The Brookhaven leader., 1891-08-06
THE EIGHT-HOUR DAY.

Upon the Farms.
clip from the journal of Agriculture
the following criticism of the eight
hour resolution adopted by the Cincin-
natl confepence:
"As to our criticism of the eighthour
clause, we have no apology to make.
We believe the laborcrs on the farm
are Just as good as those in factories or
trades; we know they work just as
hard, and IL there is to be law to
make eight hours days work the
farm laborer Is as much entitled to 1t
as anybody else. But we never saw
farmer in our lives who could make
living by eight hours work, or would
have a man who called eight hours a
day, and we don't believe there is a
farmer in the country who has any
sympathy with such a demand. No
body connected with this paper can
make living by eight hours work in
| a day"
However unwittingly and uninten-
| tionally the Journal may have ranged
| itself on the side of plutocracy, the fact
yet remains that the above is In exact
harmony and keeping with the line of
partisan, plutocratic press, the true
animus prompting which is de-
| sire to divide the city and country
| forces of the common toilers by Great
| ing the impression that their interests
| are antagonistic rather than identical.
| True to its class instincts, the partisan
| press seeks to contain the idea that
| there is nothing in common between
| the interests of labor in the shops and
| factories and labor on the farm, hoping
| by holding the city vote for the pluto
| cratic twins to stem the rising tide of
| popular discomfort
The argument itself however, is
| f1imsy, sophistical and fallacious, hav-
ing no warrant either in logic or fact
| The journal disingenuously mikes up
| the farmer and the farm laborer, aud
| yet there is vast deal of difference in
their relative status. The farmer stands
in the same position as regards agri-
| culture as does the employer of city
| labor to manufacturing industries. He
is capitalist and employer, as well as
| a producing toiler. His crop is his
| product or output and his hired hand
| has no interest therein and reaps no
| benefi therefrom. To him 1t Is purely
| a question of wages. To the farmer,
extra time expended in labor, under
| proper conditions, would mean addi-
tional profits; but to his hired hand 1t
means extra work with no additional
| paw, Just as it would to q hand in a
| factory. After all, the question as to
| whether a farmer could make living
by working eight hours a day not
only has nothing whatever to do with
the justice and expediency of the
eight-hour law for city laborers, but,
| per Sc, has nothing to do with the
| question of whether or not it would be
| right for eight hours to constitute a
| days work on the farm. A suspicion
| exists in the minds of advanced think
| ers in the ranks of labor that II there
were no shirks, loafers, parasites and
| thieves much less than eight hours toll
day would suffice to support every
human being in the world in comfort
| and plenty. That suspicion is fast be-
| coming confirmed certainty, and the
| forces are even now at work which will
| ere long enforce the Apostle Paups in
| junction, LET him who will not work,
not eat" and make it impossible for a
| man to dodge the divine fat by eating
| bread in the sweat of other faces than
his own. But many will bear me out
| when l make the statement that those
| farmers who take the longest moons,
| have the fattest horses and the best
| crops.
The Journals argument must be
| based upon one of two hypothesis:
1st. That an eight-hour day upon the
farm would SO curtail production as to
| be ruinous to the farmers interest.
I'd. That an eight-hour day would so
| increase the cost of farm products as
to make farming an Improbable busi
ness.
To the first assumption we may an
| swer that, under the present unjust and
| unequal system of social economy, 1t is
fact that the less farmer produces
the better he is off. If the farmers
raised no grain for export they would be
independent of the Liverpool market
A short crop brings good prices.
To the second assumption l offer this
answer. In all other productive indus
tries but farming the price of the
product is established by the producer,
and not only includes the cost, but
profit above cost. Not so with the
farming industry. Instead of setting
his own price and getting the price he
demands for his products the farmer
has to take whatever is offered him,
with the results that, in many states
for many years, farming has been
carried on at at an absolute loss That
is to say, the farmer has had to sell his
products for less than it cost him to
produce them. Aud yet if the farmer
could receive for his products
the price paid by those who
consumed them, there has been no year
in the past in which he would not have
made a good profit. e. realized more
than the cost of his product. The rea-
son for the above is plain. The farmer
must dump onto a speculative market,
within the space of sixty or ninety
days, the worlds supply of breadstuff
for whole year. This places him on
the wrong side of the law of supply and
demand. This enormous increase in
commodities to be handled is not met
with a corresponding increase in the
volume of that tool of commerce or
medium of exchange, called money.
This places him on the wrong side of
the money market. The two combined
put him into the power of grain gam
blers and speculators, and give him