The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1877-07-30
THE LABOR PROBLEM.

Inc labor pfWAem mas been given Se1lSa-
tional interest bay the recent riots but beyond
this these demonstrations have proven but
one thing, and that Is that the question de-
mnnds a salution with an urgency that was
not expected. While it is certainly delicate
and complicated problem. which cannot be
treatedhy swift and arbitrary methods, it does
not seem to us to be one entirely hopeless of
solution. 1t is most assuredly not a subject
for Legislation or party agitation. nor a
thing to be arbitrarily dealt with In any
way. There are no solvents for it, unless
we can find them in public opinion
and the growing sense of justice
which human progress brings. 1t must be
given moral aspect as well as an economical
one, and these two must act upon and modify
each other. 1t has been looked ut too long
from the opposite standpoints Of the phllan-
thropist and the political economist; ana the
time has come when both must look at IL
through the same glasses. The main tillhg
to be attained, 1t seems to us. Is TO destroy
the antagonism that exists between labor and
capital, the competition that exists between
the organizers Of labor and the laborers
themselves, and substitute in their place a CO.
operation by which both will profit.
1t IL very certain that there can be no pro-
ductive work, under the present Industrial
system without capital; men who do not
POSSESS 1T must appeal for aid to those who
do, and they are compelled to solicit this aid
by the most exacting of all necessities
bread, clothing, shelter. The capitalist yields
it, but from q very different and infinitely
less exacting motive, which is merely the de-
sire for gain. These are the natural and UNI
avodable relations between labor and capital,
and they necessarily invest capital with
an appalling power. But it IS not
in accord with the true principles of justice
and right that the relations between labor and
capital should be left to a compromise be-
tween self-interest and memorable necessity.
The growing sense of justice that keeps even
pace with human progress forbids this, and
to this must the final appeal be made. Wesee
but one direction that this can take, that Of
establishing partnership relations between
capital and labor, between the organizers OF
labor and the laborers, between men possessing
the business faculties and those possessing
the mechanical and productive ones, to sup
plant the rude relations Of employer and en-
ploye. These very terms, employer and en-
ploye, suggest the arbitrariness of the syS-
tom they represent. The difference between
them grows out of a state of dependence on
one side and independence on the other, by
which all reciprocity between faculties that
should aid and assist each other Is cxtin-
gushed, and antagonsm aroused where CO.
operation should exist To quote the Ian
guage Of a recent writer on this subject,
70 3,,Jn hn nd
one employed, instead of each being
the employer of the capabilities OF the
other on fairly adjusted terms. One re-
ceives his daily rate of wages, fixed for the
most part by the average state Of need in his
class; the other makes what he can out OF the
bargain and drives 1t hard to make the
utmost. 1t Is very plain that no equity in the
distribution Of the products Of human in
dustry can be had under the wages system
that now maintains, which gives fixed com
pensation to one side, while profits, indefinite,
unshared and unaccounted for, go wholly to
the other
So long as the pay of the worl1ingman con-
tinues to be fixed according to a certain
standard. that standard will continue to be
the lowest at which an equilibrium can be es-
tablished between his necessities and the
gainful desires of the capitalist who employs
him. But change his relation from that Of
employee to that of partner, no matter by
how small an alteration, and see what q
change. He obtains certain proprietary in
terest in the aggregate fund Of produced
wealth, and has to be accounted to for his in
terest before the question arises OF how much
of what has been produced this year shall be
dedicated to production next year. He no
longer draws his living from the wages
fund.-" that aggregate product of labor
which is called ''wages-paying,' and
becomes participant in the division Of that
indefinite remainder from which the accre-
tions to capital must chiefly be derived He
becomes positive instead of relative factor.
This ''labor fund.- of the economists is based
on stern and memorable facts, and it is impos-
BILE to discard or overlook it in any discussion
of this difficult problem. The question, then,
is how shall labor be lifted from the operation
of the law it imposes and placed in a relation
ship to the whole fund of produced wealth !?
Wages" says Locke, mot only depend
upon the relative amount of capital and pop
ulation, but they cannot, under the rule OF
Wages (meaning, Of course, the general rule)
cannot rise but by an increase OF the aggre-
gate funds employed in hiring laborers, or q
diminution in the number Of competitors for
hire"
We have indicated how the number of these
may be diminished by the estab-
lishment of partnership relations with the
whole indefinite fund of produced wealth. We
come now to the consideration Of the only
proposition, the increase of the
wages fund, and this whole question may be
presented inthe query, Glow can constraint
be brought upon those who hold possession Of
wealth to compel them to add more of it
year by year to the capital fund that
goes to the paying of wages, instead Of
it ?" This question is one that
scarcely admits OF discussion. The econo-
mists say this fund cannot be increased rela-
yiryb no