Debate for May 21, 1891.Question: Resolved, That an eight hour law should be passed in Massachusetts.

Brief for the affirmative.G. MORTON and A. B. SIMONDS.

Best general references: Gunton, Wealth and Progress, 240-265, 355-382; Dilke, Problems of Greater Britain, 519-522; Report of Illinois Bureau of Labor. p. 466-498.

I. The eight hour system wherever introduced has been a success.- (a) In Australia: Dilke, 149-150, 152 (see general references).- (b) In the United States: experience of the United States government, etc.: Report of Illinois Bureau of Labor, 466-473.

II. An eight hour system would be beneficial.- (a) Morally: Mass. Report Bureau of Statistics, 1889, p. 447-448; Gunton Wealth and Progress, 240-251, 373-377; Congressional Globe, 40th Cong 2d sess. pp. 425.- (b) Socially: Report of New Jersey Bureau of Statistics, 228.

III. An eight hour system should be adopted by law.- (a) Intelligent legislation better than violent agitation.- (b) Law needed to overcome inertia of employers and to secure uniformity of application: Uniform Hours of Labor, 138-139; Report of the Illinois Bureau of Statistics, 1886, p. 467.- (c) Law should be passed early in Massachusetts since short hours attract skilled and cotented labor, making intelligent and industrious citizens: Uniform Hours of Labor, 126, 139, 134.

IV. An eight hour system not economically disadvantageous.- (a) For the manufacturer, since competition regulates and production limits wages: Walker, Polit. Econ. 263.- (b) For the laborer, since by greater energy he can maintain former production: Report of Illinois Bureau of Statistics, 477-478.- (c) Lessened production pro rata not disadvantageous to capital, labor or state, since unemployed, previously supported by others, now become self-supporting: Illinois Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1886, p. 474.

Brief for the negative.R. S. BARLOW and F. H. HITCHCOCK.

Best general references: Fortnightly review, LIII, 440; Nineteentth Century, XXVII, 553; National Review, XVI, 496; Contemporary Review, LVII, 240; Public Opinion, VII, 50, 312; IX, 77, 104; X, 251; J. S. Mill, Pol. Econ., I, Ch. 15; Stimson, American Statute Law, pp. 520, 523.

I. More than eight hours labor does not overtax the manual laborer; e. g. farmers, railroad men, explorers etc.

II. It has not been proved that most laborers would prefer an eight hour day. If they did they would have no right to prevent the minority from working as much as they choose.

III. A reduction of hours of labor must reduce the total output, and hence the return.- (a) To the laborer. (b) To the capitalist: J. S. Mill, Pol. Econ., l, 502.- (c) The laborers on whom it would fall could not aford the reduction.

IV. State interference,- (a) Should be limited to protecting the laborers from oppression or danger: Stimson, American Statute Law S 523.- (b) Does not prevent special contracts.

V. An eight hour law would bear unequally on the various industries owing to differences as to:- (a) Use of machinery and manual labor:- (b) Physiological conditions:- (c) Length of working year: Contemp. Rev. Vol. 27, p. 564.

VI. If reduction is to be made, it should be more gradual than from ten to eight hours, because:- (a) greater chance of success:- (b) Less disturbance to industry and trade:- (c)-Less tendency in working classes to abuse leisure gained by degees: Atlantic Mo., Vol. 65, p. 810.

VII. A state law would discriminate unjustly against the industries of Massachusetts in their competition with outside industries.