SILK DRESSES AND EIGHT HOURS' WORK. 247 



ertion and force. This necessitates the rule, therefore : More la- 

 bor, more wealth ; less labor, less wealth. This rule no one can 

 escape or ignore. 



The question now comes up, whether working eight hours a 

 day tends to more riches or more production than working 

 twelve. That it does not, I have already stated is my belief, and 

 the belief is founded upon a long experience as a mechanic, farm- 

 laborer, employer, and observer. In twenty years of labor in a 

 shop, I never saw the time when I could do twelve hours' work in 

 eight hours, excej^t j^ossibly for a single day. I never saw the 

 man that could do it, and I never heard of one that could do it. 



I never met one that said he thought it could be done for any 

 length of time. It is a well-established fact that most men that 

 pretend to work well have a working gait of their own, and can 

 not be hurried beyond that advantageously. If they are, they do 

 poor work or break down. This is so obvious that any pretense 

 that as much will be accomplished in the shorter hours in farm- 

 ing or physical labor of any kind borders on the ridiculous. So 

 obvious is it, that the principal advocates of the eight-hour move- 

 ment have ceased to put their case on this ground, and rely upon 

 the other theory, that less work will be done, and consequently 

 more work will be left to be given to the laborers seeking for 

 something to do. 



If this latter view be adopted, it follows that the eight-hour 

 men are philanthropists, who have sacrificed, or propose to sacri- 

 fice, one third of their possible earnings for the good of their fel- 

 low-men who have no work. This is incredible. The laborers 

 themselves do not act from any such principle. They are think- 

 ing all the time that, instead of making a sacrifice, they are get- 

 ting more leisure and making more money. They think that, 

 Instead of the work they could do in the four hours they have 

 abandoned being done by the poor fellows who need help, it is 

 not done at all, and, not being done at all, wages have risen, and 

 thus they can get twelve hours' pay for eight hours' work. 



In other words, they propose to increase the wealth of the 

 community by lessening the amount produced by the community, 

 thinking that, with a smaller amount to be divided as wages by 

 one third, they can get a bigger share. Not only do they suppose 

 this impossible thing, but they claim it has already been accom- 

 plished, and they say the advance in wages during the last thirty 

 years has been caused by the reduction of hours. 



Assuming this to be true, it is perfectly legitimate to argue 

 that a further reduction of hours will work in the same way, and 

 they name eight as the next station on the scale, with an intima- 

 tion that soon six will be the point, and later four. I believe that 

 most concede that it is necessary to have some work done, not 



