The Leavenworth weekly times. [volume] (Leavenworth, Kan.) 1870-1880, 1877-12-06
THE EIGHT HOUR LAW.

|
- .,o,,,.~
|
From the Congressional Record of Novem-
her % we COPY the following report of
-
ue'a'e III '"e iio'' o' P''r
ment to the dehclency biil offered p' hr-
Coy az New York. In will be seen that
|
| Mr. Philips, oil this dlStrict, look prom
| ,, mar, :, m. d.h,,. and ,b,, n. was
neh' part III inc ueoae' anu '""' "e
found as usual, defending the rights and IN
terests of the working men. We quote
from the Record as follows:
Mr.. CON, oil New York l otier the iol-
amendment to come IN at the end OF line
Us:
ALLOWANCE FOR REDUCTION or WAGES.
Tina, there, be appropriat,-i out of any MOI. =
eys in the Treasury not otherwise appropria-
ted s.ich sum az may ps reluireo 10 pa! .I"
ic. emplovei by or ON behulf Of the ,inyerii-
ment IN excess of the eight hours labor per
diem provided ny law.
Mr.. Chairman, this is not new y. opo-
sition. think il was offered by nv friend
from Massachusetts. Mr.. Banks. and made
part OF the annual appropriation, As will
be found by reference 10 the Revised Stat
utes, pages 1a9, section 36s9.
1t was aPermanent annual appropriation,
and on the 18th Of May, 49,, the allowance
for the reduction of wages was adopted, as
will he found In section 1913 OF the Revised
Statutes, which ! ask the Clerk TO read.
The Clerk read as follows:
SEXTON 80; Eigh III hours smail constitute
meci,anic, Vii" may b. emnIoy,d nv or m,
1 behalf oil the Government of the United STAT. 5.
MIR. con, OF New York. The PROPOSE
ton does not require any discussion; ii il
simply following the precedent already es-
tabli-hed. The appropriation Il not large
sum (; | do not know how much, but would
srudge nothing 10 labor.
MIR. SiNGLEioN. The proposition, ii
seems to me, has nothing meritoriou7 about
1t. No estimate has been furnished To us
touching this matter. We do not know who
the gentleman proposes TO pay: We do not
know now much or how little money has
amendment proposes to appropriate. Ii
docs not indicate any specific amount. IL
does not state who shail ADJUST these claims
or who shall settle them or To whom the
money Is to be pad. Ii seems 10 me 10 he
so utterly indefinite that 1t should have no
place in this bill.
Mr.. CON, OF New York. | am following
the exact precedent set in former appro-
priation bill, which was thea satisfactory to
both parties.
Mr.. SINGLETON. That may be true.
and have no doubt that some kind of es,i-
mates, some data were furnished To the
committee upon which they could act But
here there is nothing OF the sort. This Is
the first time have had notice OF any such
proper showing would be opposed to make
such an appropriation as this But it does
seem TO me that il comes in very inappropri- |
Mr.. PHILLIPS. Mr. Chairman. | think |
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New York is in order and i a proper |
amendment To be offered to a deficiency
bill.
The CHAIRMAN. This is not a aues- |
ton of order; the question is upon the |
adoption of the amendment.
Mir. PHILLIPS. lam very well aware
of that, aud am merely urging thar it is a |
germane amendment to a deficiency bill
and am advocating its adoption. Con.
gress by law fixed eight hours as a days' la
Dor. but certain officers of the government |
thereupon reduced the paw of these laborinp |
men. in pross violation of law by allowing
only four-fifths of the paw therefore allowed
These men were entitled by law TO the
amount thus deducted. a. the eight hour
law specifically provided that WAGES sbouid
not be so reduced. This amount has been
for two or three wears withheld from them
is perfectly proper. Bills have been intro.
duced into the last two Congresses. In the
last Congress it was fayorablv reported bv
the committee unanimously. but failed for
want of time. lisa lust debt and ourbt
TO be paid promptly. and this is a pro1er
place to insert il.
hone that the gentleman from Gsoroia
mir. BLOITNTl when he undertake. 10
economize will not cut down the WAGES of
labor,ng men. To refuse to paw what is
iustly and LEGALLY dine them is \ false econ
omy. When the Law had tixed e;ybt bours
as a DAVIS labor. Their. was no warrant nj
law for deducting from the wages of these
workingmep. One-iifth of what they had
before received was deducted AZ I have
said in violation NJ Law This .merdment
proposes simply In nav them the amount
TINS uniustIy withheld and I hone II will
no agreed 10 and thar economv viii ha an.
plied to a more legitimate object than do
nriyinp a laborer of the wages h.. has
earned
Mr. SINGLETON Mr. Cb,;rm,n :,
ours TO me that we are LAUNCHING uno, an
Unknown sea when we unJert,Ls td m,Ls
nj This sort w;,bo,, ,ha -
;ect having been considered bv .,v ~ ,h.,
heads Of Dsnartmen,s ar any Tom,,;,,. -
Accounts or Claims. There has hen moth.
ING before apy committee. and 30 far a.
know there is nothing before this Uonsa
,non which This ac,ion can hs b.s.J n
Evidence is adduced here ~ sbow ,h,, ,baro
has been apv. deficiency in This resnac, W.
40 NOT Lpow ,ba, tbars Is , s;ncla .n'n,ova
al the Governmen' who has worL.f ons
bour ovsr e;eb, hours J,v ", NV .n
nr.r.Iv .sksJ 10 me- an .n,r.;.,
sn nntnown snm 10 nav nnino,r, ,.u -,
-, mnlnown serv;c.s '>"
~ I, soems ~ me air ,ba, ,b.s. questions
,ha,,iS oo,,,. l.atTr., -, ,t..I.
~ onv deficiency in this resIect Iet tho ,
natter he scrutinized bv some committee
et II UNDERGO examination or If that he ,
No, done lei some head of a nenar,men,
axe the responsibility of recommepJ;na an