NORTH SHORE BREEZE 
19 
_ applause and cheering, and on coming 
_ to the stage he immediately took his 
_ stand at the speaker’s desk. 
- What Mr. Schofield Said 
Mr. Schofield, in his opening re- 
marks, thanked the voters for the 
support given him last year for the 
Senate, and called attention to the 
conditions which existed in the dis- 
trict as unparalleled in the Common- 
wealth today. “I submit,” he said, 
“that when a man holding an office 
in the district with some 8000 ma- 
jority in the party confesses he has 
a hard fight to win, it means he feels 
he has not represented the people 
as he should.” 
“Today I am face to face, as you 
all know, with a campaign where it 
is going to be impossible for me 
or for any poor man to follow. You 
will find in every paper in this dis- 
trict today a large advertising space 
devoted to my opponent. You all 
know the cost of this advertising 
for each day for two weeks. You 
‘know what it has cost him, and 
you know what it would cost me. 
I could not afford to carry on a 
campaign in this manner. 
“Now in regard to an advertise- 
ment which appears in the papers 
this evening, signed by A. P. Gard- 
ner. It states at the start: “Senator 
Schofield, do not misrepresent my 
record.’ Last night another adver- 
tisement appeared in which he said 
that I had charged him with having 
yoted against fixing the hours of 
labor in Congress this year. He 
said that he had not so voted and 
followed this up with another state- 
ment which I desire to read to you. 
(1 wish to call attention to the fact 
that this is but a copy of an adver- 
tisement appearing in other pa- 
pers.) The statement was published 
in the Ipswich Chronicle on Oct. 
12, that he (Gardner) was against 
legislation fixing the hours of labor 
in Congress this year, and he de- 
mands that I prove it or withdraw 
my statement. If he is right I 
ought to withdraw my statement, 
but I propose to prove it. Mr. 
Gardner says over his own signa- 
ture that ‘I (Gardner) voted to ex- 
empt foreigners employed on the 
Panama Canal from the eight-hour 
law.’ I will prove this statement by 
his own words. We have an eight- 
hour law which states that labor 
employed on government work shall 
not be compelled to work more 
than eight hours per day. Certain 
persons for certain reasons desired 
and prepared an amendment which 
was offered in Congress to exempt 
foreigners employed on the Panama 
Canal from this eight-hour law. If 
that amendment had not passed, the 
eight-hour law would have fixed the 
hours of labor on the Panama 
Canal. If it had passed it would not 
fix the hours of labor. Mr. Gard- 
ner voted for that amendment, and 
thereby voted that the hours of la- 
bor should not be fixed and his 
vote passed the bill. Any state- 
nrent to the contrary is a quibble 
and is absurd. Any man voting to 
break down the hours of labor and 
voting as I have stated, was against 
legislation fixing the hours of labor. 
He was against the eight-hour law 
applying on the Isthmus of Panama. 
He has proved this case himself by 
his own statements. 
“He has made the statement that 
I stated that he, as a member of the 
Senate in Massachusetts in 1900, 
from the same district as I have 
represented this year, voted against 
a bill fixing the hours of labor, 
which passed by a vote of 15 to 14, 
and states that he voted the other 
way. Gardner in his statement says 
that this is untrue. Mr. Gardner has 
defied me to prove this and for this 
reason I have taken pains to have a 
copy of the bill here with me. This 
bill was introduced in the House in 
1900, when Mr. Gardner was a 
member of the Senate. The bill 
reads as follows: (Quoted House 
Bill No. 462.) 
“There was a bill which fixed the 
hours of labor and which had a ref- 
erendum attached leaving it to the 
people. Mr. Gardner attempts to 
quibble by stating that I said he had 
voted against the original eight- 
hour law. That is not true. 
“On the 29th of June, 1900, the 
House Bill relative to the wages of 
laborers employed on public works, 
etc., came up for a third time. I 
have a roll call of the votes on the 
third reading which was 15 to 12, 
and Mr. Gardner opposed the third 
reading. It went to the third read- 
ing and again came up to the Sen- 
ate. House Bill No. 462 was en- 
grossed and that bill failed of pas- 
sage by a vote_of 15 to 14, and Mr. 
Gardner’s name appears as one of 
the 15. Any quibble on the part of 
Mr. Gardner that that was not part 
of the eight-hour law bill is ab- 
surd. It was a bill fixing the hours 
of labor, and he voted against it. 
“Today, upon our statute books, 
we have that law. It came up this 
year in the Massachusetts Senate. 
It was referred to the Committee 
on Ways and Means, of which i 
was the only member of the Demo- 
cratic party, the others being four 
Republicans. That committee de- 
cided that the state could not af- 
ford to have such a bill passed And 
the committee reported ‘ought not 
to pass,’ with one dissenter. That 
dissenter was myself. The bill came 
up, the question was debated and 
passed by a roll call vote of 20 to 
18. The bill was sent to the gov- 
ernor, who signed it. Those are 
facts which can be proven from the 
Journal of 1906. 
“Mr. Gardner confines himself to 
the question of labor, and _ recog- 
nizes the importance of labor’s work 
at the polls. I trust he is beginning 
to realize that the laboring people 
of this city are not going to blindly 
follow any party, unless convinced 
that that party 1s working for their 
interests. 
“Tariff reform cannot be taken 
up in 10 minutes. My position is 
known. Gardner says he will stand 
pat. He is opposed to parties mak- 
ing too much money on account of 
the tariff. I do not desire to cut 
down in any way the just earnings, 
nor do I desire to lessen the labor 
which can be given to any of our 
citizens, but I realize that the peo- 
ple are greater than the trusts, and 
we propose to take off the tariff 
where it is not needed, and put it on 
where it is needed whether the 
trusts like it or not. That briefly 
is my position on tariff reform. 
“Tariff revision—We have got to 
make careful changes and accurate 
revision, but I recognize in common 
with almost the entire Democratc 
party, and, I believe, one-half or 
one-third of the Republican party 
that the time has come when pro- 
tection means protection to those 
who need it, and is not to fatten 
trusts.” 
Mr. Schofield alluded to the lav- 
ish use of money in campaigns and 
spoke of use of money in the last 
four years as a bad example for 
buying elections. 
[$2.25 $2.25 $2.25 
NEW YORK 
— VIA— 
JoY LINE 
Triple Service. 
From 
BOSTON (itett) 
* All the Way_By Water.’ 
Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday, at 5 P.M. 
Through Long Island Sound by daylight. 
From 
FALL RIVER 
Every week day at 6.30 p.m, Connecting train from 
So. Terminal Station at 4.50 p.m. 
From 
PROVIDENCE 
Every week day at 6.80 p.m, Last connecting (rain ¥ 
from So. Terminal Station at 5.03 p.m. ; 
Ask for Lnformation. ; 
Ticket Office, 214 Washington St. Phone Main 2824. 
