The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1877-06-23
The Eight Hour Law.

The L. 5. Supreme Court has made final
decision in regard TO the long moOted ques'
ton Of the Eight Hour Law enacted by Con.
rress, what it means, and to what it binds
employer and employee. Ii came up on an
appeal from the Court Of Claims, and the fol-
lowing is a summary Of the decision:
On the Both Of June, 1865, Congress passed
an act tl5 stat, II, declaring 'that eight
hours shall constitute days work for all
laborcrs, workmen aud mechanics now EN-.
ploycd OF who may hereafter be employed,
by or on behalf Of the government of the
United States Revised Statutes, sec. 3,
7Ss This was direction by Congress TO
the officers and agents Of the United States,
establishing the principle TO be observed in
the labor OF those engaged in its service, 1t
prescribed the length OF time which should
amount to days work when no special
agreement was made upon the subject. There
are several things which the act does not reg
ulate which il may be worth while to notice.
Firs,-lt does not establish the price to be
paid for n day work,
Skilled labor necessarily commandsa higher
price than mere manuel labor. and whether
wages are high or low depends chiefly upon
the inquiry whether those having labor to be.
sire the service of the Aborcr. Principals.
SO far as the law can give the power, are en-.
titled TO employ US many wOrkmen and of
whatever degree Of skill aud at whatever price
they think 1T, aud except in some special
cases, as OF children or orphans, the hours OF
labor aud the price to be paid are left TO the
determination Of the parties interested. The
statute Of the United States does not interfere
tuff i'll l. L = 4,
sum which shall be paid for the labor Of eight
hours, nor that the price shall be more when
the hours are greater or less when the hours
are fewer. Its silent as to everything except
the direction to its officers that eight hours
shall constitute day. work for u laborer.
Secoud-Ihe statute does not provide that
the employer and the laborer may not agree
with each other as to what time shall consti
tate a day work.
There are some branches of labor connect
cd with furnaces, iOundries, steam or gas
works, where the labor and the exposure Of
eight hours q day would soon exhaust the
strength of laborer and render him perma
neuiIy an invalid. The government officer is
not prohibited from knowing these facts, nor
IRON agreeing when it is proper that less
number OF hours than eight shall be- accepted
as day work. Nor does the statute intend
that where out.ot.dOor labor in long DAYS of
summer may be offered for twelve hours at a
uniform price, the officer may not so contract
with conserving laborcr. We are OF the
opinion therefore, that contracts fixing or
giving different length of time US the day =
work are legal and binding upon the parties
making them. In the case before us the
claimant continued his work, after understand.
ing that eight hours would not be accepted AS
a days labor, but that he must work twelve
hours, as he had done before. He received
ms pay OF $3.50 day for the work of twelve
hours a day, as a calender days work during
the period in question, without protest or ob,
lection. The claimants contrae, was a vol.
un'ary aud a reasonable one, by which he
must now be bound.
These principles require a reversal of the
Judgment OF the Court of Claims. The case
IS remanded to the Court Of Claims, with
direction that the petition Of the claimant be-
dis Used. ~