St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1886-05-15
THE COUNCIL REFUSES
To Pass an Ordinance Constituting Eight
Hours Days Work for the City
of Minneapolis,
But Effects Slight Compromise by the
Increase of Pay by the Hour
for Employees.
A Majority of Those Present Support
$3.50 License, Butt 1t
Fails to Pass.
Repeal of the Patrol Limit Also Fails,
But Notifications Are
Promised.
EIGHT HOURS DEFEATED,
But the Pay of City Hands Raised
1913 Cents Per Hour.

u uC tNe ray OH Slty knanuS A4aASeQ To
49, Cents Per Hour.
In anticipation of breezy and pregnant
meeting of council last evening, the lobby
was crowded to its utmost capacity long be-
fore s o'clock. Every alderman but G. w.
Cooley answered the roll, the exception
being absent from the city. The report of
the committee on the eight hour system for
city employees was the first special business,
and came in the shape of majority and
minority report. The majority re-
port was in favor of a
substitute for the Gibson eight
hour plan. and proposed to pay by the hour.
instead of by the day, as heretofore, paying
10 cents per hour and constituting ten hours
days work. 1t was signed by the four Re-
publican aldermen-A. G. Hangar, w. w.
Sly, F. c. Barrows and c. w. Clark. The mi
nority report was signed by the three Demo-
crats-E. T. Gibson, Titus Mareck and E.
Eichhorn. 1t recommended the adoption
of the Gibson resolution, constituting eight
hours days work and $1.50 per day the
pay.
Aid. Gibson moved the adoption of the
minority report and supported the motion
in an effective speech in favor of the short
hour system. If any man supposed. he
said, this move came from the politicians
and lazy men. he was badly at fault. This
movement was the natural outcome of a
surplus i'll the labor market, produced by
emigration and labor-saving machinery.
1t was proposed to equaliZe matters and
employ more labor by the introduction of a
system OF shorter hours. He knew every
member had posted himself on the question,
as it was no new one and abundant Oppor-
tunity had been offered. Minneapolis
might cover herself with glory by leading
i'll movement which lives in the heart of
labor and is bound to come.
Aid. Dwyer, who seconded the resolu-
ton, followed in behalf of the short-hour
system with very earnest and intelligent
arguments. He introduced several new and
powerful arguments, one of which was that
the Intelligent wOrkingmen sow in the
snort-hOur system the means whereby he
could f0rtlfy himself against enforced idle
ness, sickness, suffering and death. He
also used, to effect, the argument of equal
division OF the day among work, sleep and
recreation. He said labor was to blame for
the present system, for it had the poWor
through the ballot box to change it; they
might not have used this power in the pres
ent council, but he was satisfied they would
in the council to be chosen next spring.
At the close of Aid. Dryers speech
THE MOTION WAS REJECTED
by vote Of IS to 10. The vote by yeas
and nays. with the political complexion OF
the voter was as follows:
Yeas-Cloutier, D., Dryer, D., Eichhorn,
D., Gibson, D., L'Herault, D., Mareck, D.,
Mills, D., Philips, D., Stoft, D., and Swenson,
| RIO.
Nays-Babb, R.. Barrews, R., Clark, R.,
Downs, R.. Fleetham, R., Haupau r.. John
son, R., Lawrence, r.. Morse D., Phelps, R.,
Pratt, R., Sly. R and Cough R-l3