The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1904-03-12
The Pending Eight-Hour Bill.

To the Editor OF the indianapolis Journal:
There is a much more cogent argument
in favor OF the pending eight-hour bill. after
slight amendments, than its advocates have
yet used. The introduction of labor-saving
machinery has so revolutionized every
branch of skilled labor to the detriment of
at least two-thirds of skilled workmen
that ii is the immediate and imperative
duty of Congress to go to its utmost length
to protect the sufferers. 1t is safe to as
sumo that by this Introduction not more
than one-third as many men are required
TO produce given results as were required
when every carpenter and every shoemaker
owned his own shop and with his own
hands manipulated the plane and the saw,
and the anvil and the last. What is true OF
these is true of every industry except the
most mental. The farmer has dismissed
his hired man and the housewife has
abandoned the spinning wheel and the
loom; all because labor-saving machinery
does the required work. What has become
and is to become OF the two-thirds that
have thus been left without employment
is the gravest economic question now con-
fronting all civilized peoples. The bill
now pending in Congress lacks only one
or two amendment to relieve the situation,
II not 10 meet II FULLY. Unquestionably
every man and woman has a right TO work.
but if a few monopolize what is left TO be
done then they cannot find work to do,
for there is not enough mental work for
the millions of educated men of the land
to live by. The only possible thing is to
divide what is left as equally as possible
among those who want TO work and TO
protect them as sacredly in their right TO
work as they are protected in their right TO
live. The pending bill is therefore right In
principle, but it should provide that no
man should work more than eight hours
in twenty-four wherever labor-saving ma
chinery is used, or more than six hours If
eight proves to be too long to give every
man an equal chance to make a living at
the trade he chooses 10 follow. No mo-
nopOly of the means OF earning bread should
be tolerated an hour. Give every man a
chance and protect him in his right il it
takes a standing army to do il. The
profitable industries do not belong exclu-
sively to the few who happen 10 have pos
session of them. They are entitled TO
their share and no more.
By the way, there is u popular miscon-
ceptiOn concerning the relation which ex-
lists between those who manage the affairs
of a business that employs labor-saving
machinery and those who manipulate the
machinery. In primitive times the same
man cultivates the soil and builds his own
house and makes his own shoes. As civ
ilization advances there comes "A division
Of labor and one man cultivates the soil.
another builds houses and another makes
shoes. In this later epoch each combines
both the contractor or the employer with
the employe, but still later, when labor
saving machinery requires many hands and
all require one management, there comes
another division OF labor and one>Or more
become the contractor or the employer and
others the employees. yet all are a unit as
much as the man. who took the job OF
building a house then did the work that
constituted "A unit. This segregating Of
one branch OF an industry into two distinct
classes with adverse interests is ecOnoni-
cally and logically wrong. Their interests
are common and they are one.
Let Congress so amend the pending bill
so as TO give every man an equal chance 10
make a living and To protect him I'm that
right, then pass IL, leaving those who wish
TO work ten or more hours 90 do so
and those who wish TO work only six or
eight TO do so. but neither shall disturb
the other in the exercise OF his right. Later
on. when the world comes 10 realize what
labor-saving machinery has done and is
doing for men who must have something
to do for a living. the restriction as 10 time.
with all who manipulate machinery, will
come to pass. l.. Il. SEE.
] Indiana polls. March 10.