The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-04-30
EIGHT-HOUR LEGISLATION.

From. the " y. Tribune.
The movement for reduction of the usual
hours of daily toll seems to us wise and timely.
There have been very great strides taken of late
in the way of increasing the efficiency of human
effort, and labor should and must share in the
resulting benefits. If, by the help of the spin
ning-jenny, power-loom, and sewing machine,
two coats are now made with the labor re-
Quired to produce one coat u century ago. we
ought consequence, To have cheaper coats,
or coat-makers should receive more for given
amount Of work. And, while higher wages are
the ordinary mode of increasing compensation.
we think it may quite us well take the shape of
n reduction in the hours of labor.
Why should it not? If labor is now twice as
efficient as formerly, why should not fewer
hours work suffice to earn mans living? To
be sure, he may choose to dress more richly,
have better house, more costly furniture, and
daintier food; but suppose he does not choose
this and does choose to have more leisure for
reading and reflection, why should not his choice
be respected? We cannot imagine. But when
the advocates of the Eight-hour reform virtually
say, "We prouose to take all the advantage of
the proposed change to ourselves and inflict all
Its cost upon others, they demand what seems
to us at once unjust and impossible
For what are wages? Why does one man
work for another? Simply because he can make
more by doing so than by working for himself.
Nearly every one could work Tor hlmsei II he
would; if he does not, ii is because he thinks he
can do better. Men leave the farms they iH-
herited, and come to New York to hire out in
order to increase their earnings They work
for the most they can get, and OF course where
the most is offered them.
Now the wages one receives are the market
value of his work-nether less nor more. If
he does more work he will be pretty apt 10
secure more pay; if he does less his wages
must fall. We do not deem it possible to re-
duce the amount of labor performed without
reducing the sum paid for doing it. The num-
ber of dollars may be the same, but they Will
inevitably buy less than they formerly did. IL
the shoemaker gets more for making PAIR Oh
shoes, the shoe-wearer must pay more Tor those
shoes, and must charge more for has product,
whatever il may be; so that the net result
of doing less work must be II smaller recon-
pense to the workman. Unless he can upset
the law of grayitation, he cannot escape tins
| result.
But does n reduction of the hours of labor in
volve corresponding reduction in its product ::
! That is the vital question. If days work OF
| eight hours will produce as much as one OF ten
! IL ought to be paid us much; If ii Will produce
ninety per cent. of the former amount, il ought
to command nine-tenths of the pay. The vital
| question is one OF fact.
Congress passed an act making eight hours u
legal days work in the public service, but said
nothing as to the effect of this change on the
compensation of the employed. That question
now comes up for settlement. Senator Wilson 5
late letter discusses part of 1t lucidly and fit
| tingly But, as to what seems to MS the main
issue, he only quotes Senator Conness as mold
ing, in the Senate, that every man who labors
knows very we'll that he can perform as much
work in eight hours as he can in ten taking the
! average of the season through" Now II this
be the truth, the controversy is ended But is
! it the truth? We have had the eight-hour law
in force nearly or quite a year in the Govern
ment Printery, the Navy Yards, Armorles, eteetc,
What has been the relative value OF the new
as scompared with the old days work. Here
IA the turning point, yet no information respect
ing it seems to have been even sought Con-
gress ought to have required each superinten-
dent 70 report upon it specifically and promptly
Here is the Springfield Armory, there is the
National Printery, with Navy Yards, Arsenals,