-24-


 The other witnesses were heard in about the order given and as
the hearing progressed it became clear that the sharp division evidenced
in pre-code conferences still existed among the manufacturers themselves,
between manufacturers and labor respecting basic wages, classification
homework and hours, further that industry as re-oresented from the eastern
States fell into two camJs-and that in their various meetings had not
been able to find a common ground, and still further that the only major
proposal upon which there was a meeting of minds, insofar as manufacturers
were concerned, was that of the terms under which industry desired to
sell goods,

 As stated in the foregoing chapter, labor wanted 30 hours specified,
as against 40 hours pro-oosed by and agreed to by manufacturers (see para-
graph 2 page 55 transcript of public hearing, December 8, 1933). The
argument presented by labor was that only by so doing could the unemployed
workers be absorbed. manufacturers on the other hand pointed out that the
out of town manufacturerss at least, accustomed to working 48 to 54 hours
could not meet such a demand and live and were making quite a sacrifice
as it was. Labor also insisted that home work be abolished. The principal
group using Homeworkers, Beaded jag I'anufacturers, insisted thnt they could
not operate without such -or'-ers. Labor insisted they must have classi-
fication. Out of town industry refused to consider this and it was later
ruled out by the Administration as contrary to policy ]laid down by the
Policy Board. (Exhibit J.)

 Manufacturers particularly those of the East were at odds among
themselves over representation, since the out of town nen felt thqt having
the bulk of production they should have a majority on the new Code Authorit
This was disputed by the Associated group, the principal sponsor of the
code who insisted, that re-recented in the National's figures were a number
of Associated members. Either could agree upon this point. (See brief,
pages 238 to 254 Transcript Public Hearing).

 There was also voiced by Mr. ITewton, representing !eeker Cob, Joplin,
Mo., an objection to the proposal covering learners or apprentices, and
pointing out their need for a differential. (Page 27, Transcript Public
Hearing, December 18, 1933)

 It was also brought sharply out that the retail world as represented
 by Messrs. Fox and Reyburn were opposed to any change in terms. These
 gentlemen gave the Administration to understand that the discounts at
 present in use had always obtained, should be retained, and the new terms
 would mean advanced prices to the consumer. On the other hand industry
 insisted that the present terms were of but recent origin, that depression
 had been largely responsible for them, and that for many years prior, term
 had been substantially as proposed in the code.

 (See Exhibit H, which although proposed long after, states
 the "Selling Terms" case from the viewpoint of industry also
 Transcript of Hearing, pages 134-162.)

 The other trade practice -orovisions were discussed but no serious
 irreconcilable differences developed.


9811