The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1916-09-29
 DEFENDS 8-H0UR
 LAW WITH VIM
Paints Picture of Railroad Opposition to Measure
 In True Colors.


 that the eight-hour law for railway trainmen has been much misrepresent-
 ed, Senator Robert M. LaFollette, of Wisconsin, Republican, who voted for
 the law, prints in his magazine a sign ed editorial defending the passage of
 the measure recommended to Con gress by President Wilson to avert the | railroad strike. Although his edito
 rial was written before the Presidents address last Saturday to Business Men at Shadow Lawn, it adopts. the same | line of reasoning.
 | Senator LaFoIlette denies that the | eight-hour law was forced bill," as
 MT. Charles E.. Hughes contends. He | says that the Railroad employees
 made their demands to the railroads and not upon Congress, and it was only
 when a strike became eminent that
 the President and Congress stepped in
 and averted the disaster.
 l The Wisconsin Senator charges that | millions of dollars were expended by l the railroads, during the pendency of
 their. negotiations with the trainmen, in an effort to inuence public sentiment
 against the demands of the trainmen
 for an eight-hour day.
 l "These millions did not come from
 the profits of the railroad managers or
 the railroad owners" says Senator La Toilette. ''They came from the funds l of the treasuries of the railroads. This | campaign was conducted with money that really belonged to the people.
 The shippers and passengers were
 made in the last analysis to finance a
 publicity campaign to influence their
 own judgment upon one side of this great question:
 The Senator says that the trainmen
 had no such resources for a publicity
 campaign to shape. public opinion in
 their favor, nor did they have the ad-
 ditional advantage of placing f1amboy | ant placards upon the walls of waiting
 rooms at railway stations to influence
 their case with the travelling public. | "This eight-hour law has been call
 ed a forced bill,' enacted under the | demands of organized\ railroad train | men," continues Senator LaFollette. This is not true. The railroad em- i ployees demanded an eight-hour day from the railroads, not from Congress. They made no demand whatever on 1 Congress. They said if the railroads
 did not grant an eight-hour day they 1 would quit work. This was their right. They set day (Sept. 14) to I quit work in case the railroad mana gers refused them the eight-hour day. I Then the railroads inaugurated a strike against the public. They refus-
 ed to accept freight for shipment, es- l pecia1ly perishable goods, in many | parts of the country. This meant ap- palling disaster to farmers and partic-
 ularly to fruit growers. It meant
 great damage to all business-even to the railroads themselves.
 "The President sought to adjust the | trouble and avoid the disaster about | to be thrust upon the country. He | was not successful. The railway man. agers were particularly obstinate and refused to concede the principle of the ! eight-hour day. At this point the President put the matter up to Con- gross for its, consideration. Congress, disinterested, under law bound to con- slider only the public good. was forced to act in the public's interest It was not forced to act because of any de- mands upon Congress by the working men or by the railroads, but because of the public interest demanded inn mediate action. Congress acted It passed what is known as the eight hour law for men in the employment | of railroads in interstate commerce, engaged in moving trains. Every Wis consin Representative present voted for the bill, which became a law and averted the strike. l believe they did right I believe in the eight-hour day. l "It is claimed that Congress acted without due consideration. Did it? The question of the eight-hour day for skilled employees was not new. Ev- cry Congressman alive to the issues of the day must have been fairly familiar with the arguments pro and con on the subject of the eight hour day" Senator LaFollette says that when he secured the sixteen-hour limitation for railroad employees he was met by the same argument that is now being
 made against the eight-hour day.
 .eThe railroads and some other large employees are slow to learn," con-
 sinues the Senator, but abundant ex- perience has shown that for the trades, professions and crafts where skill, cou- rage, caution and close attention are required, the efght-hOur day is the maximum for efficiency.
 no principal of progress that is not
 forced upon them by legislation. The dawn of better day would never brighten the path of workmen were it left to the railroad managers. The railroad employees have been patient and long suffering. Theirs is hazar- dous business. Their labor is perform ed under dangerous conditions"