National Republican., 1883-03-21

the reduction of tile hours OF labor IT, further.
more refers To section Of the act of May is, 1872
chapter l72 requiring the accounting officers, In
the settlement OF all accounts for the services OF
laboreg, workmen, aud mechanics employed by
or on behalf of the government OF the Uhitcd
States between the twenty fnh day Of June, 1903,
the date Of the act constituting eight hours days
chanics, and the nineteenth Of May, 1862 the date
of The proclamation of tho president concerning
such pay, TO settle and pny ior the same without
reduction on account Of reduction oihouts Oflnbor
by snid act, when IT shall be made 70 appear thai
such was the sole cause of the REDUCTION of wages
&c. Same provision being reproducod IN section
G5e9 Revised Siututes), and to the debate IN the
senute the passage Of the act Of June 20, 1868.
The o citations and references appear to be
! that act, as the same may be gathered from tho
act itsetf, the debate IN the senate thereon the
action ofthe president In the proclamations men
toned, and the subsequent action of congress.
1t is then charged that, since 1877, the eight.
hOlu law has been "Openiy violated aud persist.
emily disr garded" six months IN each year. aud
in this connection reference Is made to general
order No. 227, dated June 80, 1877, ana circular
No. 8, dated March 2S, 1873, issued by the secre:
tary Of the navy, and also To n circular, dated
Sept 2l 1878 issued by the acting secretary ot the
navy which, tits alleged, recognizes the validity
of the eight hour law IRON sept. y TO March 20
Of each year, ana then enlOrces the ten hour sys-
TEN from March n to Sept. 81 In each year."
The application concludes with tho following
declaration: THAT we claim the strict enforce
ment of the national eight hour law US passed BY
congress June %, 1868. according 70 It's pain
meaning that eight hours shall constitute days
work-.a days work that should bring days
wages"
The application does not state specifically in
what way tho law has been violated as charged,
or give the facts upon which such charge Is
founded but | infer that the complaint is
directed against the orders and circulars above
referred 10, issued by the Navy department
These orders aud circulars not being before me-
make no comment thereon. Whether they con.
unue in force know not.
the provisions Of the act Of 1858, known as the
eight hour law 6ection 1873, Revised statues),
have several times boen considered by my pre-
decossOrs. The question, whether that uct, In re-
duCiug the number of hours constituting IA days
work, was intended TO work corresponding re.
duction in the compensation for days work, Is
discussed in an opinion of Attorney General
Eyarts to the President, dated Nov. %, 1868 ~
Opinions, j3O). lie holds that "ihero s nothing
In the language of the act to indicate such itcn-
ton" and that "the plain import Of the law is,
that n laborer, workman, or mechanic i'll the
employ OF the government, whether hired by the
day, week, or month, shall only be required TO
work eight hours day. TO eatn his daily, weekly,
or monthly wages whatever these may be-" Yet
he finds nothing IN the dct requiring that "em'
ployes OF the government embraced within tho
act must receive us high wages for their days
abor of eight hours similar industry In private
employments receives for days labor Of ten
or Twelve hours" aud remarks that "the act is
wholly silent ON the subject OF wages ixing only
the length of n days labor" And the conclusion
he TO is that the act docs not require that
The wages OF the shortened day Of government
labor should bc reduced in the proportion OF the
hours of labor, and that the act us little requires
that the wages of this shortened day should be as
employment" aud that in this silence OF the act
itself ON the measure OF wages, while II speaks
only of the hours of labor, the departments are
left to the guidance OF the rule OF equality OF
compensation for equal worth of labor in gov
crnment and in private employment"
Attorney General Hoar in response to an in
quiry from tho secretary OF the navy as TO the
meaning and effect Of tho act Of 1868 taken In
connection with the act of July 16, 1867, chapter
lSI (Which latter act pioyided that the hours Of
labor and the rate Of wages of the employees III
the navy yards shall conform as nearly as is con-
sstent with the public interest with those Of ph.
vate establishments in the immediate vicinity Of
the pectiye yards, u be determined by the COM
mandants of the navy yards, subject to the up.
proyal and revision OF the secretary OF the navy ~
gave an opinion under date of April 20, 1869 (13,
opinion ?9J, In which he refers 10 the opinion OF
MIR. Eyarts, and approves the conclusions there
lie says: "In my opinion the statute Of June
%, 1865 has no hing TO do with the compensation
to be paid to worGlnen in the navy yards, and
leaves that to be determined under the provisions
Of the act of July 16, 1862. The provision that
eight hours shall constitute Il days labor has no
tendency whatever to show whether the days Ia.
higher rate than the day of ten hours labor, or at
the same rate. The rate OF compensation is still
lett Uy law TO be determined under the rule pre-
scribed by the statute ofJuly 49, 1862 as TO con-
form, nearly as Is consistent with the public iu
tercsi, with the ratio of wages Of private establish.
menis in tho immediate vicinity OF the
respective navy yards, to be determined by
the Communicates of the navy yards, subject to
The approval and revision OF the secretary of tho
borhood employed their hands for five hours u
day only, there would obviously, be no justice In
reducing the wages OF those employed In the navy
yards for eight hours to the amount paid by the
day in private establishments. and the law in
tended no such result. on the other hand, find
nothing in the statute which requires you to pay
vate establishments pay for ten or twelve, unless
the amount of service rendered or the quality OF
the work make the lever hours in the navy yards
equivalent iu value 10 the longer time hired in
private establishments or, for some other reason,
make It consistent with the public interest"
In an opinion to the secretary of war, dated
May 81 1871 (l3, opln. 42D, Attorney General
Alderman Gems dered the act Of 1868 In con.
nectOn with the presidents proclamation of
May 10, 1862 hereinbefore mentioned, apparently
adopting the construction given that act by his
predecessors.
Attorney General Devens, in answer to an in.
quiry suggested by the secretary OF the navy,
whether circular Issued by The Navy department
under date of March u, 1878 (aunouncing that
"the department will contract for the labor OF
mechanics, foremen, leading men, and labOrers
on the basis of eight hours day." but that
all worImen electing TO work ten hours
day Will receive proportionAte increase Of their
wages, accoIds to the meaning and intent of
section 373S, Revised Statutes, which embodies
the eight. .l hour law rendered an oponion dated
lur Is in accordance herewith This conclusion
is based on the construction given that section by
the supreme court of the United States in the
case of United States vs. Martin (94 United States
reports. 400), which is regarded Us decisive and
binding npon tho executive departments. In
tnnt the section was direction by congress to the
officers ana agents OF the United States establish
ing the principle 10 be observed i'll the labor of
those enjoyed in its service holds that II only pre-
scrbes the length Of time which shall amount 10
q days work when no special agreement is made
upon the subject, and that 1t does not forbid tho
making of contracts fixing u different length Of
time as the days work; There are several things"
the court adds, (Which the act does not regulate,
which II may be worth while to notice. First, 1t
does not establish the price to be paid for days
II does not specify any 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. Second, the statute
ers may not agree with each other as 70 what
time shall constitute a days work" "We
regard the statute chi lehy AZ In the nature Of di-
reclion from principal TO his agent that eight
hours Is deemed TO be a proper length Of time tor
days labor, aud that his contracts shall be based
upon thht theory" The circular mentioned is In
perfect harmony with this authoritative eXposl-
ton OF the law. IL proposes to contract for labor
on the basis of eight hours constituting O days
work, ana here in the direction of the statute is
fully conformed to. And although IL provides for
the allowance ofa prOportionate increase of wages
where the workmen elects to labor ten hours
day instead Of eight, yet this Is not ut varience
with the law; on the contrary, such a provision
must be deemed entirely consistent with the law"
Since the decision of the supreme court above
referred to, Joint resolution was introduced into
aud passed the house OF representatives during
the second session of the forty tth congress-, de-
claring that according TO the true intent and
meaning of tue act of June 25 1865, "eight hours
constitute days work Tor all such laborers work
men, and mechanics; and while said ucL remains
upon the statute book no reduction shall be made
In the wages paid by the government by the day
10 such laborers, wOrkmen, and mechanics on ac-
count OF the reduction Of the hours of labor. And
the government are hereby directed TO enforce said
law as long ms the same is uurepealed"
This resolution went to the senate, aud was