New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1916-09-26
Says He Justifies g.
Hour Law by Delud-
ing Business Men.
DENIES RIGHT
TO COURTS AID
Shows Where Workday
Still Is Recognized as
"Arbitrable."
From s.r Correspondent, o, n. rrsuns,

rFrr, a stsa Correspondent o, Ths Trt1nsI
Dayton. Ohio, Sept 25.-Charles E.
Hughes replied tonight to President
Wilson's defence of the eight-hour law
and the manner Of its passage. lie de-
nounced the Presidents attitude as ex-
pressed in his Shadow Lawn speech as
"too much compromise phrase-making'
too much OF standing for something
that means one thing TO one set Of men
to get their votes, and another thing to
another set TO sllay their fears
"Our friends on the other side,' said
Mr.. Hughes, "betray the weakness of
their position by their failure to call
things by their right names. The bill
TO which I refer is spoken of as the
eight-hour bill 1t does not deserve that
name. 1t does not provide for any
eight-hour day. The very theory Of
an eight-hour day bill is limitation
Of the hours Of employment upon the
consideration that the limitation will be
benefit TO all concerned.
at is said the principle was not ar
bitrable. II is a very extraordinary
statement, for eighteen years ago,
believe, in the passage OF the act to
promote conciliation and arbitration
with respect to disputes between inter
state commerce employees and carriers,
there was provision made for arbitra-
tion with respect to hours of labor,
conditions OF employment as well as Of
wages, and in a bill which, believe,
was signed during this administration,
in July, 1918, the same provision, |
believe, in substantially the same Ian
guage, was reenacted in the law pro-
viding FOR arbitration with respect 10
wages, conditions Of employment and
hours Of labor.
Principle Not Involved
"No one in this controversy has any
idea OF establishing an eight-hour work
day. The principle of the eight-hour
work day is not in any way involved.
| have stood from the time ! entered
upon my public career for reasonable
hours of service, and no one more than
] desires TO see every opportunity TO
every workingman TO escape an undue
severity of strain and for the opportu-
nifty which American manhood should
have.
But / protest against any endeavor
TO confuse the thought of America by
talking about an eight-hour work day,
when nothing OF the sort has been en-
acted, nothing OF the sort proposed,
and the only thing enacted was a
change in the schedule OF wages.
Fellow citizens, am not dealing
with the merits OF the increase in
wages. That is a matter which should
be examined and determined according
TO the facts. If there is anything more
remarkable or regrettable than the ef-
fort to have 1t appear that an eight
hour workday is involved II Is an at
tempt 10 draw an analogy between the
case Of legislation Of that description
and the action Of our courts in dealing
with rate cases.
ut has ben stated, for example, that
when a rate is fixed by law as a rail
road rate, or as a telephone rate and
II is attacked as unconstitutional, be-
cause confscatory, the Supreme Court
of the United States has stated that it
would not declare the measure uncon-
stitutional until the effect Of the op-
Grafton Of the rate had been disclosed.
Courts Not Concerned.
at has been sought to draw an anal
ogy between such a case and legisls-
ton in the event of inquiry. The courts
have nothing TO do with the question
OF the wisdom or policy Of legislation.
The question that comes before the
court i. whether, after a Legislature
has presumably done its duty in eY
aiming the facts dealing with the
case, according 10 its judgment. the
Continued On page 8. column