Waterbury evening Democrat., 1903-04-11
BIGGERSTAFFI IN DANGER
H. 5. WoolIey Dips His P@n In Ink --.Mr Makepeace Also Gives
 Teddy Another Rap.

Teddy Another Rap.
 In previous statements MT Bigger staff has not denied the headlne Ill tlhe Republican, ''The arrogance oI British trade unions," and why he should have stepped in at this part1c- u.lar time with an article which the edl- tor of the Republican conceived to pear dine meaning he gave it and which MT Biggerstaff stood sponsor for, making mo. attempt to correct it until l gave him MT Tangye's statement, which knocked it into a cooked hat, 1 can on ly conjecture. I also notice won derfI change in fIis last article. In llis earlier sbatemenlts ihe certainly left me guessing ais to whether he was a friend Or a foe to labor. After read ing all he has written I come to the conclusion that his idea of organized union labor is neither, flesh, fowl, fish or good red 11erring. His attempt to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds is 8 lhttle impracticable. Why, if he thought I ought to be held up with tight rein did he lose his cour- age ana jump out of the wagon and give the fiery steed ifis head, if by a t1ghter grip he might possibly have kept the fiery steed ait the speed of a canal boat horse, which would seem to conform more with his ideas. Hav- ! ing lost the tight grip can go my own pace. gave him. correct state njent (not colored) of what MT George Tangye said in reference to his frie1d- ly relations with his workmen. If he had been through the Tangye works (and almost anyone can get a pass) and seem the large dining ha1l supplied with every convenience for those who take their meals on the premises, lectIlre hall and a dispensary all free. The Birmingham Art Gallery and the School of Art owe much to fhe liber- aiity of Messrs Tangye. I am sur prised that Mr BiggeT'staff, who accord ing to bis last communication says he its a friend of labor, should by his con- tenrptugo1Is reference to him seem to be annoyed that ab0r had a friend. The only question tlrat see requiring an answer is that British trades unionfsts oppose the introduction of machinery. I will answer: Not in my union, but if he means the nachinfsts refuse to work more than one machine at a time, I answer, Yes. We contend that skilled man for each machine Is the most profitable; we are net seeking slavery, otherwise We might try two, and then have to try three or more. l. will not dispute that employers and workmen disagree as to details in con- nection with the use of new machin- cry. 1t is a. nIahter for rational dis cussson and agreement. Our mo to is not to level down, buH to level up. As you sttate, youS are in favor of >shorter work day I will endeavor to give you little information cn that question Tn 1871 Lord Armstrcng saed that reduction from 59 hours to 54 hours per week would me3n loss to the company of IT per cent, amid dfllalt> the men had fixed a hard and fast IfDe wflfch allowed of no negotfa- tinos whatever. Strange, is 1t not, that in 1876 this same firm, working under the niH1a-heJ1r day, 1ehte1 a clear profit of S179.000. The engineers and machirists' fn1a1es never did so pros- perouIs and profitable a trade under a long working day as 1t does under the shorter workday. Had you remained in this controversy had intended giv- ing you evidence in behalf of the short- CT work day from Mn Hil of the | Thames Iron Works, a firm who can build a battaesa1ip or build a bridge, l and who vo1a1nttarily gave the eight hour work day with tthe ten hours pay, and of MelSsuss Mather & Platt of Sal- l ford, Manchester, and many others. am glad you are in favor of the short l TJL0ry a helping band to gain it.
 l l also tlIank you and heartily en- doTse your statement that the f1uctrIa- tions in wages are tlle curse of indus try. I contend that having foueIrt wages up to living conditions there they should rennai11. unless for better l conditions. Tn bad trade why should labor have to shoulder all the em- ] ployer's loss? If there is no demord 1 why net lessen t1le output by workine slho14ter time? Labor then takes it's fair
 share by lesser earnings. the employer I takes his in 1esser returns And now I my conjecture comes in. why vou con
 tTibuted your first article? You have
 not vet answ cred my question. How dO you know fine brass trade canned afford an advance of 25 ner cent: nni ther have you s1tated tihe dividends paid on invested caDihal. If you know
 one you should know the other. Work
 men are supposed flo know nothing nt
 profits. exrent that which is made pub } hc. but that the employers have 2
 large nnarain to play with is evident } to even a workman.
 If workmpn make a reasonable re sL l.
 difference by reason inste'r1 If b..
 militarv. gur,s and injunotions. The demand made two years ago for tle
 s1lontening of the working day Is noth
 ing more than demand for that share
 which improved methods and prosper.
 ous trade justly entities the working