Year: 1869

The Eight Hour Cheat,


No moro complete illustration of
the demagoguc has been made than
the course Of politicians and the action
Of the last Congress on the oight hour
law. The object Of all they have said
and done has been, not TO afford relief
to the workingman, or TO increase the
amount Of his wages, but to secure his
vote. When, few years ago, the
fact was published and commented on
that in the manufacturing establish.
ments Of New England and other parts
Of the country young children were
confined at work twelve, fourteen and
even sixteen hours day, without any
opportunity for recreation or educa.
ton, the whole community demanded
the passage Of laws reducing and reg
ulating the number of hours in which
children might be kept at work This
was an act Of mercy as much as the
passage Of laws forbidding cruelty to
animals.


But the movement reducing the
hours Of labor for men first to ten and
then to eight, and especially the law
passed by Congress making, in the
Government service, eight hours
days work, has been Of very differ.
ent nature, and had a very different
object. The workmen, il is true,
wished 10 obtain the same compensa.
tiOn for eight hours work as for ten
hours, and the politicians favored their
claims for the sake of obtaining their
votes, bat they were very careful not
TO say that workmen ought to receive
the same compensation for four.f .ffths
as for five.ffths OF given period.
This ground would have been too alb
surd for any man of sense to take.
Hence there has been constant mis-.
understanding between the politicians
and the workingmen.


Senator Wilson has been writing a
long letter to keep up this delusion on
the part of the laboring classes, in
which he says "Congress was asked
" to constitute eight hours days
A" work. Congress was not asked 10
" reduce the pay in proportion to the
" reduction Of the hours, but to fix
" the number of hours that should
" make the days work. Congress.
4" believing the Government could
" afford TO test the experiment, enact.
" ed the eight hour law. BY that law
" eight hours constitute a days work,
" a days work that commands days
" wages"


If Congress intended not only to
diminish the hours of labor. but to
increase the compensation per hour.
why did not the law say so Why
did the law simply say that a days
work should be eigh, hours instead of
teng This was all that it could do
and for grave Senator TO write a
pettiiogging document to make it ap-
pear that the law was designed TO
regulate the pay of laborers in the
employ Of Government, whom a single
line would have expressed it, if there
was any such intention, is an impos.
tion upon the common sense of tho
people.


In these remarks we have not the
slightest design of touahing the ques-
tion whether laboring men generally
are overpaid, or paid sufficiently. or
not enough for their labor-that is moi
the subject on which we are writing
but what we are speaking Of is tho
deception praeticed by politicians, and
even law makers, in regard TO reducing
the hours Of labor, intending to have
such laws understood in different
sense from their true and intended
meaning Thecourseo of the politicians
and the laws themselves are positive
injury TO the class for whose benefit
they are pretended to be passed. They |
actually reduce their receipts: and |
this must be the case with all such /
enactments. No employer will pay |
for eight hours work as much as he /
will for ten, and our legislators must
count largely npon the stultifcation
Of the community before they can
pass such law.-N Y Obserrcr.