Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

Mr. MORTON. It proposes to adjust the rate of wages according to the length of time during which labor is performed. Now, as the eight-hour rule is not generally adopted in this country, and only in a very few places, it will require an immediate reduction of the rate of wages at our national workshops and places of employment to the amount paid for eight hours, or, in other words, it will reduce the amount of wages paid one fifth. The effect of it would be to bring down the rate of wages, because the time for labor is shortened that much.

I intend to vote for this bill; and I will state briefly my reason for so doing. I think it is a good way to try the experiment which is now being discussed throughout the United States, and has been for some time. In the first place, the fundamental proposition on which this proposal is based is, that in regular mechanical employments men will perform as much labor in eight hours per day as they will in ten hours. It is claimed that the rest, and the intellectual vigor and freshness imparted to operatives, will enable them to perform as much labor in eight hours as in ten. That is an experiment which can be very well tested in the Government workshops; for instance, in the navyyards and arsenals. If it shall turn out that there will be substantially as much labor performed in eight hours as in ten then the question is decided in favor of the eight-hour system, and it ought to be adopted, because the country gets as much labor in the shorter time, and therefore can afford to pay just the same price for it. If the Government gets as much labor performed in eight hours as in ten the Government can afford to pay just the same price.

stand his amendment, it proposes that the
wages shall be reduced, as the hours are in
point of time, to those paid by private persons
in similar employment.

Mr. STEWART. The amendment of the Sen-
ator from Ohio certainly, on no theory, would
be right, and I think on a moment's reflection
the Senator himself will see that, because I
believe it is admitted on all hands that men
will do more work per hour if they work eight
hours than they will if they work ten hours a
day.

Mr. FESSENDEN. Who admits it?

Mr. STEWART. If not admitted, I think it is a self-evident proposition. I think it is one of those axioms that require very little demonstration. I say a man will do more per hour who is only required to work eight hours a day than will a man who is required to work ten hours. The less number of hours a man works the more he can do in the hours that he does work. That, I believe, will be taken as true. This being so, it would not be fair to say that when we reduce the number of hours' work from ten hours to eight hours per day the wages shall be reduced pro rata. That would be saying that an hour of the ten hours' was as good as an hour of the eight hours. That would not be fair, because the theory is that men can do more per hour if they only work eight hours than if they work ten, so that eight hours' labor becomes equivalent to ten hours' labor. Certainly, if a man only works a single hour a day, he can do more in that hour, make greater exertions, than if he had to work every hour in the day. So to adjust the wages pro rata according to the number of hours would not be fair.

I do not agree with the Senator from Indiana in saying that the only question involved in this is the amount of labor. I think there are a good many other questions.

Mr. MORTON. I did not intend to say that. I said that if the first question was decided in the affirmative it would settle the point that the eight-hour system should be adopted. I said that if it turned out on experiment that as much labor was performed in the Government workshops in a day of eight hours as there is now in ten that would settle the question in favor of the eight-hour system.

Mr. STEWART. But the converse of that proposition, I maintain, would not necessarily be true, and I do not suppose the Senator

But, Mr. President, there are two or three other questions connected with this. If it shall turn out upon experiment that there is not as much labor performed in eight hours as in ten, that the amount of labor performed falls off twenty per cent., then the next question that comes up is this: can employers, manufacturers, and other persons who employ labor regularly afford to pay as much for labor when twenty per cent. of that labor is withdrawn as they can pay for it at this time? Can they afford to pay as much for eighty per cent. as they can for a hundred per cent. and compete with the world in our manufactures? Take the manufacturers and ship-builders, all those who are carrying on extensive employ-wished to be so understood. The system would ments, or even the smaller employers, the farming community, for example, can they afford to pay as much for eight hours' labor as they can for ten, and compete successfully with foreign competition, and get along prosperously? If they cannot, the question is decided against the eight-hour system, except upon another hypothesis; and what is that? That the laboring men can afford to lose twenty per cent. of their wages on account of laboring two hours less during the day. If they can afford to take twenty per cent. off their wages and have enough left to support their families and live upon comfortably, to educate their children and do as well as they are doing now, then the question is settled in favor of the eight-hour system.

These several questions are all connected with each other, but the first question, and one the settlement of which will perhaps settle all the rest, is this: whether it is true, as argued, that as much labor will be performed in eight hours as in ten if the eight-hour system shall become the regular system. Is there enough || gained to the operatives; is there additional vigor imparted to them and additional industry which will bring about the performance of as much labor in eight hours as in ten? If that is determined affirmatively by the experiment in the Government work-shops, it goes very far to settle the whole question. But, sir, it cannot be settled, and the experiment cannot be made, if the wages in the very beginning are reduced twenty per cent., which would be the practical effect of the amendment of the Senator from Ohio, because, as I under40TH CONG. 2D SESS.--No. 215.

not necessarily be rejected if there was not as
much work done in the eight hours, because
there might be other good results flowing
from it.

Mr. MORTON. Certainly.

Mr. STEWART. There might be greater comfort given to the workingman; there might be an improvement in the condition of society; and if there should be an approximate amount of labor, something near the same amount as now, the other good results might be sufficient to justify the adoption of the reform.

I have no idea but that taking the term of years through which men labor, an individual will, in the course of his life, accomplish more with eight hours a day than he will with ten hours a day labor. I think he will live longer, so that in the course of his natural life he will do more work if he works eight hours a day regularly than he will if he works ten hours. If you put the value of men on the amount of labor they can do in the course of their natural lives I think men will be more valuable who work eight hours a day than if they work ten hours a day. I think they will accomplish more in the course of their natural lives; they will not wear out so soon, and if there is any object in prolonging human life and increasing the aggregate of human happiness the argument would be in favor of this bill.

Mr. CONKLING. Will the Senator allow me to make a suggestion?

Mr. STEWART. Certainly.

Mr. CONKLING. The Senator presents this matter in view of the statistics of mortality, as to the effect of prolonged labor upon

human life, and struck as I am with that aspect of the case, I feel a little alarmed for myself, and for a good many others around me; and I beg to inquire of the Senator whether the bill cannot be amended in some way to embrace the members of the Senate, and put them on an eight hour allowance, which I hope will prolong their lives; because if it is true, as the Senator says, that ten hours labor tends to abbreviate human existence, I should prepare myself to bid farewell to almost all the gentlemen I see around me.

Mr. STEWART. I do not think that is material, because, from the indications in the Senator's State, and others, there is a greater supply of material for Senators than for labor, and by working up gentlemen here we may reduce the supply so as to correspond with the demand. The supply of Senators far exceeds the demand.

Mr. COLE. Mr. President, I know too well the importance of time to spend more than a moment in discussing this question. A few weeks ago I had the honor to present to the Senate a very long petition signed by the mechanics and laboring men of California, asking for the passage of some law of this sort. It was got up by some twenty or thirty separate laboring associations, and I believe that no people in the world are better able to judge of the necessity or propriety of a measure of this kind than the laboring classes within that State. There are, indeed, comparatively but few of the people of the world who perform manual labor, not enough in proportion to the whole. I have a great admiration for that king of Prussia who requires each of his sons to learn some trade, and to follow during his youth some mechanical pursuit. If all those who are able to perform manual or mechanical labor were to devote some small portion of their time to that pursuit there would be no necessity for people working more than two or three hours a day.

I suppose the operation of this bill will be to bring all mechanical labor down to the eighthour system. I presume that is to be the result of it if we pass it. I believe that eight hours' labor in the mechanical pursuits, and in all other branches of labor, is quite sufficient; that the residue of the time not devoted to sleep would well be devoted to the improvement of the mind and social faculties; and all American citizens should be enabled to devote some portion of their time to the cultivation of the intellect. Our Republic stands upon the intelligence of the people; it has no other foundation; and unless the people are provided by law with some protection against the requirement which is now put upon them by the exorbitant demands of capitalists, they will not be so well prepared to perform the duties of American citizenship. I am therefore very anxious for the passage of this bill.

The fact is that in this age of machinery an immense amount of labor is performed in a very short time. I believe in Great Britain the labor of one hundred and fifty or two hundred millions is performed through the agency of machinery, while the persons engaged in directing that machinery number but very few millions. We take advantage of these advances that have been made in the invention and use of machinery. At the present time, by the use of machinery, the farmers of our country who formerly devoted their winters to threshing out their crops are able to perform that work in a day or two, and the consequence is that their sons are enabled to attend the public schools, and thus to improve themselves the better to perform the duties of citizenship. It seems to me every argument is in favor of this bill. I am decidedly in favor of its passage.

Mr. WILSON. I shall vote against the amendment submitted by the Senator from Ohio, for the reason that I wish to give the eight-hour labor movement a fair trial. I think the Government of the United States, employing a few hundred mechanics and laborers, can afford to try this experiment, and I shall vote to try the experiment. During the past few years much has been said and written on the

subject of the hours of labor. I think the dis

cussions have been conducive to the interests of the toiling men of the country. In nearly all departments of industry the hours of labor are less than they were forty years ago. During this same period the prices of labor have been increased, and the condition of the laboring men of the country improved. Reared upon a farm until I came to the age of manhood, I was accustomed to work at least thirteen hours a day. After attaining the age of twenty-one I entered a mechanic's shop and worked more than fifteen hours a day. It is true I might have made the hours of labor less if I had chosen but it was the custom to work more hours then than now, and I was anxious to work as many hours and to accomplish as much as others, or as my strength would permit. Within one generation the hours of labor have been diminished, both where men worked by the piece or by the day, on the farms or in the workshops, to the advantage, in my opinion, of all concerned.

I have heard much and read much of what has been said and written on the subject of the hours of labor. I have not been convinced that toiling men can accomplish as much work in eight hours as in ten hours, or that they will receive as much compensation for eight hours of labor as for ten hours. It may not be for the permanent interests of those who have nothing but their labor to sell to lessen the hours of toil from ten hours to eight hours. If it is not, they will feel it and discover it quite as soon as any other portion of the people, and they can readily abandon an experiment that has failed. It may be for the material, intellectual, and moral interests of the masses of the people whose lot it is to toil for their subsistence to reduce the hours of labor, and if the reduction of the hours of labor will be conducive to the interests of laboring men and laboring women that reduction will be a source of gratification to every benevolent heart and generous mind.

In this matter of manual labor I look only to the rights and interests of labor. In this country and in this age, as in other countries and in other ages, capital needs no champion; it will take care of itself, and will secure, if not the lion's share, at least its full share of profits in all departments of industry. On general principles I am not anxious to stimulate labor in our country. The departments of productive industry are open to all, and offer incentives to toil. We are made for something higher and better in this country than to pile up annually $1,000,000,000. What we want to grow in this Christian land of achieved free institutions is a strong healthy race of men and women with cultivated heads and hearts and consciences. Whatever tends to dignify manual labor or to lighten its burdens, to increase its rewards or enlarge its knowledge, should receive our sympathies and command our sup port. Animated by these sentiments I shall vote against the amendment and for the bill as it came from the Representatives of the people.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. Mr. President, I am under no stress of weather to define my position, but I am at liberty to speak of this bill and say of it just what I think about it. I am not in any hurry to try any experi ments. This is called an experiment, and it certainly is an experiment, so far as we are concerned. I have entire confidence in the intelligence and the education of the working men of this country to understand why this bill is introduced, and I do not mean any, reflection upon anybody, for there has been considerable said in various parts of the country in relation to the subject, but it is introduced for the purpose of obtaining votes somehow and somewhere.

Sir, I believe it is a degradation of the working men of this country to deprive them of the privilege of making contracts to work for just whatever sum and for whatever time they please. There are some men who would be greatly distressed and injured if this bill should

pass and it should become the habit and custom of the country. It is absurd to suppose that a man can earn as much in eight hours as he can in any larger number of hours; that is to say, if he is a man of average strength. If he is a broken down man of course he cannot labor the full number of hours; but if he is a man of average strength he can earn more in a larger number of hours than in eight hours.

Mr. CONNESS. How do you know that? Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. I know that of my own experience, Mr. President. I sprung from the laboring classes. I have labored myself never less than twelve hours in all my life since I was fifteen years of age, and most of the time much more than that. I believe in leaving the people of this country at perfect liberty to make any contracts they please; and as I was observing, if this should become the rule and custom of the country, a man with a large family, who was compelled to work all of his time that his strength would permit, would be unable to support his family, because he could not obtain employment so as to work more than eight hours in the day; for whenever he happened to be employed with other hands he would be compelled to leave off and be discharged at the same moment that other men left off and were discharged.

I am also opposed to this bill for the reason suggested by the Senator from Ohio. It is already a great evil that men are seeking after governmental employment in preference to remaining at home in their ordinary and common avocations; and I say to you, Mr. President, that those people who are left at home, who are compelled to work a larger number of hours for the same price, will look with no favor upon a project of this kind which is to create and establish a favored few who obtain the Government employment.

It is said that the same amount of labor can be performed in eight hours as in ten. Look at the fact. Here are parties engaged with machinery that cannot be driven and is not driven beyond a certain rate of speed. Will the parties who are engaged with such machinery be able to produce any more by working a less number of hours per day when that machinery revolves or moves at the same rate of speed that it did before? Let us illustrate this. Take farming. Here is a man who drives his team in the field, follows the plow; can he make his horses or his oxen move over the same amount of ground in eight hours that he could in ten? It is absurd to suppose so. Take the establishment where there is one gang of hands that goes on and works through the day time, and another through the night, alternating; is it not obvious that the employers will be compelled to increase the number of hands for such an establishment as that to the amount of fifty per cent. in order to have three gangs of hands to fill up all the time? Certainly it is. But after all if this bill should pass it would result in the end in a reduction of the amount of wages, and I trust it will not pass.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. BUCKALEW. Mr. President, I intend to vote against this amendment, and I desire to say a word upon it.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The morning hour having expired, it becomes the duty of the Chair to call up the unfinished business of yesterday.

Mr. CONNESS. Ihope we shall go on and get a vote on this measure, which will be in a very short time.

Mr. EDMUNDS. It will lead to debate. Mr. CONNESS. Oh, no; it will not. Mr. BUCKALEW. I desire to express the same hope. I have no doubt we shall get to a vote in a short time; while if it goes over now it will perhaps take an hour or two on some other day.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The unfinished business can be passed over informally, if there be no objection.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I object. Mr. CONNESS. That being the case, I move to postpone the business now before the Senate for half an hour.

Mr. EDMUNDS. That requires a two-thirds

vote.

Mr. CONNESS. Very well; we shall get it. I hope the honorable chairman of the Committee on Appropriations will consent to that, because we shall get a vote in that time on this measure.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. If a vote could be taken on this measure without debate I should not feel authorized to interpose.

Mr. CONNESS. There will be very little further debate.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. But at the same time I shall not feel authorized to give my own consent, if I have any control over the question, that the bill now before the Senate, which has been two days before the Senate, and which certainly ought to be pressed to an early vote, shall give place to any bill unless it be one of very marked and peculiar character.

Mr. CONNESS. If the Senator will permit me, I will say to him that this is a bill of a very marked character, and I hope he will consent to the postponement.

Mr. NYE. We can pass it in fifteen minutes.
Mr. CONNESS. Certainly we can.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on postponing the order of the day for thirty minutes.

Mr. CONNESS. I call for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. POMEROY. I suppose the Senator is aware that if the bill is postponed for half an hour, or an hour, it does not come up of necessity at the end of that time. It can be brought up then by a vote.

Mr. CONNESS. Everybody knows that the Senate will take up the appropriation bill then. I hope the Senator will not occupy time on that question.

Mr. POMEROY. I know it will be taken up, but it is not like laying it aside informally by unanimous consent.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I do not want any misunderstanding about it. I do not want this appropriation bill to lose its place so that I shall be compelled to struggle with any other

bill.

Mr. CONNESS. There is no other bill that will antagonize it.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. While I have charge of this bill, I think it is my duty to present it squarely to the Senate. If the Senate say they will take up some other bill in preference to this, then of course I shall submit my individual judgment to theirs. If the motion is to postpone this bill for thirty minutes, and it comes up at the end of that time, I can understand that proposition. If it is simply to postpone this bill and take up the other bill

Mr. CONNESS. There is no proposition to go on with any other bill than the appropriation bill when this shall be done with

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. "When this Ishall be done with!"

Mr. CONNESS. It will not occupy more than half an hour, certainly.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. That is very problematical.

Mr. CONNESS. Give us half an hour on it.

Mr. EDMUNDS. The Senator from Maine, I think, would have his bill up at the end of thirty minutes, provided we lay it over in that way; because I do not agree with the Senator from Kansas that this bill that we are now speaking of would be the unfinished business of yesterday, and would therefore override the special order.

Mr. CONNESS. Not at all.

Mr. EDMUNDS. We are making the appropriation bill a special order for a particular hour to-day. That is exactly the form in which we always put special orders, that is, to postpone to an hour certain. That, of course, requires a two-thirds vote; and when that hour comes, the unfinished business of yesterday not being before the Senate, of course, as the Chair

ruled two or three days ago on just such a question, the bill will come up, but it requires two thirds to make it the special order.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. All these questions are under the control of the Senate. Mr. SHERMAN. At this period of the session we ought not to defer any longer the appropriation bills. There are several appropriation bills that ought to be passed; and I myself will vote with the Senator from Maine against everything until those bills are disposed of. At any rate, all business of minor importance should give way to them; and this meas. ure has been here a long time, and is not so very important as the Senator from California imagines, nor is it so easily disposed of. I hope we shall go on with the regular appro priation bill. There are many amendments pending to it, and I have many myself to offer, and we might as well go on with it. This other matter will lead to general debate and is of very little importance; and I think we ought not to postpone the great business of the session the appropriation bills-which must be acted on and should not be crowded off. And allow me to say that this habit of getting up some bill in the morning hour, when everything is taken up as a matter of course, and then crowding off the regular business by beseeching and begging, &c., so hard to resist in the Senate, I think ought not to be carried any further. We ought to go on with the regular, legitimate legislative business, and this eight-hour bill can be taken up at some other time.

Mr. CONNESS. I desire briefly to say that it is the fault of my honorable friend from Ohio more than of any other Senator that this bill has been before us so long. At the last session of Congress a similar bill was referred to the committee of which he is the able chairman; but no word has ever come from that committee in relation to it. This is another bill that has passed the House of Representa tives in the mean time, and I hope that we shall dispose of it this morning. There is no danger|| of its leading to any extended debate now. There is no danger that the Senate will not resume the consideration of the appropriation bill as soon as we vote on this measure, and I hope the honorable chairman of the Committee on Appropriations will consent to let this measure be disposed of.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I do not think it is quite the thing to appeal to me to exercise a personal judgment on this question. While I have the charge of the appropriation bill it is my duty to keep it in its order before the Senate. If the Senate choose to lay it aside and take up some other bill which ought to have precedence of it for the time being, I am entirely content with their judgment. Further than that, I do not think I ought to exercise a personal judgment about it.

Mr. NYE. We are all with the Senator; but let us vote on this bill. We have nothing to do but to take the vote on it. Nobody proposes to talk on it.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on postponing the order of the day for thirty minutes, on which question the yeas and nays have been ordered.

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 24, nays 15; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Buckalew, Cameron, Chandler, Cole, Conness, Cragin, Harlan, Hendricks, Howard, Johnson, McCreery, McDonald, Morgan, Morton, Nye, Patterson of Tennessee, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Stewart, Thayer, Wade, Willey, Wilson, and Yates-24.

NAYS-Messrs. Cattell, Conkling, Corbett, Davis, Dixon, Edmunds, Ferry, Fessenden, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Patterson of New Hampshire, Sherman, Sumner, Trumbull, and Williams-15.

ABSENT-Messrs. Anthony, Bayard, Doolittle, Drake, Fowler, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Henderson, Howe, Norton, Rice. Ross, Saulsbury, Sprague, Tipton, Van Winkle, and Vickers-17.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this question the yeas are 24, and the nays 15. So the order of the day is postponed..

Mr. EDMUNDS. I rise to a question of order; and that is, that it requires a two-thirds vote to postpone a bill to a particular hour by

the rule.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. To make a bill a special order requires a two-thirds vote; but this is not a motion to make it a special order. The Chair does not think it comes within that rule.

Mr. BUCKALEW. I think if this bill passes at all, it ought to pass without being incumbered by the amendment proposed by the Senator from Ohio. Several things are to be considered in this connection. There is very frequently a great difference between skilled and common labor in the labor markets of the country. It is often very important that the Government should employ labor of the highest degree of skill and pay unusual rates. Under the amendment of the Senator from Ohio, however, it would be impossible for the Government officers to employ any person in any particular trade or employment at rates above the common average in the labor market.

Again, the Senator forgets that we have laws fixing the rate of compensation for particular Government labor here at the seat of Government, and in other parts of the country. As to the employment of other laborers the rates are unfixed. The operation of his amendment, therefore, when it comes to be applied practically, may be found to nullify the proposed law, or to embarrass the Government in the transaction of public business.

We have never heard any complaints, so far as I know, that labor is unduly paid by the Government; that it is inordinately paid; that the rates of compensation allowed by Government officers to those employed by them ought to be reduced, either generally in the country or at particular points; and I take it for granted that upon this question we can rely upon our own agents that they will not pay larger rates than are proper to secure that labor which is necessary in the public service. I see no necessity, therefore, for loading down this bill with a condition or a limitation upon our public officers, which will be found, in practice, extremely inconvenient and operative against the public interests.

There is another point in this same connection. It is very often necessary that particular work to be done by the Government should be done in great haste. A vessel is to be fitted out for some public service in foreign waters, and it may be necessary to pay a little above the ordinary rates in order to secure the work being done promptly and efficiently. Why should you incumber now your public officers with a limitation which may prevent them in an emergency, and when temporary labor is needed, from paying above the ordinary market rate, when by your limitation you prevent them from obtaining the skilled labor at the particular city or place where your public business is to be transacted.

Upon these considerations, in my judgment, it is perfectly clear that if we pass this bill at all we ought not to incumber and embarrass it with the amendment of the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. FESSENDEN. The Senator from California [Mr. CONNESS] expressed some doubt whether a Senator could be found with courage enough to oppose this bill. I rather think in spite of that that I shall say a word or two against it. I have seen a bloodier hour than this upon questions of this sort; so that I am not particularly alarmed so far as that is concerned.

Mr. President, the question here is a very simple one so far as persons in the Government employ are concerned. It is whether we shall pay them one fifth more than persons doing the same kind of labor in private employ receive. That is all there is in it. Is the Senator from Pennsylvania aware that there is a law which requires the Government to pay the highest rate of wages that is paid by private establishments for the same kind of labor? If so, what is the danger arising from the amendment of the Senator from Ohio? It simply says that if you choose to cut down the time of labor in the Government works you shall proportionately cut down the pay; so that those employed by the Government shall not receive

more, in fact, than laborers doing the same kind of work in private employ receive for their labor. That is all the question that arises on the proposed amendment of the Senator from Ohio.

What propriety is there in their receiving more? Whether labor is too high or too low I do not know. Usually the law of demand and supply regulates all those matters. There are as good men, skilled laborers, let me tell the Senator from Pennsylvania, out of the navyyards and the Government work-shops as there are in them; so there is no danger of the Government failing to get skilled labor, if persons desire to go there, because they get the same pay there, and generally under greater advantages. It is known that all laborers prefer to work for the Government, and why? Because their pay is sure and regular; they consider it an advantage, and thence comes the rush to get into Government employment. In addition to that you now propose to give one fifth more for the same kind of labor to persons who work for the Government than is given to persons who work for private individuals. That is precisely the effect of it; and I suggest to gentlemen who make such a cry about economy that they take this matter into consideration, because it will amount to a very large sum of money; how much I cannot tell, because I have not calculated it; but enough to offset all the sheets of paper, and all the newspapers, and all the penknives, and all the little matters of that description of which we have heard so much.

But gentlemen, when they come to a matter which is supposed to affect politics, do not stop to consider how it is to affect the finances of the Government, or how it is to affect the Treasury. I do not make any distinction between parties on that account, for I see on both sides of this Chamber gentlemen representing different parties, running in the same direction, each trying to see which will get ahead of the other.

The Senator from California [Mr. COLE] has advanced or elaborated an argument which would have struck me with some force had it not been for what I see before me. He says that it is absolutely necessary for the development, physically and intellectually, of the laborers of the country that we cut down the time of employment to eight hours a day; that ten hours a day are too much for anybody to work and have time left for the ordinary improvement which we desire all our people to attain. Now, sir, as a general principle, I believe that experience has proved that intellectual development had better be left to the individual. Give the facilities for obtaining information which our system has given, in those certainly which were the free States of the Union for a long period of time, and leave to the individual to do something for himself. Leave the question of improvement to competition, that competition which arises from the nature of our institutions, and you obtain far more than you do by attempting to legislate men into intellectuality. Why, sir, it struck me very singularly how the rule worked. Here is my friend from Massachusetts, [Mr. WILSON.] He is on the same footing of argument, that men want time for improvement; eight hours is enough to labor. He tells us in the same breath that he worked thirteen hours a day in the field and fifteen hours in the work-shop. My honorable friend from California [Mr. CONNESS] also spoke of his experience in labor. What a specimen of dwarfs we have here arising from too much labor in these two honorable Senators! Men working thirteen or fifteen hours a day have by their own exertions, from their own manhood, and their own talent, and their own power, won their way to the Senate of the United States, and are here the peers of the ablest; and certainly they do not exhibit any very striking indications of great suffering in a physical point of view. My friend from Massachusetts especially does not look as if he had lost either blood or muscle by the labor that he has performed. And yet this argument is gravely advanced in this country, where we

know what men do by their own exertions, that we must legislate men from ten hours down to eight in order to give an opportunity for physical and intellectual development; and we are told that our people are injured in this country by too much work! Another argument is that we have such great improvements in machinery and power derived from various natural sources that we do not need so many hours labor on the part of men. I suppose pretty soon we shall get it along down so that we shall not need any muscular labor at all; machinery will do everything! I suppose next we shall come down to six hours a day. But I should like to know whether machinery will ever be so improved as to operate to reverse the rule of nature so that a man cannot do so much in ten hours as he can in eight! I did not know that that was the operation of machinery. That is imputing to machinery a new and singular power that I never before heard of. I did not know that while it lessened labor or increased power it at the same time dwarfed the individual man who directed it!

In my judgment, all this argument, as well as the argument that arises from the desire to make an experiment, amounts to very little. I have not heard of anybody that demanded this except the men working in the Government employ. They think themselves snug in their places, and therefore it is very convenient for them, getting the same wages that people get outside for ten hours' work, to have their time contracted to eight. There are a few thousand-I do not know how many-in the Government employ in the different navy-yards and arsenals. But how does that number compare with the immense number of mechanics and working men throughout the country; and how, to elaborate a little the idea stated by my friend from Vermont, will all the other mechanics in the country feel when they look on and see that those who are in the Government employ are a favored class by the legislation of Congress, and are receiving as much for eight hours' labor as they can receive for ten? Let me tell gentlemen that I do not think this will amount to much in the way of gaining popularity.

i am op

Now, sir, I object to this principally on account of the principle involved. posed utterly to the idea of regulating hours of labor by law. The thing has been proposed in several State Legislatures, and I have not heard of any that have adopted it.

Mr. CONNESS. Several have. Mr. FESSENDEN. I do not know but that there may be one or two such instances.

Mr. EDMUNDS. In those cases the State laws permit special contracts for a longer time. Mr. FESSENDEN. But you see the way we are placed is this: it is no question of special contract how much they shall be paid, letting every man contract for himself; but the question is whether we shall raise the wages of the laborers in Government employ one fifth, because that is the effect of it, by cutting of one fifth of the labor and leaving the wages the same. That is the question, so that we do not stand upon any equality with legislation of the kind that is suggested. But all these attempts to regulate labor by legislation, providing by law how much or how little a man shall work, go upon a false principle. They have a tendency to bring all men to a level, a stupid man upon a level with a smart and capable one. Why not leave men to make their own bargains, and make the best they can of their own powers, physical and intellectual? This is of the same nature with those societies that have been. formed in different places, more especially in Great Britain, to regulate the time and the pay of labor. What is the effect? It reduces men precisely to the point where they are all alike; the smart, capable, intelligent man can get no more and do no more than the stupid and lazy one; and when my friend from Indiana [Mr. MORTON] talks about trying an experiment, let me ask him if he supposes that the men in the navy-yards, sure of the same pay for eight || hours a day that they now get for ten hours, 1

will go to work to try his experiment and see if they cannot do as much in eight hours as they do in ten? He goes upon the assumption that the moment you pass the law and fix the time of labor at eight hours a day then all the men who work the eight hours will try his experiment to ascertain if they cannot do as much for the Government in eight hours as they could in ten. Do you suppose they will work any harder than they do now? Do you suppose they will be any more laborious? My honorable friend from California [Mr. CoNNESS] says that when he worked by the piece he found that he could do as much in eight hours as he could in ten, accomplish as much. Put your laborers in the navy-yards and arsenals to work by the piece, and they will try the same experiment and see how much they can do, and as a general rule, I reckon, they will be glad to work two more hours if they get more pay for doing so. They do not work by the piece as a general rule, unless perhaps to some extent in the armories, but by the day, and they get the same pay whether they do much or little work. What chance is there, then, to try the experiment that my honorable friend from Indiana speaks of? None at all that I can perceive.

Sir, the whole thing, where it has been tried, so far as my reading and observation go, anywhere, has had only the effect to prevent that competition which is of so much importance and consequence to all people in all countries by way of improvement, and more especially in a country like ours.

I oppose it, therefore, upon principle, and because I believe that no good can come of it, and much evil probably will. The moment we have passed this bill there becomes an excitement throughout the country upon the same subject between employer and employed, and the evil example will go forth from this place. Let men make their contracts as they please; let this matter be regulated by that great regulator, demand and supply; and so long as it continues to be, those who are smart, capable, and intelligent, who make themselves skilled workmen, will receive the rewards of their labor, and those who have less capacity and less industry will not be on a level with them, but will receive an adequate reward for their labor.

Is there anything in mechanical labor that should give it the advantage in legislation over all other labor? How many hours a day do our agriculturists work, as a general rule? Do they confine themselves on their own farms to eight hours a day? How many hours do professional men work, and is their labor less exhausting than mechanical labor? Is the labor that we perform in our offices less exhaustive? And yet nobody thinks of providing hours by law for labor of that description. I do not see many men about me who have been injured by such work. Perhaps my honorable friend from Nevada, [Mr. NYE]-he points to himself-may have hurt himself in that way; but when we hear him speak here, as he does with eloquence and wit so frequently, and with a voice that certainly seems to possess power, we are not apt to suspect that any very serious injury has been done him by the labor he has performed, nor do I see anybody else bere that suffers from that cause.

Mr. STEWART. Is that any reason why we should not legislate for the laborer?

Mr. FESSENDEN. The honorable Senator from Nevada [Mr. STEWART] is an exception to all general rules. He knows, because he knows. He talks about axioms and things that other people have a difficulty of understanding in fact or in logic. Things strike his mind, appear to him at once, which other people have to labor to attain a knowledge of. That is an advantage he has over us; he cer tainly has a great advantage over me physically as well as mentally; but I do not think I was ever hurt much by the work I have done.

Now, Mr. President, I regard this thing, in plain language, as a humbug. That is my habit of looking at it. I say it with no disrespect to

gentlemen who differ from me, but I think it is a mere sham in itself, a matter that had better be let alone, better be left to regulate itself, and it will regulate itself well. Nobody is hurt in this country by work. It is a country where men, if they are disposed to labor at all, can get along by labor. There are facilities afforded to labor of all kinds, mechanical, agricultural, intellectual; anything that a man chooses to do he can do, and his labor is rewarded. Why, sir, what do we hear every day of different sections of this country except the great demand for labor, the want of labor, the readiness with which men stand to pay for labor if they can have it? Is there any need, therefore, of our regulating and providing how much or how little a man shall receive, according to law? I see no such necessity, and I shall, therefore, vote for the amendment, and whether the amendment prevails or not I shall vote against the bill.

Mr. FERRY. Mr. President, I do not like to let this bill go to a vote without expressing as briefly as possible the reasons which control my action upon it. I shall vote for the amendment of the Senator from Ohio, because if any such bill as this is to pass it is just to the Government that the amendment should prevail.

The bill, in its application to the Government and those employed by the Government, is not like some of the laws which have been adopted by some of the States on the same subject, as the laws adopted by some of the States, my own State among the number, provide for the duration of eight hours as constituting a day's work, unless the parties shall otherwise agree. The present bill is a declaration of a bonus by the Government of the United States of twenty per cent. to its employés. But if what is termed the eight-hour rule is to be applied in the relations between the Government and its employés, it seems to me essential that the amendment proposed by the Senator from Ohio should prevail.

Sir, I must say that from the beginning of this agitation upon the subject of an eighthour law my opinions have been very similar to those of the Senator from Maine, [Mr. FESSENDEN.] In this country the agitation for an eight-hour law did not begin with the industrious laborer; it began with clamorous demagogues in search of votes. And, sir, as a principle, instead of being a benefit to the American working man it is striking a deadly blow at his rights; for if I were a day laborer, as the laboring man is commonly termed, either working at agricultural or mechanical pursuits, or an operative in a factory, I never would consent that the Government under which I live should interfere either with my rates of wages or with my hours of labor. And sooner or later the working men of this coun try will awaken, if they have not already awakened, to the danger of permitting such legislation to be considered a part of the rightful operation of Government. Reverse the law which you are attempting to make, and instead of by legislation making eight hours the rule of a day's labor legislate that sixteen hours shall be the rule of a day's labor, and the working men of this country would clearly see the manner in which Government was exceeding its just bounds and limitations.

Sir, believing that any such interference with the relations between capital and labor in a free Government can work only the evil, believing that such legislation as this is an ignoring of the experience of six hundred years, and carrying us back to the days of sumptuary laws and of interference between capital and labor which had been witnessed in the older countries of Europe, I do not desire, for one, to see such experiments revived at the present day in this country.

I have no doubt that under the practical operation of our system of Government the relations of capital to labor will adjust them. selves in accordance with the law of supply and demand equitably and best for the permanent prosperity of all parties. Neither have

I any doubt that governmental interference, either Federal or State, can work only evil. Allusion has been made to the practical working of these laws in the States where they have been established. I know of such practical operation only in my own State. There the law, framed as I have said to be dependent upon the agreement between the parties, has been in operation now for something more than a year, and the law is simply waste paper so far as affecting the relations between the employer and the employé, because both employer and employé have found out by experience that they can make their bargains better for themselves than the Government can make them for them. For a little time the law operated evil in introducing discord between the employer and the employed; but fortunately the influence of our system, the law of supply and demand, the impulse of self-interest on the part of the laborer himself, soon overrode the law and left it where it is to-day, a piece of waste paper, a simple monument of folly in legislation. And the same clamorous demagogues who started originally the demand that in this free country Government should undertake to regulate the relations of capital and labor now insist that the liberty of the parties to contract shall be taken away from them by the action of Government, insist that the failure of the eight-hour law is owing to the fact that we have left to capital and labor the poor privilege of making their own agreements. Fortunately, I am not aware that the people of any State have yet come to the conclusion that in a republican government it is best for us to say that men shall not make their own bargains, but that Legislatures shall make their bargains for them; and without that principle involved in your bills, which shall deny to employer and employed the right of making their own contracts, your eight-hour laws will forever remain waste paper upon your statute-books, the source of discontent and disagreement between capital and labor.

Because, then, the effort which is made, here is one which is avowedly to influence legislation by example throughout the United States, I do feel as if in the Senate of the United States, at least, there might be one last refuge for the exercise of common sense upon a subject like this.

Mr. SHERMAN. I call for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. DOOLITTLE.

the amendment read.

I should like to hear

from Pennsylvania to withhold his remarks at present. I, too, wish to speak; but let us have a vote on this bill.

Mr. BUCKALEW. Then I will simply say that if I had time, and the Senate would listen to me, I think I could make an answer to the remarks of the Senator from Connecticut. I think they do great injustice to those who vote for this bill.

The bill was ordered to a third reading, and was read the third time.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I ask for the yeas and nays on the passage of the bill.

The yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted-yeas 26, nays 11; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Buckalew. Chandler, Cole, Conness, Cragin, Dixon, Doolittle, Fowler, Harlan, Hendricks, Howard, McCreery, McDonald, Morton, Nye, Patterson of New Hampshire, Patterson of Tennessee, Ramsey, Ross, Stewart, Thayer, Tipton, Wade, Williams, Wilson, and Yates-26.

NAYS-Messrs. Corbett, Davis, Edmunds, Ferry. Fessenden, Morgan, Morrill of Vermout, Pomeroy, Sherman, Sumner, and Van Winkle-11.

ABSENT-Messrs. Anthony, Bayard, Cameron, Cattell, Conkling, Drake, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Henderson, Howe, Johnson, Morrill of Maine, Norton, Rice, Saulsbury, Sprague, Trumbull, Vickers, and Willey-19.

So the bill was passed.

The title of the bill was read.

Mr. SHERMAN. The title of the bill ought to be changed, it seems to me, to read: A bill to give to Government employés twenty-five per cent. more wages than employés in private establishments receive.

Mr. CONNESS. That is an eccentricity of the honorable Senator from Ohio. The bill has a very good title as it stands.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE.

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. MCPHERSON, its Clerk, announced that the Speaker of the House had signed the enrolled bill (H. R. No. 1059) to relieve from disabilities certain persons in States lately in rebellion; and it was signed by the President pro tempore.

LEGISLATIVE, ETC., APPROPRIATION BILL. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The unfinished business of yesterday is House bill No. 605. The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. No. 605) making appropriations for the legis lative, executive, and judicial expenses of the Government for the year ending the 30th of June, 1869.

The reading of the bill was continued from the point reached yesterday, and the amendThe amendment was read, being to insert ments reported by the Committee on Approafter the words "United States," in line six,priations were acted on in their order as reached these words:

And unless otherwise provided by law the rate of wages paid by the United States shall be the current rate for the same labor for the same time at the place of employment.

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 16, nays 21; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Cattell, Corbett, Davis, Edmunds, Ferry, Fessenden, Howard, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Patterson of New Hampshire, Ross, Sherman, Sumner, Van Winkle, and Williams-16.

NAYS-Messrs. Buckalew, Cole, Conkling, Conness, Cragin, Dixon, Doolittle, Harlan, Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery, McDonald, Morton, Nye, Patterson of Tennessee, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Stewart. Tipton, Wade, and Wilson-21.

ABSENT-Messrs. Anthony, Bayard, Cameron, Chandler, Drake, Fowler, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Henderson, Howe, Norton, Rice, Saulsbury, Sprague, Thayer, Trumbull, Vickers, Willey, and Yates-19. So the amendment was rejected.

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment.

Mr. BUCKALEW. I desire to inquire whether the time assigned for this bill has expired?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time fixed has expired.

Mr. CONNESS. Let us take the question. Mr. BUCKALEW. I should like to make one remark before I vote for this bill.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I call for the order of the day.

Mr. CONNESS. I appeal to the Senator

in the reading of the bill.

The first amendment reached was in line seven hundred and sixteen, to strike out "four" and insert "seven," and to strike out "$7,200" and insert "$12,600," so as to appropriate

$12,600 for seven clerks of class four in the War Department, instead of $7,200 for four. The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was after line seven hundred and nineteen, under the head "War Department," to insert:

For four clerks of class three, $6,400.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was under the head "War Department," to strike out "six," in line seven hundred and twenty-three, and insert "eight;" and in the same line to strike out "$7,200" and insert “$9,600;" so as to make the clause read:

For three clerks of class two, $4,200; eight clerks of class one, $9,600; one messenger, $1,000; one assistant, at $810; one laborer, at $720; two assistant messengers, at $8-10 each, $1,680.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in line seven hundred and thirty, to strike out "one clerk" and insert "three clerks ;" in the same line to strike out "$1,800" and insert "$5,400;" in line seven hundred and thirty-one, to strike out "one clerk" and insert "nine clerks;" in line seven hundred and thirty-two to strike out I

"$1,600" and insert "$14,400;" so as to make the clause read:

Office of Adjutant General:

For three clerks of class four, $5,400; nine clerks of class three, $14,400; twenty-seven clerks of class two, $37,800.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was under the head "Office of Adjutant General," in line seven hundred and thirty-five to strike out "twenty-six" and insert "forty," and to strike out "$31,200" and insert "$48,000."

Mr. WILSON. I move to amend the amendment by striking out "forty" and inserting "sixty," and by increasing the appropriation from $48,000 to $72,000. The number of clerks of the first class in this Department is now one hundred and twenty, and I propose to reduce it one half.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. These are temporary clerks, and will be provided for by a provision to be offered by the chairman of the Committee on Finance.

Mr. WILSON. This is in the Adjutant General's department of the War Department. Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. We have ap propriated for all the clerks that are provided for by law as permanent clerks. When we come to the question of providing for temporary clerks the Senator's motion will be in order.

Mr. WILSON. Very well; I withdraw the amendment to the amendment.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment of the Committee on Appropriations.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in line seven hundred and forty-two, to strike out "four" and insert "nineteen," and to strike out "$6,400" and insert "$30,400;" so as to appropriate $30,400 for nineteen clerks of class three in the office of the Quartermaster General.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in line seven hundred and forty-four, to strike out "seven" and insert "forty-two," and to strike out "$9,800" and insert$58,800;" so as to appropriate $58,800 for forty-two clerks of class two in the office of the Quartermaster General.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in line seven hundred and seventy-seven, to strike out "four" and insert "fourteen," and to strike out “$5,600" and insert "$19,600;" so as to appropriate $19,600 for fourteen clerks of class two in the office of the Commissary General.

Mr. POMEROY. I wish to inquire whether this amendment adds more clerks?

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. No; it is only providing for clerks in this office in conformity to the existing law.

Mr. POMEROY. I see that the House of

Representatives have only provided for four,

and

our committee propose fourteen. The House must have had some knowledge on the subject different from the knowledge of the Senator from Maine.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. We provided according to the estimates, and according to the statutes authorizing these clerks. On a former occasion they were authorized during the continuance of the war.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. In line seven hundred and seventy the word "each" should be inserted after "dollars."

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That amendment will be made unless it is objected to. The reading will proceed.

66

66

The next amendment was in line seven hundred and seventy-nine, to strike out eight" and insert twenty-four," and to strike out $9,600" and insert "$28,800;" so as to appropriate $28,800 for twenty-four clerks of class one in the office of the Commissary General.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in line seven hun. dred and eighty-five, to strike out one clerk'

46

« PoprzedniaDalej »