The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1904-04-09
SATURDAY, APRIL 9, 1904.
HE ELGHT-HOUR BILL

THE HOUR BILL.
The objection to the eight-hour bill
now a subject of contention in the
United States senate is not so much
the eight-hour feature as the fact that
it is a bill. That is to say, it is in
every way improper to attempt to force
upon the laborers aud the employers
of the country by law a ruling which,
if ever reached, should be arrived at
by way Of private agreement.
1t is perfectly proper that the gov
eminent should prescribe the maximum
hours Of labor for those in it's own en-
ploy That has been done, and the
eight-hOur day rules in government
works. We have heard of no COM
plant. There is no issue. But the in
reference of the government with pri-
vate activity, with the relations of in
dividual employer and employe, is
bad; no matter whether that which it
seeks to establish by such interference
be in itself a good or an evil. This
seems to US to be the bedrock of argu-
ment, and the ground on which the bill
in question should be beaten
The opening section of the bill states
that every contract hereafter made to
which the United States, any territory
or the District of Columbia is a party,
involving the employment of laborers,
shall contain a provision that no Ia
borer or mechanic doing any part of
the work contemplated by the contract,
in the employ of the contractor or any
subcontractor contracting for any part
Of said work contemplated, shall be re-
quired or permitted to work more than
eight hours in any one calendar day
upon such work" This is the gist of
the proposed legislation.
Now the practical operation of this
is clear. Either it will compel all gov
eminent work, Of whatever character.
to be done in government establish
ments under government direction.
abolishing all contracts and cutting
the government off from the advan-
tages that it now enjoys Of utilizing
the vast resources of the private in
dustrial establishments of the country.
or else it will force upon the latter the
eight-hour day, regardless of their
preferences, of local conditions or of
the desires or interests Of the men thew
employ. We can find no affirmative
reason whatever to justify such ac-
ton
The private establishments in which
sc much work is done for the govern
ment are supported mainly by con-
tracts for work with private parties.
In many Of them there is a working
day longer than eight hours, this be-
Ing agreed to by both employers and
men for their mutual interest. When
such a firm takes a government con-
tract, it does not set all of it's men at
work upon the job, and it has very few
men who work upon it continualIv..
They are employed now upon the pub
lie and now upon the private contract.
according as the economical manage
ment OF the shop may require; and
both parties are benefited by this ar
rangement. The passage of the bill
mentioned would put an end to such
adjustment. Private establishments
would have to give up government
work or else they would have to adopt
uniform eight-hour day for all their
work.
There is no doubt that in general
they would choose the former course.
Who, in that event, would be bene-
flied? Deprived of government con-
tracts, they would have to reduce their
working force. Men would be dis
charged, and the eight-hour day would