INDUSTRIAL REDISTRIBUTION. 299 



has been for working ten ? " I answer, Yes, a thou- 

 sand times yes, if the product of the six hours of 

 to-day be equal to the ten hours of yesterday ; be- 

 cause it is the only way in which society can receive 

 any benefit from its increased power of production, or 

 the workman obtain a greater amount of subsistence 

 or enlargement of comfort. It would be only practi- 

 cally allowing to the farmer the natural benefit that 

 should be derived from his ability to grow two bush- 

 els of wheat where before he could raise but one ; or 

 the shoemaker two pairs of shoes where previously he 

 could make but a single pair. It would be illustrat- 

 ing the benefit of making two spears of grass grow 

 where but one grew before, when the grower's condi- 

 tion was just that much improved. 



It is evident that something must be done whereby 

 the workingmen and society shall be restored to their 

 condition of past prosperity, and receive a benefit 

 from every new development of power, instead of be- 

 ing forced to greater privation. If, to-day, by six 

 hours of work as great an amount can be produced for 

 the comfort and sustenance of society as could yester- 

 day be done in ten, then every principle of social de- 

 velopment and sound business policy demand the 

 adoption of the six hours, and it must be done, to 

 the end that the idle may be brought into employ- 

 ment. These matters are simply questions of fact as 

 to power of production, sustenance, and comfort, and 

 rest solely on the employment of the people. 



On purely economic grounds the principle involved 

 in the six hour proposition must be adopted. Our 

 power of production, within the l&4rTpiarter of a cen- 



