ought not to be given the work. They are given the job not on account of merit or through a civil service examination, but simply because they are cousins, or something of that sort, of Some man with influence, or have done some political work for some political boss. Therefore it is a kind of a snap. But you have the same thing right in your telephone company and the West End Road — they have berths there for the friends of politicians and that sort of thing, which ought not to be. But that sort of thing will remedy itself when you extend public ownership. Q. Who do you think, Mr. Gallagher, is responsible for that sort of favoritism 2 A. Well, I consider the ones responsible for that are the corporations. They are back of it. They contribute largely to campaign funds, and of course they look to great favors from the men who are elected, and of course they must grant favors — that is, we will say, corporations like the West End Railroad, or similar corporations. But if we had a just form of government, where we would have civil service reform, or where men would get jobs on merit instead of through favoritism or instead of through some political boss, we would get honest work on city work. And, even with its shortcomings, it is much better than working for the private company, the private contractor, because the private contractor, no matter where you go, brings over as much of the cheap pauper labor of Europe as he possibly can. That has a tendency not to uplift a community, but to drag it down to a lower level, if possible. He does not act from patriotic motives, but for the benefit of his own private purse. Under public ownership citizens would get work, and by putting proper men in charge of affairs, instead of politicians, by putting in men qualified to do the work and who could run the thing as it ought to be run and could be run, you would get much better results. Q. You think these corporations and contractors are responsible for the greater expense, if there is a greater expense, of city work over the expense of work done by corporations and contractors? That is, if the city work is more expensive than the work done by corporations, you think that fact is due to the malignant influence of the corporations 2 A. Yes, I think they are back of that. I really do. Q. That is your position ? A. Of course, I am not going to say that all public work is cheaper than private work. I am not going on record as saying that There may be even cases where public work is more expensive than private work. But you will find that the citizens who work at that public work are better paid and are raised to a higher standard of civilization than the fellows who are working for and are at the mercy of a private contractor, who is exploiting them for all he is worth. Q. (By Alderman LINEHAN.) Mr. Gallagher, I understood you to say in reply to a question in relation to the Printing Plant, that the printing plant was discredited 2 A. Well, I say that that may be possible. Q. Now, I am going to ask you why you said it was discredited 2 A. Well, I said that it is for the interest of these corporations that see the handwriting upon the wall and that see the great change in the public mind towards public ownership — because they are farsighted and saw it coming long ago — it is possible that their influence, what they have got, may have been directed to trying to make the public Printing Plant a failure. Q. But, of course, you realize that the reports as to the standing of the plant are what really testify as to the efficiency of the plant? * A. That is, the quality of work? Q. No ; the financial standing. A. Yes. Q. The reports of the plant, the work done, the money expended, and so on 2 A. Yes. Q. Money received? A. Yes. Q. Number of men employed 2 A. Yes. is a success or a failure ? A. I should say so. Q. Have you ever examined the reports of the Printing Department? A. No, I never did. Q. Then you don’t know in reality as to whether or not it is discredited ? A. No, I don’t know about the Printing Plant, about that particular industry. There are many matters upon which I am not prepared to come here with figures, as I have said. # Q. Then what did you really mean when you said — A. Well, I said if it was possible that it was a failure, if it was a failure — Q. Just give me a chance to finish my question. A. Sure. Q. What did you really mean when you said that the Printing Plant was discredited 2 A. Well, if I said that it was discredited I didn’t really mean that. Q. You meant, if there was bad management there? A. I am not familiar enough with the Printing Plant to say, but I meant if it is not a success. That is, if it is not run as cheaply, or if the results are not as good as if it were run by a private corporation, then I say, from that standpoint, it is possible that there may have been influences brought to bear such as I have suggested. Q. The question at issue here is as to whether or not it is a success or a failure. Do you know whether or not it is a success or a failure? A. The public Printing Plant? Q. Yes. A. Well, I don’t know. I didn’t come here prepared to talk about public printing plants. The hearing is on the question of public lighting. But still, if it takes that in — Q. You said it was discredited 2 A. Did I say it was discredited ? Q. You did. A. I meant to say “If it were discredited, if it is a failure.” I am not sure it is a failure, but if it is a failure, if it is not a success, I state that it is possible it is not a success because of the influences back of the management of it to discredit it before the eyes of the people, to try to prove to the people that public ownership is not a success. Q. You don’t know, in reality, whether it is a success or a failure ? A. The public Printing Plant 2 No, I am not familiar enough with it. But I do know from what I have read of public lighting of cities and towns throughout the country and throughout the world that they are a success. Q. I was asking you, Mr. Gallagher, about the Printing Plant. A. Well, I don’t know so much about the Printing Plant. Q. Now, you realize what this committee is assembled for? A. Yes. Q. And that, above all things, what we are looking for are facts. Now, as a friend of municipal ownership, you will pardon me for advising you not to discredit any undertaking until you have absolute proof that the thing is a failure. A. I didn’t mean to say it was a failure. I am not sure, but I thought I made the point that if it was a failure, that was probably the reason. Q. Now, did you ever hear of the Standard Rope and Twine Company? A. No, I don’t think I did. Q. Did you ever read of the great failure of the Standard Rope and Twine Company, that was the receiving company for the National Cordage Company P A. No, I don’t think I have. Q. I simply wanted to say that in reality there is no evdence that the Printing Plant is a failure, while we know that tens of thousands of private enterprises fail every year? A. Sure. Q. As a friend of public ownership I simply want to bring that out, in order that the thing may be put in a true light. A. Yes. Q. You were discussing the paving of highways or the patching of openings made by corporations. Did you ever read any of the permits 2 A. No, I didn't. I am not familiar enough with the city work. Q. You don’t realize that they are under bonds to keep the streets in repair for a year, do you? A. Private companies P Q. Public service corporations or private individuals — and you don’t realize that they throw the stuff back anyway, simply carrying it over the best they can for a year and then letting the community take care of it after that? Did you know that? I wanted to call that to your attention, so as to assure you that there can be absolutely no comparison between the patching of a highway done by a corporation which simply guarantees to keep it in repair for a year, and then doe nothing more than that, and the construction and alteration of highways made by the community. A. Well, I have seen private bridges, toll bridges, in York State, owned by private individuals, where you paid toll, and I have seen the great massive public bridges. There is a good sample of public and private ownership. I have seen private bridges along the Mohawk river, where you have to pay toll, and which are a standing disgrace, and I have seen what the public have built there to stay, a credit to the public. In fact all public industries are a monument to the public. They are built to stay, built for merit, built to serve the people. All private works are made for profit, as cheaply as possible. Whatever they manufacture for use, to be consumed, is made as cheaply as possible, the idea being simply to extract all the profit they can from it. That is about all that can be said. What the public does is for the public weal, what a private corporation does is for the private purse; and when you come to the last analysis there is no comparison between private and public ownership and control. Public ownership means that the public are so much richer than they were, and to that extent out of the grasp and control of the landlord or the capitalist. If you like private ownership, of course you can have a sample of it in the great landlord systems of this country and abroad; and the last analysis of it would result in such a government as the government by the Czar, where he owns everything by title deed. That is about all I have to say. Q. (By Mr. McCULLOUGH.) You were asked by the Chairman to make a comparison of the cost of excavating by private corporations and the city. Isn’t it a fact, Mr. Gallagher, that labor in the case of such corporations as the gas company, the Edison Lighting Company and the telephone company is cheaper? A. I cannot see how it is. Q. I mean by that, Mr. Gallagher, that they pay a smaller wage and that the working day is longer? A. Oh, unquestionably so. It is like this. I know of many public jobs where men have worked, and I have worked for the State of Massachusetts myself, and I worked eight hours a day and worked fully as hard as I worked for any contractor. But I got a great deal higher wages. The difference was that what went into the pockets of the contractor in private work went into our pockets — the pockets of the workingmen — and we were so much better off, and to that extent lifted, developed so much higher. Of course, in the case of the contractor, what ought to go into the pockets of the workingmen goes into his pockets, and if he can hire cheap foreign labor, that will work longer hours, and that he can drive like dogs, it goes into his private purse, the result being that the public is in every way so much worse off, the standard of citizenship is lowered, and the standard of the working people is reduced so much. Q. I mean that the working day is ten hours and the average pay is $1.75, we will say, in the case of the private corporation, and the average pay for the laborer for the City of Boston is $2, and the average working day is eight hours. The cost for labor to the private corporation, therefore, is cheaper? |