should be compelled by* legis¬ 
 lative enactment to pay them only at the end of three months. That 
 proposition is just the complement of the one which is now before 
 you. It would be just as improper and just as wrong. It would 
 be a protection, however, it is said to the manufacturers ; it would be 
 a protection, to corporations, and, therefore, its impropriety would 
 he at once noticed. It would be at once denounced as legislation in 
 
29 
 
 favor of corporations. But, gentlemen, its effects would not be 
 nearly so bad, as the effect of legislation which is distinctively in 
 favor of a certain class of persons. Because in the one case the 
 corporation, in favor of which you would legislate, is a corporation 
 and it is not likely to be degraded. But in the other case, these 
 men, for a small number of whom you are asked to legislate in this 
 way, would be degraded. They would be insulted, for they would 
 be told that the}' were under guardianship, and that their guardian 
 is the State ; that they are not capable of taking their own affairs 
 ,in hand and managing them, and that they were going to protect 
 them. Protect them from what? Protect them from their indi¬ 
 gence, protect them from their want of frugality, protect them from 
 their dissipation, if you please. That is what the}' are to be told. 
 
 If it is worth while to have these men in these manufacturing cor¬ 
 porations within our borders—and we have encouraged them to come 
 here by throwing open every poli'ical advantage to them—if it is 
 worth while to have them at all, it is worth while to have them 
 good citizens and independent citizens. It is worth while to have 
 them citizens from whom you can breed a good population ; and the 
 most healthy populations in the future will be bred from people who 
 are free, and who are independent, and who have never had it said 
 to them, “ You are paupers, you are the wards of the State, you 
 are people for whom we have to have a care, for whom despotic gov¬ 
 ernments exercise “parental legislation.” 
 
 Mr. Chairman, it is said that they want it. Is that any reason 
 they should have it unless it is for the good of the whole people. I 
 wish, if I can, to treat that matter fairly. I think myself that most 
 of them are very apathetic about it. There are 135,000 people work¬ 
 ing in the seven trades, of which Mr Robbins spoke, earning on an 
 average $11.99, I think it was, a week, just about $2 a day. Of 
 that great body of men, occupied in the seven trades, the iron work¬ 
 ers, the metal workers, furniture makers, dealers in metals, wooden 
 wares, leather—not one of those persons comes here, nor any rep¬ 
 resentative of those persons, and asks you for this legislation. No 
 one comes here and asks you for this legislation, except certain 
 hired advocates of labor unions, who ask you for this legislation, not 
 because the people among whom they dwell want it, for they tell you 
 that they already have it, but as a matter of agitation. All their 
 witnesses, almost every witness that they had, are already in 
 the receipt of weekly payments. Many of the people who have 
 been here have come from Lynn. I say they are a highly paid 
 and also an intelligent part of our laboring population; but a 
 part which has not that steady labor which is afforded in the cotton 
 and woolen mills. There was one man who came here from Stone- 
 ham who was not paid weekly, although he was in a shoe factory ; 
 and when I asked him what was the character of the factory in which 
 
30 
 
 he was employed, he said it was a co-operative factory and that the 
 workmen owned the factor}'. When I asked him how often they were 
 paid, he said that they were paid once a month. That, it seems to 
 me, is a very strong argument, in the first place, that the question 
 of weekly or monthty payments is a mere question of convenience, 
 which is to be settled between the manufacturer and the emploj’e ; 
 and, in the second place, that this story about the operatives really 
 wanting the rnone } 7 week by week in order to make their purchases, 
 is one which has been very much exaggerated. 
 
 The people in whose favor this legislation is asked, I think you 
 will agree with me, are chiefl}' people who are said to be low wage 
 earners, people who are engaged in the cotton and woolen factories 
 of Lowell and Lawrence and Fall River, and other places where 
 those industries have grown up. It has been said, and in passing I 
 wish to remark upon it, that these corporations pay very low wages 
 on an average. I think that has been explained to 3*011 in testimony, 
 which was very well put. Of course, there must be some people 
 earning the smallest wages in any Commonwealth. In any com¬ 
 munity there always will be a certain class who are the earners of 
 the lowest wages. It is also true that those people will earn the low¬ 
 est wages who are capable of doing only the simplest work; and 
 that the perfection of machinery, in cotton mills particularly, and 
 the facility^ with which the workman’s part is learned, enable peo¬ 
 ple to go into those mills, with much less experience and with much 
 less strength, than into other employments. In considering all 
 labor questions, }*ou will always have to deal with a class of peo¬ 
 ple who are the earners of the lowest wages; and perhaps, it is with 
 that class that you are now going to deal. 
 
 I will also say that it had been shown here that those people who 
 are receiving these low wages, many of them, are the wives and 
 daughters of skilled mechanics. The children of others, (foreign¬ 
 ers,) as soon as their ability has the additional push of education, 
 go into the higher arts, go into the more skilled industries, iron 
 working, making watches, etc. Those large classes are not the 
 classes for whom 3*011 are asked to legislate for. 
 
 And how very small, compared with all the working men in Mas¬ 
 sachusetts are the numb ers who are engaged in these cotton factor- 
 ries. Why, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, out of the 261,000 op¬ 
 eratives, according to the late census there are onh T 78,000 en¬ 
 gaged in both cotton and woolen factories. And it has been al- 
 read}* shown to }*ou, that out of the 1400 sets of cards,—for that is 
 the measure of a woolen mill—which were running according to that 
 census in the State,—perhaps there has been a slight decline now, 
 for manufactures are at a low ebb, and the amount of invested capi¬ 
 tal in manufactures has fallen otf within the last }*ear or two, owing 
 to the depressed times,—nearly one-half, upwards of 700 of all the 
 
31 
 
 cards, almost a half, of all the woolen mills are run by private 
 hands, whom you do not attempt to reach. You are only asked, 
 really, to legislate in favor of certain operatives who are engaged in 
 cotton or woolen mills, and not in all the cotton or woolen mills, but 
 onlv in those which are run by corporations. 
 
 There has been no petition presented to you this } ear from any 
 cotton or woolen mill. There has been no operative, I think, from 
 any cotton mill who has chosen to come here to address you. 
 Haven’t they time for it? Aren’t these people out on strikes from 
 various depressed cotton factories in this State? Aren’t the people 
 who were employed in Mr. Lyman’s carpet factoiy, and to whom he 
 conceded fortnightly payments, out on a strike? Couldn’t they come 
 here, if they could tell you anything that would help you, and show 
 you there is a. great advantage in these weekly or fortnightly pay¬ 
 ments? Aren’t hundreds and thousands of looms stopped at Fall 
 River? Aren’t mills stopped at Lowell, and haven’t the operatives 
 time to come here ? But not one of them choose to come. They 
 are apathetic about it; the}’ don’t care about it. 
 
 Mr. Anderson told you truly, when he said he believed that the 
 most intelligent, certainly, and he thought the vast majority of the 
 operatives of the Pacific mills would prefer to have it as it is. And 
 I shall show you why the} r prefer to have it as it is The reason is 
 obvious. A great many of them are girls, for whom you are legis¬ 
 lating as well as for men. They are peculiarly under your protect¬ 
 ion. They are a class which in most communities do not earn their 
 living in productive industries, but in household employments ; and 
 when they earn, as these girls have done at Lowell for the last lift}' 
 years, large wages every week, and pile up money in the savings 
 banks of this State, I say they appeal to you that their voice should 
 be heard here, and that the evidence which came from some of them 
 with regard to the facility of saving from monthly earnings rather 
 than from weekly, ought to have an effect with you. Because it is 
 very easy to see how r this is, for it applies, I think, to you, Mr. 
 Chairman, as well as to us all. If I have money in my pocket and 
 I want anything, I buy it. If I have my money at the end of a 
 quarter, and I can save a hundred dollars with which to pay for life 
 insurance, I save it, or I put it into the savings bank. A girl saves, 
 for instance, four dollars a month in Lowell. If she is paid weekly, 
 she has a dollar in her pocket; it burns there ; she treats her friends, 
 she buys candy, she buys ribbons. This is generous, but she does 
 not save; and it is frugality and saving which make a State great. 
 It is the small savings of that frugal people, ihe French, which has 
 increased their credit since the immense debt of the German war. 
 And it is just as true of you and me as it is of these girls. I am 
 not now speaking of the intemperate class. I am not now speaking 
 of those who, in the good old-fashioned English fashion, are paid oif 
 
once a week, and go off and misspend a day, not only injuring their 
 health, but their power of earning 1 am not speaking of them, but 
 I am speaking of the really* industrious, who will not save from a 
 small sum as they will from a large sum. And I think to that, Mr. 
 Chairman, as to no other circumstance, is to be attributed the differ¬ 
 ence in any savings banks deposits between Lynn and Lowell. 
 
 But it is said that in former years petitions came down here from 
 Lowell, and that those petitions of former years are before y*our 
 committee. 1 almost think that when a public measure is demanded, 
 it ought to be so public, the demand ought to be so public, that every 
 legislator hears it. When reform was wanted in England, great 
 mass meetings of thousands were held. When reform is wanted in 
 Ireland, 30,000 people gather on a heath and cry for it. When a 
 real reform is needed, it makes itself known very quickly to the leg¬ 
 islators, and our legislators are very quick to hear it. 
 
 It is said there have been petitions sent here in former 3 'ears. 
 There was a long petition from Lowell, and if you ever care to in¬ 
 spect it, you will find that it was examined with some care, and it 
 was found that the places in which these petitions were left in Lowell 
 for signatures, were in rum shops. You will find that many of the 
 signatures appeared upon examination to be the signatures of those 
 who drink, and not of those w T ho work ; and although it pretended 
 to be the cry of labor, it was really the cry* of the tramp. You might 
 have heard the voice of Jacob, but the hand was the hairy hand of 
 Esau. I d > not mean to say* that under our laws intemperance is a 
 crying evil. It has been considered so by* many*, and by prohibitory 
 measures, or by strict license laws, I think that we need regulation. 
 But I do not see that intemperance is a crying evil in this State, as 
 compared with older countries, or with other States. But I think it 
 is also true, and it is no use for any manufacturer to wink it out of 
 sight, and there will be a percentage of operatives who, just as soon 
 as the 3 T get their pay* will go, with what is not absolutely* necessary 
 to pay for their weekly board, to the rum shops; and the oftener 
 they get their pay, the oftener they will go. And what is mote, a 
 weekly habit is much more easily established or encouraged than one 
 which is indulged in only’ monthly’. And as y’ou are only asked here, 
 not to legislate in favor of a great class and for frugal people, but 
 for people who are on the borders of pauperism, who are talked 
 about as if they’ were naked, not able to get trusted for a week, you 
 are to consider in what proportions in that class will be found those 
 who will misspend their money in drunkenness once a week, if you 
 give it them, instead of once a month as they’ do when they* have 
 their money then ; and whether those people will not be strength¬ 
 ened in their good resolutions by a longer delay in payment; and 
 whether they will be likely* to get any more drunk once a month than 
 if they got drunk every week, and whether they will be likely 
 
33 
 
 to lose more oat of their time upon a monthly drunk than upon one 
 occuring weekly. As I have said before, this legislation is very par* 
 tial. I think you are reaching, or trying to reach, very few 
 people, and that this is not a subject which demands legislation. 
 And that the legislation on which you are asked to embark is very 
 dangerous. It is just as much class legislation as if you were asked 
 to say that no operative should have his pay until three months after 
 he has rendered his service ; and that is my chief objection to it. 
 
 Let us see a little further whether it is class legislation. In the 
 first place there are only 101,000 operatives employed by 7 corpora¬ 
 tions in this State. There are 160,000 employed bv private persons, 
 but you are not asked to interfere with them at all. What are you 
 saying to these corporations? You are saying “You shall not make 
 such a contract as you wish.” You are saying, also, to the opera¬ 
 tives who wish to work for these corporations, “You shall 
 not make such a contract as you wish.” You say to the 101,000 
 people who are employed by these corporations, “You are not com¬ 
 petent to make a contract, and you shall not make any but a weekly 
 contract or a fortnightly 7 contract.” Does that not look like class 
 legislation? Is it not saying to a certain class of those operatives 
 who are now employed by r corporations, and who, as a class, cannot 
 be employed anywhere else, perhaps,—I mean the cotton spinners, 
 —is it not saying to them “You shall not make your own contracts 
 as you wish, but you shall abide by the iron rule of the Leg¬ 
 islature.” Is not that class legislation? What else do you say ? 
 You say 7 to all the private persons, that is, to yourselves and to all 
 the manufacturers who are manufacturing as individuals, “You may 7 
 make such contracts with y'our help as you choose. That will regu¬ 
 late itself; but these corporations shall not make such contracts as 
 they 7 please.” The advocates of this measure say, themselves, that 
 that is unequal. They say it is unfair, and acknowledge that if they 7 
 get this it is merely an entering wedge. They say that in another 
 year they' will ask to have this applied to everybody 7 ; so that we 
 know what is coming. That is, they cannot get you to do this good 
 thing now, if it is a good thing, but they will get it started in this 
 way 7 , and afterwards apply it to the whole community. It is most 
 distinctively class legislation. 
 
 You say another thing. You say 7 to the private manufacturer, 
 “You can deal with your workmen untrammelled by this additional 
 expense, and the additional expense of interest.” And I do not 
 wish to leave out of view the fact that if the manufacturer has to 
 pay ten or twenty days earlier, he will have to pay so much more 
 interest; and if he does not have to pay until twenty days later, he 
 will gain so much in his interest account. Of course he will. Every¬ 
 body knows that. He does not have to get the note with which he 
 is to pay his help discounted so soon. Is there any reason why you 
 
34 
 
 should encourage private capital rather than corporations ? I mean 
 in regard to the contracts which they shall make. Are corporations 
 capable of running their affairs as economically- as private manufact¬ 
 urers? We know perfectly well they are not. As one of the wit¬ 
 nesses, Mr. Dalton said corporations were running lavishly. It can¬ 
 not be helped. They are directed by a Board of Directors, and one- 
 man power can manage private affairs, or can manage manufacturing, 
 better than a corporation. So you are giving to people who are pri¬ 
 vate manufacturers an advantage over the corporations. 
 
 Why? These private manufacturers are almost all of them per¬ 
 sons of substance. As a whole, these private manufacturers repre¬ 
 sent the wealth of this State. They are far richer and far greater 
 employ-ers of labor than corporations are. But what are you doing, 
 when y-ou sa 3 T to a corporation, 4 ‘You shall deal with y-our empk> 3 T ees 
 under oppressive regulations ?” You say to every stockholder in 
 that corporation, “You shall not be allowed to aggregate your money 
 with that of other people who have small sums, and deal with those 
 whom you employ, upon an equality-, in y-our competition with the 
 private manufacturer.” Do y 7 ou not sa 3 T exactly that? And who 
 are these people who hold stock in the corporations ? It is true that 
 the corporations at Lowell were started years ago by rich men, who 
 took their mone 3 T 011 1 °f commerce and established on that wonder¬ 
 ful water power these mills, which have changed the Merrimack 
 River into a Pactolus bearing down streams of gold. But of late 
 years other investments have attracted their capital, and the opera¬ 
 tives, who have laid up money by the millions, from working in these 
 mills, have themselves invested in the stock ; so that 300 shares in 
 the Merrimack company- are owned by- single persons, and the num¬ 
 ber of shareholders who hold two shares or three shares, are given. 
 So 3 'ou are legislating in this competition directly against a class of 
 small holders, many" of them the operatives themselves, the most 
 frugal and deserving people in your State, who have laid up their 
 money- and invested it in this way. And, forsooth, because they 
 haven’t enough to become private manufacturers themselves, y-ou are 
 to say T , what has never been said in this State before, “You shall 
 not continue in a corporation for the purpose of putting in your little 
 earnings and compete on an equality with the great private manu¬ 
 facturers.” It is monstrous. You never could justify that to 
 your constituents. You never could justify it to yourselves. I have 
 never seen a piece of legislation which, philosophically 7 considered, 
 was so hard upon the middle and saving class, whom you have al¬ 
 ways encouraged, simply 7 because they- were small holders and per¬ 
 sons deserving of your encouragement. 
 
 What have you done with regard to these very mills for the pur¬ 
 pose of bringing together capital? At one time, so anxious were 
 you to get people in this State to put their money into these mills, 
 
35 
 
 that in 1818 you exempted them from taxation for ten years. So 
 anxious were you to get farmers to breed sheep, that in 1818 y T ou 
 exempted them from taxation, in order to start these woolen mills. 
 It was all necessary', it was all proper. We have a sterile soil here 
 and a harsh climate, and are competing at the greatest disadvanta¬ 
 ges. One of the witnesses, in answer to what seemed to me a most 
 pertinent question from one member of the committee, “Hasn’t 
 Massachusetts increased down to the present time in its competition 
 with other States?” told you “That is true ; and wiry? Because we 
 had this great river here, these dams built; we have utilized our 
 water power, we have used it all, now we are turning to steam.” 
 It is perfectly well known, because of late 3 r ears Fall River without 
 any water power, has grown up and is a steam cotton manufactur¬ 
 ing place, able to compete perfectly well with the older established 
 places like Lowell and Lawrence. And wiry? Because, although 
 the water with which they supplement steam at Lowell, makes the 
 power there a little cheaper, coal upon the sea board is consider¬ 
 ably' cheaper and, therefore, Fall River is able to manufacture by' 
 steam. And we have now no disadvantages for cotton or woolen 
 manufacturing in this State. We are working side by* side in com¬ 
 petition with Connecticut, with Maine, with Rhode Island, with New 
 Hampshire, all filled with as nicely' adjusted machinery 1, as we have, 
 and, I think, drawing from ns some of our very’ best workmen, because 
 they' are allowed to work more hours. It may not be good for them, 
 but, because they' are ambitious and because they' can earn more 
 money', they go from us. 
 
 Suppose you should pass a law that said every inhabitant of one 
 particular town should pay to the members of this committee ten 
 cents a day. You would think that was a peculiar law. it would 
 not stand, probably; it would be unequal taxation, it would 
 be a violation of equality, before the law, just as this proposed law 
 would be, only' in the former case it is put in a more obvious way'. 
 You are saying, now, to certain people whom you have encouraged 
 to invest their savings, in Lowell and in Lawrence and in Fall River, 
 that they shall pay' to a certain class of persons, viz, their opera¬ 
 tives, ten cents more a month than they do now. That is what the 
 advocates of labor mean to say', and ask y T ou to say'. They think 
 that this is what they will get, — not the true friends of labor, Mr. 
 Chairman, not the true friends of labor ! There are true friends of 
 labor, and there are probably men working in this cause who mean 
 to be true friends of labor ; but in order to be a true friend of labor, 
 you also have need to be an intelligent friend of labor. Because 
 labor and capital are working together with nicely adjusted machin¬ 
 ery, and every foreign substance, every piece of hostile legislation, 
 every improper interference with their relation, is like dropping a 
 piece of dirt into the mechanism of a watch. It is like a drop of 
 blood on the brain,—it means paralysis. 
 
36 
 
 I think I can show in a very few minutes, if you will still have 
 patience with me, that this is not for the benefit of the laborer ; but 
 it is the worst kind of interference that has ever been asked for him. 
 And it is very easy to see why i£.is not for his benefit. One part of 
 it is just as broad as it is long ; the other part of it is positively in¬ 
 jurious to him. I am not going to argue to men who know about the 
 details of manufacture as well as I do, that if a man pays his laborers 
 at the end of a month, instead of at the end of every week, he saves 
 a certain amount of interest by it What I mean !;o say is, if he 
 pays it earlier, he is obliged to borrow the money earlier, and his 
 interest account is a little larger. The question whether that is de¬ 
 frauding anybody has been disposed of by the vigorous language of 
 Mr. Draper, a good deal better than I could do it myself, when he 
 said “ Do you think Mr. Harris defrauded me, when he agreed with 
 me as an operative, that I should work for him a year, and should 
 be paid at the end of the year?” Of course no man is defrauded 
 who enters into such a contract; and if the laborer or the operative 
 understands that he is to be paid at the end of the month, it is no 
 fraud to pa}’ him then. If he understands that he is to be paid at 
 the end of the week, and his money is kept back longer than that, 
 you can call it fraud, if you wish ; I call it dishonest. It is not ex¬ 
 actly a fraud in the eye of the law, but it is not right, it is unjust; 
 because the laborer is worthy of his hire, and he ought to have it 
 just when he has stipulated for it, and he ought to have just what 
 the employer stipulates to pay him. All those people who went 
 into the vineyard, one of whom worked one hour, and another two 
 hours, and so on, were paid at night. They were not paid every 
 hour. And the man who had worked an hour there, got just as 
 much as the man who had wrought and borne the burden and heat 
 of the day. Yet the laborers were not satisfied. But no man was 
 defrauded, because it was understood that they were each to receive 
 a penny for his labor. 
 
 But is it possible that anybody can argue to a body of sensible 
 men, that if a workman is paid earlier instead of later, he will not 
 in the long run get a little less wages? Of course he will. You run 
 two mills side by side, one of which attempts to pay the same wages 
 that the other does, one getting a month’s credit, and the otner pay¬ 
 ing every night. There comes a time when down, down comes the 
 margin of profits, and finally there has to be a cut in wages. Which 
 one makes it first? It is of course the one which is paying the most 
 wages. This is just as broad as it is long. The workingman will 
 not save anything in interest, he will not gain anything in interest. 
 
 And that illustrates the case before you. I agree that if you ask 
 many laborers, many thoughtless men among the operatives, whether 
 they had rather be paid at the end of the week than at the end of 
 the month, they will say they had rather have their pay at the end of 
 
37 
 
 the week; but if you ask such a person, ,4 Do you understand that 
 in the long run you will get a little less, a few cents less, by taking 
 it earlier, because that is the law of trade, do you want it earlier?” 
 he will say, “Why, no. I pay all my bills once a month, and if I 
 am going to suffer any deduction on m 3 ’ pay I don’t want it any 
 earlier.” And that illustrates what these people who deal with the 
 laboring classes don’t tell them. The}’ tell them only one side. They 
 don’t explain to thoughtless people both sides of the question. But 
 the}’ cannot pass any laws to permanently benefit the laboring class¬ 
 es, which violate the laws of trade. You cannot make water run up 
 hill. But your legislation, if improper, may affect the prosperity of 
 the State. It may drive enterprise into investment elsewhere. It 
 may make Massachusetts unable to keep her place in the race of 
 competition. 
 
 And I may say here,—although I don’t want to speak of the pres¬ 
 ent condition of things, particularly, as affecting a great question,— 
 that of all times, this particular time, when so many manufacturers 
 are having to stop, and when things are at their very lowest ebb, as 
 is shown t»y investments and as is shown by prices in evidence here, 
 is a very poor time for the advocates of labor to make this move¬ 
 ment. 
 
 As to the matter of clerk hire, it is very difficult to get at the 
 amount of the additional cost cast upon the mills by more frequent 
 payments. Jt is going to be a great deal of bother, and in the long 
 run it is going to add very much to the expense of manufacture. 
 It has been said that perhaps there are a thousand corporations in 
 this State the additional cost to which would average a thousand 
 dollars. There have been two or three witnesses before you who 
 estimated at several thousand dollars the cost to them of the extra 
 clerk hire which will be required to make the weekly payments. I 
 cannot see any possible way in which that additional clerk hire will 
 not add to the cost of laying down the goods in the markets of the 
 world. At present and in the future we must compete with other 
 States in the price at which we can furnish our goods. Just north 
 of us, in New Hampshire, for instance, to show how closely and 
 how wonderfully trade and manufactures regulate themselves, is an¬ 
 other town, a great manufacturing rival on the same river, having 
 the same power, and, probably, having machinery which is quite as 
 new and quite as expensive as that at Lowell. What happens? 
 They work 64| hours a week, to our 60. They work nearly five 
 hours more a week than we do. What is the result? It is found 
 that as 5 is 8 and a fraction per cent, of 60, they produce 8 and a 
 fraction per cent, more goods than we do from the same number of 
 spindles. They pay 8 per cent, more wages than we do, and there- 
 iore the best operative goes there—he goes there by preference, 
 away from us, and, what is more, the operatives came into the New 
 
38 
 
 Hampshire Legislature last year with great petitions, saying, “We 
 want to earn more, and we w r ant to have our hours uninterfered 
 withand it Shows that the capitalists here, of course, cannot get 
 from the same plant, from the same investment, as great a return 
 by 8 per cent., and, therefore, if there are profits to divide, he must 
 have 8 per cent, less than can be divided by the other factory. Not 
 to go to Pennsylvania, where coal can be got for half what ours 
 costs, and cotton much cheaper, to find illustrations of competition, 
 here is a city 14 miles north of us which is drawing away our people 
 and will draw our capital. 
 
 I was somewhat struck ; it hasn’t much to do with this question, 
 but I was somewhat struck by T the testimony, given by certain oper¬ 
 atives, the other day in Connecticut, who went down there, where 
 they are allowed to work eleven hours, from Massachusetts, and they 
 said they preferred to work there rather than to stay here. Why? 
 Because they said that our hours were short, and our manufacturers 
 were obliged to run the machinery at such rates of speed that it was 
 killing them. That is the way they put it there. The Massachu¬ 
 setts manufacturers have got to do something, for 8 per cent, disad¬ 
 vantage is going to kill any business in this country in the next 
 twenty years. 
 
 Now I will return, Mr. Chairman, to where I was before. This 
 additional cost should not be imposed unless it is for the great and 
 lasting advantage and benefit of these working men. for it is some¬ 
 thing which is going to be paid for by them. I mean paid in part. 
 1 state the proportion for you. What does a manufactured product 
 consist of? It consists, in the first place, of the raw material which 
 is two-thirds the value of the product, and in the second place of 
 labor, and the return on capital which is one-third. The raw mate¬ 
 rial costs a fixed sum, that is the same everywhere, except the cost 
 of transportion. The other third covers the payment of the opera¬ 
 tive and the payment to the capitalist on his plant, or investment, 
 it goes to those two. You make the cost of laying down your cloth 
 in New York more by half a million dollars, or a million dollars for 
 additional clerk hire, that additional cost has got to fall somewhere. 
 Will it fall on the laborer? Mr. Carlton would tell you what the ad¬ 
 ditional cost will be taken out of the wages of the operative. But, 
 if it fall on these operatives, as it will tall on them in part, certain]}', 
 what will they do? They will either ask you to repeat it, if they see 
 it is for their interest, and to have it left to itself and regulate iiself; 
 or they will go to other fields where these regulations do not exist 
 and get more pay there. 
 
 If it falls on the manufacturer, wholly, what results, again? It 
 means that if he has to pay the additional cost, that such regula¬ 
 tions are constantly discouraging the further investment of capital 
 in this Commonwealth. It is not true that you can afford to say to 
 
39 
 
 corporate capital, “We have got } r ou here, and now we will squeeze 
 you.” That is not the wise way in which this Commonwealth has 
 been managed. Our polic}’ has been to legislate equally for all, and 
 not, because a class asks a peculiar privilege, to grant it ,to them, 
 especially if it is not going to do ai^ permanent good. But what 
 will be the result? The mills at Lowell could not move away; but 
 in the next 20 years, if Massachusetts is going to keep her present 
 position as a manufacturing community, she has got to have 240,000 
 new spindles put in action. Who is going to do it? Not that keen 
 Mr. Draper who was talking to you } T esterday. He is read}' to take 
 the alarm at once, and go over into Connecticut; and you will find 
 tiiat is so w r ith others. Suppose you do permanently discourage 
 capital? The operatives say: “We have got these factories here, 
 and we can squeeze them, and that additional cost of payment shall 
 come out of capital, come out of its interest.” Is that sound rea¬ 
 soning for them? I think not. It violates the general rule that 
 you cannot safely legislate for one industry or one class of people 
 at the expense of another. Such chickens, like curses, always come 
 home to-roost. A few of the operatives can say: “If wages fall 
 here, under this thing, we will go up to New Hampshire, or down 
 into Connecticut,” Yes, but what does that mean? It means that 
 the itinerant population, which has no ties, can go awa}’ and desert 
 a sinking ship. Does it mean that the people whom you have en¬ 
 couraged to build houses in Lowell, who have built up all over the 
 State, towns like Fall River, does it mean that their propert}’ can be 
 kept at its present prices? Can they go away from the homes that 
 you have encouraged them to establish here among you? No. The 
 onl} T class that reasons that way is simply the changing class that 
 comes into a factory town from Canada to sta\' for a lew months. 
 They don’t care, perhaps. Those who think about it, do. They 
 w r id look at it just as you will, I mean, fairly, in the management of 
 your own affairs ; they will see at the last that there is no more of a 
 cat than her shin, and that you cannot make it cost more to lay 
 down cotton cloth in New York, side by side with that which is 
 manufactured by your competitors, and not have the additional cost 
 fill upon the two parties who are producing it , I mean the capital¬ 
 ist and the laborer, probably in parts upon each. That part of it 
 is unnecessary restriction of trade, and not beneficial 'to the per¬ 
 sons for whom it is asked. The other part, the question of interest, 
 I look upon as just as broad as it is long. 
 
 I wish to say a word about cash. A cash system has never exist¬ 
 ed in any civilized nation, nor even among barbarians. There is no 
 nation so uncivilized as ever to have had it. so far as I know, no na¬ 
 tion where there has ever been so little faith, or credit, which is the 
 same tiling. Faith or trust in a promise, which is credit, has wafted 
 the sail of commerce to its final haven of success. The sailor waits 
 
40 
 
 till the encl of the voyage. The whaler waits for years before he 
 shares his la\ T . The agriculturist waits till the pay-day of harvest 
 repays the loan of seed time. Nature herself proceeds on credit, 
 and cannot*do otherwise; and so man, who is living in nature, goes 
 on credit. Credit is the nurse of civilization. 
 
 There has been a great deal of talk as though these wages were 
 reall 3 r owed to the workman, as though they were reall}" due before 
 the end of the month. If the workman really shared in these enter¬ 
 prises, out and out, with his employer, he would wait for months. 
 The employer lays out in his mill this expensive plant, which he does 
 not get returned to him for years. He buys a large stock of material 
 for cash, and he waits for it for months before it is cloth. He sells 
 it months before it is paid for, and waits till the agriculturists of the 
 West are able to pay for it from their crops. If the laborer waited 
 really, as it might be said he should do, if he were in the same boat 
 with his employer, he would wait for a much longer time than he 
 does now. But he cannot be in the same boat with his employer, 
 because he needs to be supported. He must live on the earnings of 
 his daily toil, and, it is perfectly proper that at convenient times his 
 employer should make the necessary payment, and the employer 
 gets back his interest on these advances in the final settlement. 
 
 But as to credit. Even interest is not paid when it is earned. 
 You are paid your interest semi-annually, but it is earned even 7 day 
 by the man who is living in the house on which he has given you a 
 mortgage ; he has had the enjoyment of it every moment, but he is 
 not called upon to pay it until the stated time. The system of credit 
 prevails in all civilized nations. Just as soon, indeed, as the savage 
 lends a wooden bowl of corn to his neighbor, to be returned when the 
 neighbor gets some of his own, he goes upon a credit system. 
 
 And the sj-stem which it is proposed to establish here is not a 
 cash system, any more than the one in use at present. If }’ou are 
 to establish a cash system, you would have to pay every night, or 
 every hour, or almost every minute. This is not a cash system. 
 
 The only person that I have heard of here, who is to be benefitted, 
 who demands this law as necessary, is the possible case of a man arriv¬ 
 ing from a foreign port, or from Canada, with just money enough to 
 land him and his traps—or no traps—at a Lowell boarding house. 
 It is supposed that that man must have payment weekly in order to 
 keep soul and body together while he works. Well, sir, even as to 
 him this would not afford relief. He would starve to death in two 
 or three days of the first week. No matter how short the term you 
 fix, the man who comes'to Lowell in that condition of nakedness has 
 got to proceed upon a credit system. And I am told, and I believe 
 you will bear me out in it, that if a man is known to have work in 
 any of these mills, if it is merely known that he has got work, he 
 can go to any storekeeper there and get a week’s credit, or a 
 month’s credit, and the dealer waits for him, and that, too, without 
 
41 
 
 an assignment. If he does not keep faith, then he is pursued by 
 the law, perhaps unwisely, on this trustee process. 
 
 1 tried to get this trustee process abolished or modified when I 
 was in the Legislature, but 1 found the very strongest feeling against 
 disturbing it. M 3 ’ opposition to it is not that the workman should 
 not have to pay his debt—that he ought to do ; but it is that the 
 trustee process is served over and over again, and that pettifogging 
 lawyers get costs in a way which should not he allowed. That is 
 what I think about it. But still, that could be easily amended bv 
 providing that second suits in trustee process, or scire facias , should 
 not carry costs ; and I think some such legislation as that might be 
 very wise, although I believe that wages are now exempted to a 
 ceitain extent. 
 
 But I do not wish to argue this question upon the ground that 
 these people who receive their wages and are willing to work are 
 cheats, at all.- They mostly pa}', and it is known that the}' pay, and 
 they can get trusted, and get trusted just as soon as it is known that 
 they are at work in a mill. And that will have to be so, even under 
 a. system of fortnightly payments or weekly payments, or anything 
 like that. There must be some time of credit. But how many 
 people come to Lowell under the circumstances which I have sup¬ 
 posed? Why, none at all. It is a fancy instance which is put be¬ 
 fore you to excite your imaginations. There is nothing in it. 
 
 But suppose that the operatives are paid every week? Suppose 
 that your income, coming in from property, was received by you 
 every week, would you proceed on a cash system ? I would not, 
 and I do not believe there is a member of this committee who would 
 or does. You don’t like it, you don’t want the bother of it; you 
 had rather wait until the end of the month, or the end of the quar¬ 
 ter, even, and pay your bills. Your common sense and experience 
 will tell you this, that these workmen, this most independent class, 
 as a class, who are putting money in the savings banks every month, 
 who have the large deposits which Lowell shows, although they have 
 money in their pockets all the time, or in the savings banks, which 
 they could equally well use, are going on a monthly credit system, 
 and not on cash. Does the tired operative coming home from his 
 work on Saturday night, with his money in his pocket, want, to be 
 taken by the hand and led out to buy this and to buy that, to buy a 
 half a ton of coal, or a half a barrel of flour, or what not? The 
 weekly payment is not enough to buy in the quantities which he 
 wants. It does not cover the units which it is necessary to buy, to 
 buy cheaply. It will not buy a ton of coal and a barrel of flour to¬ 
 gether, as a general thing; but his monthly wages will, and he gets 
 them cheaper than if he paid cash. Those people who buy in quan¬ 
 tities less than the unit, always suffer in prices. I really don’t be¬ 
 lieve the operatives could buy any cheaper for cash. I am told by 
 excellent judges of human nature, who deal with these people, that 
 
42 
 
 they had rather trust a man than have him pay cash, and they will 
 sell him quite as cheaply. They had rather have him come steadily 
 to their place, and establish a connection there, knowing he will 
 buy of them, than to be chaffering with him and getting cash for 
 every item. 
 
 I am reminded, Mr. Chairman, that it is not great margins, but 
 it is the very smallest advantages and the smallest margins, which, 
 in this competition with other States, are going to regulate our trade 
 hereafter. 
 
 There is one thing of which I made a note, on which some gen¬ 
 tlemen of the committee, by their questions, seemed to lay some 
 stress, and that is, whether or not more work was not obtained from 
 the operative by a S 3 x stem of weekly than a system of monthly pay¬ 
 ments. I am not at all sure that it is desirable to make them work 
 more. If the regulations of the ten hour law, which I think, on the 
 whole, rest on Very sound principles, are correct, it is not any more 
 proper to have these people worked at lightning speed, than to have 
 them overworked by too many hours of labor. But there is no more 
 cloth produced by the last week’s 1 labor than by the first week. 
 These looms run obedient to a law which the operative does not 
 control. They are speeded by steam, by machinery. It is all reg¬ 
 ulated below. The operative cannot hurry them as she can the 
 treadle of a sewing machine. The same number of yards of 3 am 
 passes over the loom whether she is in a hurry or not. It is true 
 that when a thread breaks she ties it up, and the quicker she gets 
 that done, the sooner her loom will go on, and undoubtedly if there 
 is a cut mark in sight, when she is near the end of her work on Sat¬ 
 urday, she will be a little more attentive to her loom. But they 
 cannot exert themselves, practically, any more one week than they 
 can the other. 
 
 I don’t know that there is anything to be said further, except 
 this, that there was at first a little effort to make out that the rail¬ 
 roads should not come under these same provisions. I think you 
 will agree with me, gentlemen, that the law is equally applicable to 
 all corporations, if it should be applied to ati 3 T . Railroad corpora¬ 
 tions, it is to be observed, are not subject to any out of the State 
 competition; and however you treat them, however you tax them, 
 they will turn about and put it upon the people who are obliged to 
 travel in this State over their lines. So, if you think that they had 
 better pay once a week, 3 r ou can make them do so without any se¬ 
 rious interference with their property. But I think the law should 
 be treated upon high grounds: as class legislation, dangerous legis¬ 
 lation, not justified 1 > 3 T our experience in the past. It should be 
 treated as the improper interference with a class to whom it does 
 not do any good, but whose feelings it tends to degrade. I ajn very 
 much obliged to you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, for the atten¬ 
 tion which you have given me. 
 

f'A. •"