Q. I don't know of every case you have? A. I am going to read you the letter:

May 15, 1914.

Messrs. Schiff Bros. & Lerner, who are now located at 296 Stanton street on the fifth floor, had their shop fixed up last month in best condition. They threw their engine out and installed an electric plant instead to comply with the rules and regulations of the Labor Department. The gentlemen spent about $500 for this.

Now, they employ 28 people and the Labor Departments want them to employ 20 only which means a great deal to the poor men who are striving to make a living, and leaves them nothing to do but to leave the place entirely.

As a result of that they are now contemplating moving over to New Jersey.

Q. They are contemplating? A. Yes, sir.

ASSEMBLYMAN PHILLIPS: What does it cost to move to New

Jersey?

THE WITNESs: I don't know, sir.

Q. That is a factory in what is called a converted tenement? A. I don't know the building.

Q. Will you give me this list? A. I will with pleasure.*

Mr. PETER J. BRADY addressed the Commission.

By Mr. ELKUS:

Q. Mr. Brady will you be kind enough to give your name and address? A. Peter J. Brady, 924 Pulitzer Building, New York

Q. And with what association or organization are you connected? A. I am secretary of the Allied Printing Trades Council, composed of twenty-one labor unions, all of the printing industry, in the City of New York.

Q. How many members have you in your associations? A. We have around 22,000 members organized.

Q. And they work in the City of New York? A. All of them work in Greater New York.

* This list was not sent to the Commission. See page 468.

Q. Now have you considered this question or these questions which have been discussed by the Commission to-day? A. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have read the questions.

Q. Have you been here to-day? A. I have been here all day. Q. Have you listened to the discussion? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now we will be glad to have your views on this matter? A. I have listened to the discussion with interest, Mr. Chairman, and I not only came for the reason of hearing the discussion and answers to the Commission's questions, but I had also seen in the newspapers about the conflicting orders, the duplication of orders and the multiplicity of orders; that the State and city departments were giving this and it was driving manufacturers out of the City of New York, and possibly out of the State, where they would not be harassed and interfered with as much as the newspapers intimate and even as much as the statements in this morning's newspapers would lead us to believe. Now in appearing here this morning I came early for the explicit purpose of trying to find out if there were really conflicting orders being issued. So far I haven't heard any one bring anything forward any evidence to prove that any manufacturer has left the State on account of conflicting orders from the State and city departments. As counsel knows I was one of the people instrumental in creating this Commission, and have followed up the work of the Commission since it was created under Governor Dix's regime and have been instrumental and helped the Commission in every way I could to have new legislation placed upon the statute books, which would protect the workers as regard fire hazards and health and sanitary conditions in every way. As I understand the statements made by a great many of the representatives of real estate interests it has been that it would be impossible to comply with all the orders which have been issued, and I am pretty sure that the orders issued generally applied to the old buildings, either buildings which had been used for dwelling purposes or buildings which had been used for tenement houses and possibly buildings which had been used a great many years ago for manufacturing purposes, and the result of that has been that these real estate people at the present time claim, and emphatically state, that on account of these restrictions which have been placed upon them by the various departments, that they are unable to rent their

buildings on account of the restrictions that are placed upon the various manufacturers. Now I am inclined to seriously disagree with them. I am of the opinion that the modern buildings and modern builders have been penalized on account of the city and State departments not enforcing the statutes which have been on the books for a good many years and this agitation and this protest among the real estate interests have been caused more or less by the various departments really getting on to their jobs. I am not even willing to agree that it is the heads of the departments themselves or city and State administrations. I am inclined to believe it is the labor unions who have been prodding and pushing and waking up the departments to their responsibilities and insistance upon the enforcement of the laws which the labor unions succeeded in placing on the statute books. They say these buildings cannot be rented at the present time. I believe if an inspection is made of the modern loft buildings further up town they can find possibly a corresponding amount of "to-let" signs on these buildings which comply with every one of the laws, and my impression of that is that there is possibly an overbuilding of the city to a certain extent, and I am going to call upon the Commission now and request for our unions that every person who has appeared before this Commission and made a statement about manufacturers leaving this city or State on account of enforcement of the laws, that they be compelled to furnish to the Commission this information, including the borough president who was here this morning and said there are fifteen manufacturers he knew of who contemplated leaving on account of the enforcement of the laws, I am going to ask further that instead of being given confidentially to the Commission that these names should be made public and made accessible to the public. I myself would like to find out who those manufacturers are and just what kind of manufacturing they represent, just what particular industries. I seriously disagree with the witness who was on the stand a moment before me saying particularly the clothing industry have left the city and gone to other places up the State and have left the State. I am pretty positive from what I know of the situation that there is isn't any greater percentage of clothing being manufactured in

the cities of the State. He mentioned Rochester and Buffalo. Rochester has always been a clothing center and so has Buffalo to a great extent. I am not inclined to agree with any of the real estate people who say that. So far I have not seen manufacturers, I have not seen anybody representing manufacturers, outside of Mr. Cohen, and I am very anxious to have some of those manufacturers come forward and present to the Commission their reasons for leaving the State or leaving the city and going elsewhere, and it is logical to assume, and I think they are business men enough and broad-mined enough to know there is nothing in the world to prevent similar laws from being added to the statutes of other States. That has been the trend all along. New York State has set the pace in the enactment of labor legislation, no doubt on pressure brought by the labor unions, and the agitation started by the labor unions, but the same agitation is continuously going on in other States and I am anxious to get this information, because if we find the manufacturers in this State are leaving here on account of these laws we will take up with the labor unions in the other States the question of having similar legislation enacted there, so that there will be no relief to those manufacturers who are leaving here for the purpose of evading the laws and squeezing down the workers as much as they can. I do not mind telling you that our people work together on the question of legislation. We intend to do it and shall continue to do it. We go from one State to the other and we are anxious to have similar conditions prevail in every State, no matter where our members are employed.

By Commissioner GOMPERS:

Q. I know that you are well acquainted with conditions prevailing in industry outside of the printing trades, but perhaps more familiar with those in the printing trades; do you know of any great printing plant which has left the city of New York for the purpose of avoiding the labor laws of the State? A. I positively do not. I may say I am thoroughly acquainted with the five branches of the printing industry; possibly as familiar with it as any person in the city of New York or any person may be in the country, and I do not know of any one branch of the printing industry where they have left this State for the purpose of

evading the laws, and I do not know of any who have removed from the State for any reason whatever.

Commissioner GOMPERS (Acting Chairman): The Chairman would suggest that it might be well to call before the Commission either publicly or otherwise the representatives of the garment workers, tailoring trade, and the ladies' garment workers so that they may be able to give some testimony upon this general subject this specific subject as to the removal out of the State of employers, manufacturers, engaged in the garment industry, that is to evade or avoid the labor laws of the State of New York.

By Mr. ELKUS:

Q. You may continue Mr. Brady? A. Mr. Chairman, I have just another thought I want to give to the Commission. It is a request I am going to make of the Commission before I leave here, and that is to try and find out by investigation from those trades which have been particularly benefited by the enforcement of labor laws during the past few years, the results that they have had upon the workers themselves, who have been given better sanitary conditions and more helpful surroundings, to find out whether they produce more than what they have been producing in the old ramshackle buildings we have around us when they get into a more desirable loft building where they have better ventilation and sanitation.

Q. You mean it is a paying proposition? A. I do and I am very positive the Commission can prove that, not only to the manufacturers but to the satisfaction of the real estate owners also.

Mr. GUSTAVE G. LAUREYNS addressed the Commission: By Mr. ELKUS:

Q. Mr. Laureyns, will you state whom you appear for and give your address? A. I appear for Marc Eidlitz & Son, builders, unmber 30 East 42d street, and represent them and their various clients.

Q. Now Mr. Laureyns, we would be glad to hear you upon these questions under discussion? A. Now, Mr. Chairman, I have listened to what has been said here and it seems to me that you have missed at least one of the sources of criticism about the