Rock Island daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1886-1893, 1890-09-06
A NEW CHAMPION.
MIR. Gesfs Course in Congress on the
Eight-II0ur Law.
rhe Legal Constr uction Placed. Upon
the Amendment The W0rkmen Are
secure and Eve rything Is Lovely.

A contributor to this mornings Union
comes to the resue of Mr.. Gest with refer.
ence to the eight,hour law, and although
the editor of that paper claims for him
mat he is "a gentleman of broad views
and sound judgment" yet neither of these
qualities appears in his discussion.
Here is the point, and please, Mr.. RE.
publican. If you should have ANYTHING
further to say on his question do not lose
sight of 1t and go wandering off into other
matters. 1t was claimed for Mr.. Gest,
with considerable of flourish, that he
had secured the passage in the house of
an eight hour law which would enable
the government employees to recover what
was due them for overwork-for the time
which they had worked over and above
eight hours day. That was the claim
which was made. Now the only question
is, is it true? If it is true, that ends the
matter, and Mr. Gest is entitled to the
thanks of the woikingmen for securing
them their money II it is not true, why
was Mr.. Gest given any credit for any,
thing in relation to itf Aud why 10 dis
cussing the question do Mr.. Gest's sup
porters resort to 30 much spscial plead
mgr A mountain of excuses will not
alter the fact that Mr.. Gest has secured
nothing for the workmen. And why
keep up the delusion2 Do not the work.
men know as vel "a anybody else. that
they can get nothing2 Does everybody
not know that all this clap,trap is an
election dodge as cid as the hills? The
Union knows it and Mr. Gest's friends
know it. but they are all in desperate
straits and something has to be done to
keep up semblsn nee of good faith until
the time of election.
But to the discussion of this man of
broad views and sound judgment. In
effect, he says that even if the bill was
bad and MIR. GEES. could not, from some
reason or other, oppose it. that conse-
quently, he was not to blame. Then why
claim for him that he secured the passage
of favorable biIl9 1t is true that such
is not claimed now as strongly as IL was,
but why was it ever claimed9 But this
contributor openly svows that his special
object in writing the communication he
did. was to show that the Brewer amend /.
ment was not serious matter after all
In other words, hat it did not materially
iniure the original bill. And his argu-
ment is that as yet it has not been judi
cially construed and its scope aud oper.
alton defined, and after stating this he
constitutes hims elf the court of last re-
sort and immedi ately CONSTITUTES and de-
fines it. Ard he further saws
that one of the objects of the bill
Is to prevent the men who labored the
extra hours, under an express or an i'm
piled contract. from getting paid twice.
And then he defines contract. and says
its meaning can be easily ascertained.
This gentleman seems to have faculty
of settling everything by wave of the
hand or nod Of the head. Every court
in the land has been time and time again
puzzled as to the meaning Of contract.
In fact, this very thing constitutes the
bulk of the learning of the legal profes.
sion. And yet his gentleman settles the
whole field of lie gal controversy by little
scratch of the pen. And one of his
ideas relating to contract is that where
there is no real assent to thing the con
tract cannot be enforced. What does he
mean by real ASSENT" A tacit assent is
oftentimes as valid as one that is uttered
in words. And does he not know that
all the difficulty in constituting contracts
is getting at the intent of the parties, and
it matters little whether words were
spoken or not except as an aid IN the
And his idea of duress is
not much clearer than his idea of a con-
tract. Anyway, he states but half the
truth. Duress is where the mind never
consents, but the act is performed through
fear of consequences. No matter what
the disadvantages, if the mind consent,
even for the moment. there is no duress,
and the contract is valid one.
Now this is the case with the eight
hour workingnen. They protest, but
rather than lose the employment they
agree. The understanding is mutual, and
no matter how harsh or disadvantageous
the terms they submit to, it is not
through duress but under protest, maybe.
Some one may say: what is the differ
ence? The men assent through fear of
losing their places. and is not one kind
of fear as bad as another2" But the
courts under The law construe it differ
erently. In these cases the mind re-
lakes and assents; in the case of duress
the mind never assents. And this is
what constitutes the injury done by the
Brewer amen dment. The labor of the
men will be construed to be done under
a contrsct-eLpress or implied-and. as a
conse quence, they will be debarred from
claiming pay for the extra time. be,
canse they agreed to do 1t for
stated sum. They will not be allowed
to show that they we're obliged to take it;
that their fau lilies were suffering. or that
want in any form was the cause of their
acceptance. The original bill would have
permitted them to go to the court OF
claims and show that as they worked SO
much time over and above what consti>