The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1920-02-11

JAMES DOLAN-I am not in favor
of the daylight saving plan, because
farmers work means from four o'clock
in the morning till eight p. m, and
hired help will not work that way.
HARVEY ERTELL-The daylight
saving plan Is no benefit to the farm
err whatever. If we want to do any
trading we got to stop the middle of
the afternoon If we want to get in the
bank. Busy as the farmers are, they
can't do that all the time.
p. FRANZMAN-No: let the cities
make their own hours. 1t does not
inconvenience me. When running the
tile factory the hands made their own
hours from to IL and IL to 5. This
worked fine
E. w. HUNT-Win answer your
question by asking another just as
simple. Will reducing production low
er the high cost of living?
ALBERT J. ATKINSON-We farm
ers need more daylight, but this plan.
AS l see it, 1t gives the city people
that much more time for pleasure and
spending their money. Just let we'll
enough alone.
LEW HINSHAW-I am not in favor
of the daylight saving plan as a farm
er, and can't see much advantage to
city. There are many reasons why
the daylight saving plan would incon-
venience the farmer, mainly in har-
vest when one hour in the afternoon
is worth as much as half the fore
: noon when there is big dew. If the
city adopts the plan the farmer will
have to do his trading and banking
of morning, Hoping we may all
settle down and be governed by Old
Sol (the SUM.
HUGH NJ ALLEN-Why would it
| not be inconvenient to the farmer
! when he asked a little help out OF
| town in harvest, come lay round the
barn two or three hours for the dew
to dry, and kill the rest of the day
looking at their watch, SO they can
walk out in the middle Of the after
noon.
| JAMES A. CRANOR-I consider the
daylight saving proposition a great
!!hinderance to farmers for the reason
that during the harvest period one
hour in the afternoon when the grain
is dry is worth great deal while in
the morning we have to wait on &C
count of heavy dew. Have no use for
it whatever.
ZIMRI HANSON-If the cities could
adopt this plan without any inconven,
fence to the country residents / could
have no objections. The plan is more
a detriment than an advantage to the
farming class, and the city schools to
adopt the plan and compel the cOun,
try pupils to come to it is very grave
injustice. Many Of them must rise at
a very early hour without sufficient
sleep and travel for two hours OF
more to reach the school house. The
tendency is to break down their
health in early life. The farmer can
find no advantage in it to himself ant
will never be satisfied with it. 1t does
not accommodate the city and coun
try residents alike and not be made
to do SO.
WILLIAM c. HARRIS-The day
light saving plan and eight hour day
law was the foundation for the H. c. L
and labor troubles in general. LIE
the sun regulate the day light. repea
the 8 hour law, and we will agar
start on the road to peace and genera
prosperity. More work and greater
production is our need.
JAMES E. HALL-It is an incon
venience to the farmers in many ways
especially in harvest time. Have tt
quit work an hour earlier in the even
ing, the best time to work. If the
cities wants the farmers all to pa
tronize the mail order houses, let then
close up.
A. H. HORMEL-The daylight saw
ing plan is the greatest nuisance eve
put in practice for the farmer. We d.
; not work on an hour basis, as does thu
city man, and do not need the clocl
turned up so we can get up an hou,
earlier. We cannot do a days worl
and get to town before the stores ART
closed. II they want more time il
the evening, go to work at six o'clocl
instead of seven, but let the clock:
alone.
: SAMUEL G. BISHER-While it ma.
benefit the city gardener, yet it is
detriment to the farmer and there Il
more lost than gained because thi
country is fed from the farms, not thu
city gardens.