Waterbury Democrat., 1901-03-25
EIGHT HOUR BILL
Is Receiving Some Attention
 Just Now in Hartford
WORK 8, REST 8, SLEEP {.

That Is the Dream of Every Man
 Who Has Ever Studied the Question
 An Eight Hour Law is Now on
 the Statute Books-Result of 2 Casa
 Brought Under This Stature Several
 Years Ago.
 1he Dill now before the legislature providing for an eight-hour work dav oiiy peslnnlng to attract the at- 'ehtloh Of those whom it would most eiiect ill this city, those employed in the factories. The bill before +ba> legislature is causing a good deal of coHlmotlon among those who claim to De interested in the fate of the lahorar put so lar it has failed to arouse any expression of unfavorable comment ahloh% those who would be effected more by it than the Iaborer. tbat is !he employer. He appears to be tak-. lhS things as easy as before the bill Was Introduced, confident, evidently mat hls interests will be taken care. Sl III any event. They are also eyi-N ol+1 " ~, 'hiI si 1dW providing eX- Icu! TOT the same purpose as that of the blll before the legislature is a1- ready Ill the books as seen by section I'!4o or the general statutes.
 ms law is as concise and exnlicit as the language of the country can well make it. yet, substantially it is as dead as the republics of South lows: @s' io'-
 Eight hours of labor performed in any one day by any one person shall he deemed q lawful days work unless otherwise agreed by the parties.',
 Apparently there are no side doors Tn this law through which an em- ployer could possibly escape were q Sult TOT wages earned by working oyer tISht hours a day entered against him. 1et It has been proved by the supreme. court of this state to be utterly of no value. A case in the Connecticut re- ports. volume B.. page 219 proves this. IL IS the case of Thomas Luske against Luclus F. Hotchliss. It was tried in Lltchtield county superior court. and one of the parties was represented by Attorney John O'Neill of this city. The case was brought under the act of 1887. which is above quoted The plaintiff contracted to conduct fo1. the defendant q coal gas establishment at S1O.3O per week. The book says the work was of such q nature as to re- Qlire sixteen or more hours work per day. The contract between the parties lasted from April to July 4. and then the plaintiff entered suit to recover l for the hours he worked over and | above eight hours a day.
 Decision was given against the plain 1 tiff. Part of the memorandum of the supreme court in which all the judges concurred is as follows:
 Let the plaintiffs claim be con- ceded,. that there was no agreement | expressed or implied between the parties ill this case as to how many l hours labor should constitute a days | or a weeks work, what is the effect | of the statute on the contract? It is l that the plaintiff was not bound to l work more than eight hours per day. * But in fact the plaintiff did | work sixteen hours per day. Can he 1 recover for this extra work. Not 1 under the contract. for if he did not agree to work more than eight hours the defendant did not hire him to work
 more than that number per day. The l defendants contract of hiring must | receive the same construction as the 1 plaintiffs contract of being hired. The l extra work was therefore done vOl- | untarily, not because the plaintiff was 1 hired to do lt, or was under any OD- l ligation to do it. The statute was in- l tended to lessen the hours of labor for
 the laborer,, and cannot be construed as requiring q party whose contract l comes within it's operation to work more than the statute number of
 hours The plaintiff therefore cannot
 recover under the contract for the ex- | tra work. There was no request to
 have extra work performed nor agree
 ment to pay for it. The only effect of
 the statute was a relieve the 1aborer l at the end of eight hours work each
 day. if he had chosen to avail himself
 of his statutory rights.''
 The whole situation is in the. last
 sentence. Any laborer, according to
 the statutes above quoted can de-
 clare his days work ended wien he
 has worked eight hours. He will find
 the result in his pay envelope at the close of the week, if not sooner. At
 present. and from the general indi-
 cation of affairs, the employer regli-
 lates and will for some time yet, the
 working day of his employees. no mat ter what the law says, for if q man | or woman desires to work twice eight
 hours q day there is nothing to pre- | vent him or her doing so. The bill De-
 fore the legislature cannot be more
 concise or plain than the law of lS61 | above quoted.