People's Pilot, Volume 2, Number 41, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 31 March 1893 — THE LABOR QUESTION. [ARTICLE]

THE LABOR QUESTION.

Upon a Wise Solution of Its Problems Depends the Existence of the American Kopublic. I had in this number expected to enter into a consideration of the ethics of the eight-hour question and the jusj tice of its demand. But the righteousness and equity of this demand of la- . bor's are so apparent that it seems like a waste of space to attempt to demonstrate such a self-evident proposition. One of the fundamental laws of man's, being is his liability and subjection to toil and labor. Indeed, divinity itself does not appear to be exempt from this fundamental law, for Jesus expressly stated that He and His Father both worked. From the decree promulgated in the garden of Eden, “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread,” to the time when Paul said, “for even whep we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat,” all through the Scriptures of God runs the same burden of exhortation to men to honestly labor for their daily bread, and to steal not What then shall we say of a Christian (?) nation in which a million men are denied the opportunity to work for an honest livelihood and are compelled to become beggars, tramps or thieves? Reasonable labor has in all ages been considered a sacred duty and a blessed boon, while the curse of idleness has been set forth in the pithy proverb, “An idle brain is the devil’s workshop.” How can that be called Christianity which sits in apathy i and allows enforced idleness to breed paupers, drunkards and criminals? The demantl for conditions under which all men may have a chance to provide a living for self and those dependent upon them, Is founded upon eternal justice and must be in furtherance of God’s will, because a command implies a possibility of performance, and a prohibition implies a way of escape. That, cannot be a Christian government which forces men to beg, steal or starve and then punishes them for obeying the first law of nature—self-preserva-tion. All human laws, enacted by human governments are but attempts of humanity to protect itself from itself. “The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.” The law is for the evil doer, but it often happens that the law maker becomes the law breaker. Law is an Expression of the reason of man and is a self-imposed code of rules and regulations to compel him to do that which he knows to be right, but is liable to be tempted not to do, and to prohibit him from doing that which his better instincts teach him is wrong, but which his baser instincts continually tempt him to da It is a safeguard erected by man in an organized state of society to guard against the selfishness and coveteousness of man/as an individual. The strength of law is in the penalty thereof. Governments are or-

ganized in a republic by the people, and derive their powers from the consent of the people. Their primary ol> ject is to protect the weak from the strong and to guarantee to all men equal and exact justice and equal opportunities and rights. The eight-hour law must be strongly erected upon the broad foundation of “the greatest good to the greatest number,” and “equal opportunities to all, special privileges to nona” Its penalties must be heavy enough to force compliance with its provisions and it must be so framed as to benefit not classes or individuals, but all humanity. Its penalties must attach not only to those employers who nullify or abrogate the law, but must also keep in check the sordid impulses of those wage workers who by working overtime, for extra pay, would sacrifice the human race upon the altar of their selfishness. Any eight-hour law which does not make its provisions imperatively mandatory to both employes and employer will, like Dead sea apples, turn to ashes in the hands of the people. Oh, yes! I expected you to shout “paternalism.” But it is not paternalism. Nay, verily! but rather is it enforced fraternalism—the golden rule with an enacting clause. It is a practical utilization of that supreme love for God, which Jesus taught is best manifested by a love for our brother man. In a popular form of government the majority rules, hence all laws en- ; acted reflect the degree of righteousI ness possessed by the people and the plane of morality upon which they dwell. When men once arrive at a recognition of the universal brotherhood of man, all laws will have for their object the establishment of justice and fraternity among men. The father of our country in his farewell address said: “It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government * * * In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public . opinion should be enlightened.” If, then, the laws of a free government give expression to the degree of morality and justice possessed by its people, why shall laws giving expression to a belief in the universal brotherhood of man be characterized as paternalistic in their nature, and how can a free government, instituted and administered by a nation of brothers, be said to be administered by a father? In a popular form of free government, under which the laws reflect the sentiment of a majority of the people, there can be no such thing as paternalism. If laws which protect the weak from the strong and grant to all an equal opportunity for the pursuit of happiness, are paternalistic, by what name shall we characterize the laws we now have, which discriminate in favor of classes and confer special privileges upon the few? We need only to adhere to strict construction of these words found in the immortal declaration of independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Greater with certain Inallenble rights; that among these are lite, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed: that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, U is the right of the people to alter or , abolish, etc. As the “inalienable rights" menI Honed are all dependent upon an op-

portunity to labor, an eight-hour law is directly in harmony with the fundamental principles of our government One of the common objections waged against the adoption of a compulsory eight-hour law is that it would destroy the inviolable constitutional prerogative of freedom of individual contract Not only is this merely one of the technical legal subterfuges, used by lawyers to defeat the ends of justice, but it is a grim satire upon the truth. The same arguments that would prove that labor under present conditions possesses any freedom of contract would grant immunity to footpads, on the ground that their victims, possessing the alternative of being robbed or shot voluntarily’ gave up possession of their valuables With a million idle men eagerly watching for a chance to work, a wage-work-er must accept the terms offered by employers, or beg, or steal, or starve. This may be construed by legal lights as freedom of contract, but an awakened public conscience will soon become ashamed of a civilization which offers the freedom to steal or starve as the only alternative of industrial slavery? But I the right of any man to work a greater number of hours per day than such a number as will allow everyman, willing and anxious to work,the opportunity to work the same number of hours. Equal freedom assumes that every inan shall possess the same freedom of contract as is possessed by every other man. Immanuel Kant truly says: “Every one may seek his own happiness in the way that seems good to himself, provided that he infringe not such freedom of others to strive after a similar end as is consistent with the freedom of all.” Laborers will never possess exhet and equal freedom of contract, each and all alike, so that there are just as many days’ work as there are laborerswilling and anxious to perform them. Only by a compulsory eight-hour law can exact and equal freedom of contract in a state of perfect liberty be secured for and guaranteed to each and every laborer. And when that time arrives there will be two parties to each contract, instead of one, as now is the case—the would-be employer will yet have perfect freedom and liberty to offer —but—the would-be employer will possess what he does not now possess—the equal and perfect freedom and liberty to reject. This is the essence of “freedom of contract”

Nothing I have written in this series of articles is to be construed as meaning or teaching that under the present system of capitalistic ownership of all natural resources, all tools of production and all the varied forms of'capital, laborers in the several large manufacturing industries could, under the eight-hour system, make contracts severally or as individuals. But, as will readily be perceived, if there were no more day laborers than there were days of labor to perform, the wage workers in each and all manufacturing industries would enjoy collectively, as bodies, the privilege of freedom of contract and have a voice in determining the scale of wages to be paid in each and every line of industry and production. This is the concluding article of the series upon the eight-hour question. I trust I have written enough to show to farmers the important/) of this question to them. I hope that trades unionists may be led to see that a shorter day’s labor is the question of paramount importance to them. —George C. Ward, in Midland Mechanic. The Trust* Prosper. At a meeting of the board of directors of the American Sugar Refining Ca, held in New York City, the following proceedings were had: Whereas, The earnings of the company during the past quarter warrant an increase of dividend on the common stock; and Whereas, Since the annual report of the treasurer to stockholders on December 1, 1892, returns received from the corporations whose stock is held by this company (for the year ended March 1, 1893), render unnecessary for working capital the further retention of the surplus earnings of 1891 and 1892, as shown by the annual report, Resolved, That there be paid a quarterly dividend of 3 per cent on the common stock and in addition there be paid an extra dividend of 10 per cent on the common stock from the surplus earnings of 1891 and 1892 and that a dividend of 1% per cent be paid on that portion of the preferred stock of the company which is entitled to quarterly dividends, all the above dividends being payable on April 2 to stockholders of record March 18, when the transfer books will be closed, to re-open on April 2. z Jn addition to the above resolutions the statement was authorized that the company on March 1, after providing for all these dividends, had a surplus of net earnings of 15,000,000. Comment upon such a showing as this is unnecessary. It speaks for itself.—Kansas Farmer.