New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1869-04-29
NEIGHBOUR LEGISLATION

The movement for a 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 Spinning Jenny, Power-Loom, and Sewing
Machine, two coats are now made with the
labor required to produce one coat century
ago. we ought, as a 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 increas-
ing cOmpensa ton, we think it may quite as
well take the shape of 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 7
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 propose to take all the adj
vantage of the proposed change to ourselves,
and infct all its cost upon Others" they de-
mand what seems to us at once unjust and i'm
possible. .... 49,.
For what are wages 7 Why does one man
work for anotherf Simply because he can
make more by doing so than by working for
himself. Nearly every one cOuld work for him
self if he would if he does not it is because
he thinks he can do better. Men leave the
farms they inherited, sand 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
Ualue of his VOrk-neither less nor more. 1T he
does more work. he will be pretty apt to secure
more pay; if he does less, his wages must fall.
We do not deem it possible to reduce the
amount of labor performed without reducing
the sum paid for doing it. The number OF
dollars may be the same, but they will in
evitaby bun less than they formerly did. If
the shoemaker gets more for making a pair OF
shoes. the shoe-wearer must pay more for those
shoes, and must charge more for has product,
whatever it may be; so that the net re-
suit of doing less work must be smaller
recompense to the workman. Unless he can
unset the law of gravitatiOn, he cannot escape
this result.
But does q reduction Of the Hours of Labor
involve a corresponding reduction in it's pro-
ductq That is the vital question. If days
work Of eight hours will produce as much as
one of ten, it ought to be paid as much; IL 1t
will produce ninety per cent. of the former
amount, it ought to command nine-tenths OIL
the pay The vital question is one OF TACT
Congress passed an act making eight hours a
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's
late letter discusses part of it lucidly and
| fttingly. But, as to what seems to us the
main issue, he only quotes Senator
CONFESS as holding, 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, if this be the truth
the controversy is ended. But is it the truth
We have had the Eight Hour law in force
nearly OF quite year in the Government
Printery, the Navy Yards, Armories, &C., &C.
What has been the relative value of the new
as compared with the old days work. Here
is the turning-pOint yet no information re-
specting 1t seems to have been even sought
Congress ought to have required each superin-
tendentto report upon it specifically and prompt