Workmen's advocate. (New Haven, Conn.) 1883-1891, 1890-08-16

national industries. Second, that the
great majority of organized workmen--
and especially the leaders-were against
it, AS TO the first, we can look with
eQuanimity on the extinction of such
industries as can only thrive on the
degradation, the enslavement, an q the
deterioration Of our race. If our COM
mercial supremacy is bound up with the
production of cheap cotton and sh oddly
cloth at the expense of our man hood,
the sooner such commercial supre macy
goes by the board the better. ACco riding
to Mr.. Bradlaugh, the margin Of profit
in the textile trades is so small that any
increase in the cost of production such
as would attend the reduction of the
hours of labor in that trade would Swal-
low up the whole of it, would cripple
the whole trade and drive it out of the
country. Now it does seem inconsistent
and illogical for the very man who most
bitterly opposed even the discussion of
an international law which would prac.
tically destroy this bugbear Of foreign
competition - it does seem in CON
sstent for him to fall back upon this
argument. But we are not to- be
deferred in our advocacy of the eight
hour day by any such argument as this.
So long as the oilers draw thou sand
millions out of the thirteen hun dred
millions we workers produce we shall
be convinced that the margin of profit
is sufficiently large to meet any dem and
made upon it through a reduction of
the hours of labor. This argument
simply amounts to an appeal to the
patriotism of the workman to sacrifice
fhn nJt Of
supremacy of his country. But why
should the patriotism of the worker
alone be appealed to? He is consta ntly
sacrificing himself. Does no spark of
patriotic fire burn in the breasts of our
landlords and capitalists? They get
more advantage out of the CONNER ciaI
prosperity of the country than does the
workman. They have a stake in the
country, have these gentry, while the
workman too frequently has not even
red herring, Then let them m axe
some sacrifice There are plenty of
them with too much leisure on their
hands; let them go, then, a sufici ent
number of them, day after day, week
after week. and give, gratuitiousy and
voluntarily, the two hours labor per day
which it is proposed to knock off the
workmen's day. Of course, this would
not in this case have any benefit
for the unemployed workman, but
it would secure little more leisure
for the men in work and would place
the capitalist who relieved him in the
position, for once in his life, of doing
something useful, We do not need to
dwell upon this suggestion, and only
offer it for the benefit of those who see,
in this bugbear of foreign competiti on
an insurmountable barrier to any
improvement in the condition of the
worker
As to the second objection, that the
majority of organized workmen are
opposed to it, that is even weaker tn an
the first. Even if it were true what of
1t? l. was for Mr. radlaugh to show
that the proposition was unsouna OF
that certain people are against it. Does
Mr. Bradlaugh hesitate to advocate
what he believes to be right becau Sc
the majority is against him? Then he
had no business to have stood in the
position of opponent to the eighthours
movement, for the majority are as
suredly against him. 1t is not true,
Mr., Bradlaugh, that the majority of
w0rkmen even in trade unions are op-
posed to eight hours, as would De
speedily shown if poll of them we're
properly taken. 1t is true that some time
ago many of them voted against it, but
things have changed since then, and if
Mr., Bradlaugh is not altogether gnor-
ant of recent events he should have
heard of that magnificent demonstration
in favor of eight hours which was
organized by the London Trades Coun-
Gil and at which the majority of demon
strators were emphatiCaly in favor of
a legal enactment to enforce it. But
what if the skilled trades We're all
against it They are in minority and
are least affected. 1t is the unskilled
workman, who has no organization a
all, or whose organization is necessarily
weak in consequence of its poverty, who
most needs an elght-hours bill. Mr..
Bradlaugh, when he condescended in
the course of the debate to bestow a
few moments consideration to the I'M
employed, justified their position in the
most approved "the poor We have
always with you style. And he went
on to say in ettect:-What good will
an eight hours law do for these? They
are mainly unskilled men and law
which abrogates the working hours for
skilled men will certainly not put these
men into employment? In arguing in
this way Mr.. Bradlaugh was either stu
pid or dishonest; he either knew what
he was talking about and wilfully mis-
represented it; or he was too stupid to
understand the most obvious points of
the subject he was discussing. 1t is pre-
cisely the unskilled workman, whose
place can easily be filled up from out
side, who cannot effectually deal with
the employer through organisation, who