Pullman herald. [volume] (Pullman, W.T. [Wash.]) 1888-1989, 1914-10-02
CROW DISCUSSES
E|GHT-HOUR LAW
p,oeIdent of Farmers Union Goes on
Record as Strongly Opposing
the Proposed Measure


zone on record as opposed to the
nroposed eight-hour law in the fol-
lowing communication, portion of
which was published in the Sunday
issue of The Spokesman-Review:
Editor Review:-In Sundays is
sue Of the Review, you say; IF the
proposed sweeping eight-hour law
should be adopted in November the
result and its deplorable conse-
ouences to the farm, orchard, dairy,
and live stock industries of Washing
ton, will be attributable to the in
sistent assertions of its supporters
that it has the approval of the off
cial heads of the Grange and the
Farmers Union. If the
assertions are not emphatically re-
futed thousands of voters will say
The Grange and the Farmers Union
are for it, so it must not be bad
thing for the farmer.
For athe supporters of the eight
hour law to infer that | and the or
ganization | represent are in favor
of it from the simple fact that we
are interested in a legislative pro-
gram that has no relation to the
eight-hour law whatever, it seems to
me is a very far fetched conclusion.
The Grange, the Farmers Union and
the Federation of Labor are agreed
on legislative program widely
known as the Seven Sisters" five
Of which are to be placed on the bal
lot at the coming election. This leg
islative program has been explained
many times by our leaders as bearing
no relation to the eight-hour law.
When this legislative program was
outlined and agreed upon, nothing
whatever was said concerning the
eight-hour law for the very good
reason, | suppose, that it was we'll
known that we could not agree to its
support. What Mr.. Kegley may have
said either before or after this time
! do not know. What Mr.. Hughes
may have said or done either before
or after | do not know, but | do know
there has never been even a mention
OF the eight-hour law at any session
, OF the legislative committee when |
was present and | know that the leg
BlatlVe committee is not support
ing it.
To be perfectly fair with organ
lzed labor, l do not believe they ex-
Peet us to support the eight-hour
law In fact, as l understand it, the
olll was not drawn by organized
iaOor, but by the socialist party ard
paced on the ballot by the socialist
organlzation. Mr.. Hughes is mem
oef OF this organization and also of
organized labor and l suppose is sup
porting the eight-hour law consci-
euliously and as a party measure.
with organized labor l have no
quafrei, but | believe it is a mis-
'sAeh economic policy even for them
" advocate the eight-hour law.
lhelr wages will be reduced just
!" proportion to the hours of labor,
wi l am quite sure their wages could
Ao' be increased on the farm and
nave any margin to the farmer. The
oHiy Kind of eight-hour law the
'afnler could stand for would be
u'eht In the forenoon and eight in
,a0 afternoon and then let someone
e'0e set the price on his products.
~ least this is what he has always
'0ou Tor and | don't see any ma
'''idl change. The manufacturer
@H curtail the output if the hours
VIC reduced or he can double the
e" and run night shift, but not
- with the farmer, who is in a class
himself. He works for one or
wv years producing a crop and has
''ny thousands of dollars tied up
= machinery which can be used but
Jew days in the year and must
s'ceSserily be used in as economical
manner as possible. So he must
Vim long hours in harvest, for his
IAN harvest will not wait, but will
Hier II not cared for at the proper
LUZ, II we shorten the hours to
ent In harvest, it would simply
'ah that we would be compelled to
~. e double the help in harvest,
"ich would be an impossibility, as
= are frequently compelled to run
machinery short handed on ac-
uni OF the scarcity of men.
ms would mean lower wages or
sher cost of production. either of
tContinued on page four)