Evening capital news. (Boise, Idaho) 1901-1927, 1916-10-09
HUGHES ATTACKS
E|CHT-HOUR Law
IN AN ADDRESS
Republican Nominee in a
Speech at Newark, Calls
Enactment of Law Dang
erous Legislation.

Newark, N j., Oct. 9.-Charles E.
Adamson law. characterizing it as dan
gerous legislation. He said;
"I am not opposed to the principle
of an eight-hou work day. On the
contrary, favor it. The general prin-
ciple of the eight hour work day is
that limiting labor to eight hours pro-
notes health, happiness and efficiency
It not only frees from excessive strain
but gives opportunity for education, for
enjoyment for the pleasant and profit
able resources of leisure. The whole
point is the limitation of hours of
labor that nan shall work eight
hours and no longer. The Adamson
bill does not provide that. 1t is mere
pretense to say that it does. 1t does
not limit hours; it simply regulates
pay It is wage bill
Let rs look at the text Of the act.
It provides that eight hours, shall, In
contracts for labor and service be
deemed a days work and the measure
or standard of a days work for the
purpose of reckoning the compensation
for services of the employees men
tlOll6u. Iiitit is llit OlilN Pdi pOSC biic
purpose of reckoning compensation
There is no limit to hours of work.
Then, again, it is provided that pend
ing the report of the commission and
for 80 days thereafter, the compensa-
ton of railway employees subject to this
act for a standard eight hour work day
shall not be reduced below the present
standard days wage. and for all neces-
sary time in excess of eight hours such
employees shall be paid at a rate not
less than a pro-rata rate for such
standard eight-hour day There is no
fixing Of hours of work; there is no
prohibition of working more than eight
hours. The Difference to eight hours is
solely to fix the wage scale.
SURRENDER OF PRINCIPLE.
What Is the purpose of this attempt
to make the public believe that this
bill fixes an eight-hour work day?
Manifestly, in order to endeavor to
justify this extraordinary action of the
administration in it's abject and hu-
initiating surrender of principle in de-
handing and assuring this legislation
without any proper inquiry, as the price
of peace. Evidently 1t Is felt that a
wage increase could not be justified in
this manner. So it Is sought to give
the impression that what was done was
to fix an eight hour work day and that
this was already approved by the Judg
ment of society. A shameless perver-
sion, Even as an eight-hour work day
the judgment of society has never been
passed on its application to railroads
with their road divisions and tours of
duty. The railroad employees them
selves would desire to be heard on this
point. If there We're any such judg
ment of society, why did the admins
tration limit the application of the bill
to these particular employees? Is not
the eight-hour work day quite as i'm
portant for eight per cent as for 20
per cent? What becomes of the sug-
gestion that the eight-hour work day
was granted not because 1t was de-
manded, but because 1t was right? On
this assumption, why not grant it to all
railroad employees. Is there any spe-
cial judgment OF society for the 20 per
cent? The more highly paid? Why
does the bill except electric railways
and those railways which are less than
100 miles in length? If the admins
tration was giving effect to the judg-
ment of society, why did 1t not pass
the measure at the beginning of the
administration, or certainly year ago
The president says that the matter was
agitated for over a year We might at