The definition (given in May's treaties) of a select committee as applicable to both Houses of Parliament is as follows:

A select committee is composed of certain members appointed by the House to consider or inquire into any matters, and to report their opinions, for the information of the House. Like a committee of the whole House, a select committee are restrained from considering matters not specially referred to them by the House.

In the House of Lords there are no special rules in regard to the appointment and constitution of select committees. The House resolve that a select committee be appointed; after which, it is ordered that certain lords then nominated shall be appointed a committee to inquire into the matters referred, and to report to the House.

Although in the beginning, as before stated, the Senate adopted the practice of the British Parliament in appointing select committees on all subjects requiring reference and examination, it was found by experience that impartiality, economy of time, and a just and proportionate regard to the political sentiments of the majority and minority of the House, for the time being, rendered it necessary and proper that standing committees should be appointed on each of the great or general interests of the country, in advance of any reference whatever, or at the commencement of each session of Congress, or of the Senate, to which, as a matter of course, any particular subject coming under any such general head should be referred; and that, on each of those standing committees, both sides of the House, in a just and equitable proportion, should be represented.

This fair and generous principle, so congenial to the general spirit and genius of our republican institutions, and the high character of the Senate of the United States, is now the settled practice of this honorable body, and has not in any instance been intentionally departed from.

All of which, agreeably to request, is most respectfully submitted to the Hon. Henry B. Anthony, Senator of the United States from the State of Rhode Island, by his obedient servant,

W. HICKEY,

Chief Clerk Senate United States.

O

S D-62-3-vol 25-54

3d Session

THE EIGHT-HOUR DAY

VARIOUS ARTICLES, ARGUMENTS, AND

BILLS RELATING TO THE
EIGHT-HOUR LAW

PRESENTED BY MR. MARTINE

FEBRUARY 28, 1913.-Ordered to be printed

WASHINGTON

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

THE EIGHT-HOUR DAY.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

John Ray. Eight Hours for Work.

Massachusetts Labor Bulletin No. 29. January, 1904. The Eight-Hour Day. United States Department of Labor Bulletin of the Bureau of Labor. Volume XI. 1905. Eight-Hour Law on Panama Canal.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. New York Bulletin. 1906. Printers' Eight-Hour Strike. Bureau of Statistics of New Jersey. The Eight-Hour Movement.

Arguments in Favor of Eight-Hour Bill. James Duncan. American Federationist. Volume XI.

Letter on the Eight-Hour Bill. Daniel J. Keefe. American Federationist. Volume XI.

Eight-Hour Bill Considered. James Duncan, James O'Connell, Samuel Gompers. American Federationist. Volume XI.

Final Report of the Industrial Commission. 1902. Volume XIX. Hours of Labor. Bernhard, Ernst. Höhere Arbeitsintensitaet bei Kuerzerer Arbeitszeit. (Translated.) J. Webb and H. Cox. The Eight-Hour Day.

G. W. Eustace. Journal of the Royal Sanitary Institute.

The Eight-Hour Workday. By Samuel Gompers.

Eight-Hour Movement. By George Gunton.

The Eight-Hour Day. By A. F. Hills. The Times, July 15, 1897.

Fact, Theory, and Argument. By George E. McNeill.

Hours of Labor. George E. McNeill.

An Appeal for Eight Hours. By J. Henry White.

The Meaning of the Eight-Hour Movement. By Ira Steward.

Bill to regulate the Hours of Labor. Speech of Hon. E. C. Baker, in the senate of Massachusetts.

The Eight-Hour Movement. By Judge John P. Altgeld.

An Argument for an Eight-Hour Law. By Walter S. Logan.

For Day Work and Eight Hours. By Joseph Smith.

The Eight-Hour Day on Government Work. By Samuel Gompers. American Federationist. December, 1910.

The problem of the effect of the 8-hour day upon the output in production is one singularly satisfactory to the investigator or rather compiler of investigations. There is no pretense at humanitarian motives as the objective points in view anywhere. If the humanitarian point of view is brought up at all, it is to prove an improved condition of the people as a further asset in more efficient productivity. The investigations are absolutely clear cut. The question is, Can the 8-hour workday be brought into apposition with the present standard of efficiency in production? If so, decision in its favor, if not we have no problem. The compiler of investigations of this problem in this form is not expected to take account of the psychological or sociological aspect of the question except in relation to productive efficiency, and only as such is this phase of the question met with in the records. While this attitude is greatly to be regretted, it can not be denied that the absolutely dispassionate treatment of the subject makes the result of this particular investigation very much less liable to be gainsaid.