work, and last but not least, to force them to squander their funds in large quantities defending persons who have been unjustly and improperly accused of some alleged crime or crimes.

The enemies of organizations such as ours imagine that such "grand stand" appeals to prejudice are detrimental to us. On the contrary, they act as a boomerang, and return to haunt their instigators.

Our opponents make this mistake simply because they do not understand the philosophy or the principles upon which our organizations are based. Persecution gives them a standing and a cohesion and solidarity they could obtain in no other way. The pages of history are replete with illustrations, if our enemies would but refer to them.

Did Nero destroy the Christians?

Erectors' Association and their hirelings, Drew, Burns and others, that they may crucify an official or two or an individual or two, but that it will have no appreciable effect on the organizationthat it will as a matter of fact make it more militant and progressive than ever. What applies to us applies to other organizations as well.

The Labor and Reform press are awake to the necessity of prompt and united action to undo the wrong that has been inflicted upon us and our organization and to see that a repetition of it is impossible in the future.

To our membership I would say, oppose the open shop more strenuously than ever; it is the "other fellow's" game and if it were not favorable to him he would not boost it so strenuously. There can be no dishonorable compromises, no half way measures; we cannot sacrifice any of the vital principles of our organization and remain a factor for the advancement and protection of the rank and file of the International Association.

Drew has shown his hand in no uncertain terms and it should be plainly apparent to all what his real purpose is. He and his tribe want the organization destroyed; nothing less will satisfy them. Even now they are undoubtedly planning to complete what was started on April 22 with such a total disregard for the law of the land.

Keep up the organizing work; gather the competent workers into the organization; agitate and educate and we will have nothing to fear. The future is

ours.

earner.

been received from our Canadian National Legislative Representative, William L. Best, and which we take pleasure in reproducing herewith, were delivered by Hon. Senators J. V. Ellis, St. John, N. B., and J. H. Cloran, Montreal, Que. The Hours of Service law provides

that "no laborer, workman or mechanic in the employment of the government, whether or not engaged on public works, shall be required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any one calendar day, except in transportation services or in cases of extraordinary emergency."

The law also applies to men employed by contractors or sub-contractors doing work for the government.

Address of Hon. Senator J. V. Ellis.

It may be said that we have to meet the case of men coming to Parliament and demanding the passage of an act which will regulate the hours of labor so far as they are in the control of the government in the work which it gives out, either to a person acting for the government directly, or for the contractor. I would not be surprised if generally the feeling of the Senate were against any such legislation, because since time began, roughly speaking, the civilized and uncivilized world could be divided into two great bodies, the men who work, and those who do not; but the great body of the men who work usually work for the men who do not work. Ingenuity and astuteness have enabled some men to capture for themselves the benefit of the greater portion of the labor employed in the world. That has gone on from time immemorial. It is ingenious and effect

ive.

In the course of the observations which my honorable friend from Wellington (Hon. Mr. McMullen) interjected into the remarks made by the honorable gentleman from De Lanaudiere, he called attention to some work done by bricklayers, contrasting the English bricklayer, and the American, one against the other. The argument about bricks is always a dangerous one for the capitalists to use against the workingman, for one of the greatest strikes in human history, profane or sacred, relates to bricks. Everybody will recall the first strike of which we have any record, in the land of Goshen, where the Jews were engaged in making bricks which they sold to the Egyptians, and the Egyptians only allowed them enough money to live on. When the Israelites complained, the reply of the Egyptian was: "Well, you must make more brick, and you will get no straw. You must find the material." We all know what followed that, the exodus of the Jews, the journey across the Red Sea, and the cloud by day, and the pillar of fire by night, and the destruction of the Egyptian army. These were incidents in the story of the great strike which ended in the emancipation of the Jewish people, and so all through, Egypt afterwards captured whole nations and flourished off the proceds of their labor. Greece did the same, and Rome also. They captured whole nations, men

of

learning, and men of skill in every industry, and brought them under their yoke cians, were able to live in luxury in a manuntil the senators of Rome, the patriner they never could have done if they had themselves to work for their living. or if they had simply the labor they could gather in from the country which they occupied. The Roman galleys in the Mediterranean Sea, and surrounding waters, were manned by slaves who were forced to row the boats into battle, not knowing which would go down, and they were very badly treated if the Romans were defeated. This is very aptly referred to by one of the poets who speaks of the galley slave who went scourged at night to his dungeon. Labor has always been forced to fight a sturdy fight, and it gains its way very slowly. Every reasonable man, if he will consider for a while the whole question, will come to the conclusion that the true solution is that labor shall be honestly and fairly rewarded; that the two orders in the state, if there be two orders, whatever the divisions may be, shall equally enjoy the privileges and results that are won by industry.

One of the most remarkable and deplorable conflicts of modern times, which arose out of the treatment of the common toiling people by the rich and the powerful of any land, was that of France. The conditions in that country for wealth-getting were of such a character that the profits of the industry and of the laboring people went entirely into the hands of the upper classes. A craze for beauty, for luxurious appointments, for splendor, for gayety, pervaded all the court and the middle classes, and was reflected in the lives of the leading people of the capital; but all the while were the sullen brooding peasantry, looming ominously in the background, and when the inevitable crash came, it precipitated the saddest evils that ever beset a country.

In 120 years the revolution which resulted has not brought to all the people the relief that was desired. True, it soon relieved the condition of the bourgeois. It is only now affording relief to the ordinary working classes in that country.

A strike a few weeks ago among employes of the government railway was suppressed by the strong hand of the premier, but the premier has since fallen, because he did not recognize the strength of the forces against which he was contending. My own idea is that capital and labor, instead of being in constant conflict, should endeavor to harmonize. Labor is the great creator of capital, and capital should, equally acknowledge the fact.

One cannot get on very well without the other. We all know that the state has undertaken great things for the people. It has undertaken to educate them. It has made many provisions for their comfort, and given them opportunities for the enjoyment of life, not at their

command before, but that naturally of itself creates in the people a desire for still better conditions. The state is moved, no doubt, by the desire to give them better conditions, but the effect upon their minds, upon their happiness, is that it soon becomes apparent to them that they want something more, that the hours of labor are too many, hence the desire to shorten them. Can they be shortened? A great many honorable gentlemen will say offhand, "No"; but many of us will remember that half a century ago the workingman was expected to work twelve hours a day, and did as a rule. There are places in the country yet, I presume, where the workingman works twelve hours. A man cannot be expected to do as good work in the twelfth hour as he could in the earlier part of the day. It seems to me that eight hours should be the limit for a man to work, and more than that is too much, It has been urged that the workingman should not be allowed to vote. No doubt the workingman uses the vote that was given him as much as he can for his own benefit, for the accomplishment of the designs which he considers best for the state, regarding himself as one of the great and important elements in the state. That cannot be found fault with. It is not unreasonable, and the proposition is to meet the conditions which have been created beforehand in such a way that he shall feel reasonably satisfied with the legislation. Giving him the right to vote certainly changes his position, and he no longer can be held within the same lines as before. The fields among which he operates now are very much more difficult, perhaps more dangerous, than the fields in which he labored years ago, not only in mining, which is perhaps an old industry, but in a great many other occupations the workman has to run more risk for his life than he did many years ago, and why? The great railway work, the tunneling which is always advancing, and other undertakings are hazardous. Every morning you will read in the newspaper of some terrible accidents in mines, in tunnels, and sometimes in bridge building where, in a great and difficult structure, numbers of lives have been lost. If any honorable gentleman will take the record of the accidents of a week or fortnight he would be surprised at the number of lives sacrificed in occupations of that kind. . I want to quote an observation as to the moral effect of the shorter day-the natural effect upon the working people and, I trust, upon others as well. A Mr. Francq appeared before the committee of the House of Commons who considered this bill and was asked some questions by Mr. Verville. statement was as follows:

His

"I am in favor of the eight-hour bill for three reasons. First, because it is beneficial to the men; second, it is in the interests of the employer himself, and

third, because it is in the general interest of the country. It is beneficial to the men physically, because the daily work must not be so hard on the workingman as to alter his health and the source of his energy. Otherwise he will spend too much of that force and become a physical wreck before his time, and he will be placed in a position to be a burden to humanity in general, and with the strain imposed upon men by the modern mechanism I consider eight hours a day a sufficient average. I consider it morally beneficial because my own experience convinces me that when a man finishes his work early he is anxious to get home and enjoy himself with his family, and it is the means of keeping him away from barrooms and other places. He considers himself then as a free man, as he is placed, by a short day's work, on the same footing as professional men, and in consequence he is satisfied with his lot, has an opportunity to educate himself and takes an interest in the education of his children. Ask the wife of any workingman who works a short day what she thinks of it, and you will see that they are all satisfied and are more happy than when their husbands work longer hours. I will give you an example: In my own trade, the printing line, since we had the eight-hour day, men left the crowded districts of Montreal and proceeded at once to their homes in the suburbs, and were not loafing any more on St. Lawrence Main street, but at 4 o'clock in the afternoon, when they quit work, they went home, and the moral standpoint of our men has gained 50 per cent. The proof of it is that the meetings of our syndic are now peaceful, and we do not see any more men under the influence of liquor, making a noise, advocating trouble and fight, because they are satisfied with their lot. This can be proved, and, as a result, there is harmony and peace between our master printers and the compositors.

"It is in the interests of the employer, because it can be shown by example and proof that the production of a man working under a short day (say eight hours) is equal, if not superior, to that when he is working nine hours, and even working ten hours. He has had a good rest, feels in a better condition to perform his daily duty, and he is in good physical and moral condition and can maintain his working capacity to a full extent and produce the same amount of work. the other hand, my own experience proved to me again that the standard of the work performed under such conditions is of a superior character. I am always speaking, of course, of my own trade.'

On

Mr. Franq went at some length on the same lines, but that will give an idea of the matter. He is now a printer employer and he says when that change came about he was seeking to change the hours of labor from ten hours to eight, a

change which was carried, and which is now the rule among the printers all over this country. I am in favor of the eighthour day myself because I am enjoying it. I work only eight hours. They had in Ottawa, last February, a gentleman from Halifax, Professor Magill, who spoke upon the subject before the Canadian Club, and what he said was, by agreement, put into the evidence. He views the idea favorably so far as it affects the workingman, but he is doubtful as to the financial effect. He said:

"I have talked along this line today in order to illustrate the one point I want to make. The one I want to make is that so far as I am concerned, if the day could be shortened for the workingmen of Canada, without closing mines and mills, without creating unemployment, without making matters worse, every humanitarian interest of the working classes of Canada requires that that bill should be passed. Further, if the day could be shortened without hurting the productive work of this country, without handing ourselves over to the tender mercies of others, or compelling us to protect ourselves by the very doubtful method of exaggerated tariffs, it would be not merely in the interests of all the people of Canada, because a nation today must be broad, based upon the masses of the people. We cannot have at the base of this country a large mass of men growing up like machines, unintelligent, unobservant, unequal to the duties of citizenship, demoralized-we cannot have such a population at the base of this country today without producing amongst all the classes of this country immoralities of the worst kind and national inefficiency of this most fatal kind. The welfare of the people of the upper classes, if I may use the word, the welfare of the whole people of Canada, is dependent upon having the very best conditions, industrially, educationally and in every other way amongst the working classes, and if we could improve their position to any extent whatever, by shortening the working day, it is the bounden duty of every loyal citizen of this country to support that legislation and the sooner it is enacted the better.

statements.

"But my point is this: The worst thing in the whole discussion of labor matters is the tendency to make general We must in this matter distinguish between industry and industries. Long hours are bad, very bad; the progress of civilization means a shortening of hours. There is no country, civilized, where the hours are very long, speaking for the mass of the workers. We must shorten the hours, but we must recognize that it is a matter of industrial evolution. Legislation must await that evolution. If we can hasten it here and there we ought to hasten it, but if we go ahead of that industrial evolution we wil, merely rush to disaster for ourselves and for the working classes, too."

It will strike one at once that if that view was a fair one as to the general condition of the workingman, he might fairly and reasonably demand the shorter hours that he gets; but if bringing that into effect would so disarrange the whole system of the various industries it might be unwise to put it in force all at once. But the bill before Parliament does not do that. It merely applies to the work which is to be done under government contract, or under persons selected by the government to superintend work, and that is a very short step along the way. My own idea, and I have passed through various stages in my mind as I have endeavored to wrestle with this question, was against that view as it passed the lower house, because I thought it did not go far enough; but on the suggestion made by Professor Magill, of Halifax, and as agreed upon among other writers on the subject, it is perhaps better to take the smallest step first and go along as best we can, giving such advantages to the men as we can give them without materially interfering with the ordinary course of business. I know very well the argument that is used, that in doing this you disarrange other industries, or you may disarrange a particular industry. For instance, the case of a man who is building for the government under contract, and building also for a private individual or a company under contract. there may be a clash in the work that would be very troublesome for him. That might be so; but he would have to get along with that trouble as best he could. There are troubles in whatever we do in this life, and it would not do that Parliament should hesitate to take a step in the right direction simply because somebody might be injuriously affected. seems to me that one of the practical troubles which beset a question of this kind is that a change taking place in the carrying on of an important work, particularly in a large work where a vast amount of money is invested, in factories, developing all sorts of industries, has the effect of removing the employer from his workmen, and the workmen from their employer; that is to say, the man who is furnishing the money to build a house is not the man who employs the labor. Labor is now flesh and blood, but the men who are engaged in a great part of the great works which are going on, are men who put their money into the enterprise, they buy bonds, they lend capital to organizations of various kinds, and no longer does the man who has furnished the means for buildings employ the workmen at all. My honorable friend from Hastings (Hon. Šir Mackenzie Bowell) is engaged in the same business as I am. We meet our employes every day, and are interested in the condition of their lives and families, and there is a relationship in that way between the employer and employe which no longer reaches the vast number of men

It

who are engaged in working and building great enterprises. Therefore, the sympathy which once existed between the employer and employed has very largely ceased to be of the effective character which it was years ago, and that, I think, must considerably prevent the free and full understanding between the parties of all the differences. I notice a constant tendency amongst working people towards socialism in various forms, and I sometimes think the capitalist himself, the man of means, is to a great extent responsible for it. I do not know whether it would be a good parallel to refer to the case of Ireland, where the owner of the soil lived abroad, and all he cared as regards his tenants was to get as much money as he could out of the land, and the agent had to extort all he could from the tenants, and pay it to the landlord on time. That is the way now with those who own a large portion of the money employed in great undertakings, and we cannot always understand the feelings of the workingmen as to that, nor can we fully appreciate the motives which induce him to rebel against his existing conditions. I think therefore that capital should make some effort, I scarcely know in what direction, to meet the growing demands of the workingman, but one thing that can be done in that direction is for the Senate to pass this bill. It is a very simple bill-almost too simple for me to occupy so much time talking to the House about it; but it is merely to allow the government to do certain things with regard to public buildings, and to provide the hours of work on such buildings. Now, the House of Commons has passed the bill. I will not inquire deeply into the question whether it is a government measure or not, although my Own constitutional view, so far as I have a constitutional view on the question, is that it is really a government bill. It passed the House of Commons by consent of the government, guided right through its various labyrinths by a member of the government, and at any rate passed by a House of Commons which supports the government. That may, or may not, affect the minds of honorable gentlemen here, but it is a reason, I think, why the Senate should not hastily reject a measure intended to help the workingman in the struggle which is going on, and which really does not affect, at any rate, a great body of people who employ men for eight hours a day, or for ten hours a day, except that it may in time lead you to look with a more moderate view upon the demands of labor. I rest my case for the passage of the bill, first, on the ground that it is a comparatively simple measure and a step in the direction of making for the eight hours a day, and I am sure we all ought to be glad to think that the works of the country that are to be dore can be carried out by an eight hours a day system.

Address of Hon. Senator J. H. Cloran.

I feel under a deep obligation to the honorable member from St. John (Mr. Ellis). I have listened to his exposition of this subject with heartfelt appreciation. This question has been before the Senate for some time, and it has been discussed from different points of view. Some points of view did not appeal to my sense of justice, nor to the sense of the vast majority of the country. Today we have had not only a sympathetic explanation of the measure so far as its principle is concerned, but what I consider a most profound and sound explanation of the whole question, one that appeals to the human heart, for it means the uplifting of human nature. I am sure that a vast majority of the working people will be deeply grateful to the honorable gentleman for his advocacy of their case here today. It is, to my mind, a most valuable contribution to our parliamentary debates, one which strikes at the root of what may be our greatness or our smallness. The honorable gentleman has taken up this question in a sense worthy of the declaration of the founder of the Christian religion, that the laborer is worthy of his hire. The honor

able gentleman put the case on its true ground, and solidified it by quoting testimony of gentlemen well qualified to give opinions on the subject. While he was speaking, I jotted down a few notes on the order paper before me, as it was not my intention to speak today on the subject, but fearing that I might have to, I did so and I have here in big letters, "Discussed from the humanitarian and philosophical point of view." That was the impression created in my mind by the speech of the honorable gentleman, and it was so far true that he was endorsed by the evidence of Professor Magill on the question. This is putting this measure on the plane where it belongsnot on the low vulgar stratum of selfish greed to meet the demands of capital. The question is now on a plane which will affect, I say, the greatness of this country, or affect the smallness of Canada. We are a young nation, plowing our way through the records of the world in a manly fashion so far. We have in several lines of legislation set an example to countries older than our own in the protection of human life, of the morals of the people, and in the administration of justice, and so on.

I

Today Parliament is called upon, I will not say officially, by the government. am sorry that the government has not taken to itself the credit for this among other measures which it has brought before Parliament-but we are called upon to sanction two principles. The first is the right of the majority to have their will respected. We are called upon to declare the right of the nation to healthy and moral manhood and motherhood. This bill aims at both; it means, if it is