The weekly examiner., 1901-05-25

pay WOuIQ naturally lO1lOW III COoA0N of time, as the men would have to nave about the same money to live OH as when working ten hours.
 Exactly; this is the logic of the sltu- ation. And being so isn't it somewhat inconsistent to object to the demand for "ten. hours pay for nine hours work as the thought is phrased? II the men will have to have about the same money to live on while working only nine hours day as they did when working ten, where is the logic in de- nying them that amount, as they must live in order to be able to work.
 How much simpler the matter would appear if the question were only divid- ed? First, let the hours of labor be settled. Is or is not nine hours for a days work sufficient? It is generally SO conceded; and we are told by those who have made study of the sub iect that even four hours labor. if all would work who can, are sufficient to give to the world all the necessaries and luxuries of life. Now that part of the problem settled the next question is simply as to the reward in dollars and cents that that days labor is en- titled to. And without at all going into the depths of the question it ought to be self-evident that he who performs the days labor is at least entitled to a decent and comfortable living, and his share of the dollars and cents in- volved ought to be sufficient to guaran- tee him as much #.--
 So, as was said last week, when we speak of a ten hours pay for a nine hours work we only befuddle the ques- ton. There is no such incongruity in the demand, for there is no such thing in existence as an absolute "ten hours pay.' The ten hours pay of one man may be one thing, the ten hours pay of another, vastly different And with the same. man it may be one amount today and another tomorrow.
 But the immediate question involved is the difficulty of the employers ad- justing prices so as to be able to meet what they regard as increased cost of product. This may be a reality in some cases, but not in all. Even were it so, it is a matter for the employers to see to and not for the men to take into con- sideration. It is entirely out of the latter's jurisdiction. However, even within the employers own immediate sp fines s,stsssss the mater s1j asteef to some extent? Won't the salaries of some of the officials bear little modifi- cation? If two or three dollars a day is considered sufficient recompense for the man who works with head and hands to produce the product that brings the dollars and cents to all con cerned, why must the man who works with head alone be considered as de- serving of from two to twenty times as much? Or, in other words, if five, ten, twenty or thirty thousand dollars year are only sufficient for a decent and comfortable living for one man, how are the others to get along on the comparatively insignificant amount first referred to?
 Surely the wages question and salary question is all wrong from beginning to end. And the industrial system at the bottom of it must be all wrong, too. It is the basic cause of nearly all the sin and suffering in the civil ized world, if the word ''civilized" can be properly used in this connection. It begets the pauper and the millionaire, the thief, the drunkard and the prosti- tute It has millions of people forever on the ragged edge of suspense for the morrow that the few may roll and rule in luxury, if not riot in dissipation. It has the great majority of humanity ever in trouble for the want of enough while the few are in trouble because of hay ing too much. There can be no last ing peace and happiness in the world until something better takes it's place as the basic structure of our civiliza- tion.
 WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTH