WORK AND WAGES.
The lecture Mr. Jeffrey was to deliver was well advertised, and excited
a great deal of interest in Minton. The name and character of the
lecturer were so well known that people were anxious to hear him, on the
score of his personality, apart from the special interest of his
lecture. That, however, was interesting in different ways to many, and
those who took the side of Capital, as well as those who took the side
of Labor, were, from their different points of view, equally desirous of
hearing what a man regarded as an authority on the subject would say
about it. And a still greater interest was excited when it was announced
in the _Minerva_ that Mr. Jeffrey, in the course of his lecture, would
discuss and meet some opinions which Mr. Wharton had lately expressed in
that paper, in opposition to positions Roland Graeme had advanced in
_The Brotherhood_. Now that so redoubtable a champion had entered the
lists, the contest appeared a more respectable one. Even Mr. Pomeroy
would scarcely have ventured to call Mr. Jeffrey a "crank," and Mr.
Wharton went to the lecture, expecting some intellectual pleasure, at
least, despite the promised criticism of his own views.
The Pomeroy family was, this time, represented by two members. Harold
Pomeroy had actually braced himself to the exertion of sitting through
it, which, with Kitty for company, "would not be so bad after all." His
father would not go, but wished that his son should, for decency's sake.
Miss Pomeroy was naturally eager to hear more of a subject that had
begun to interest her very strongly. The Blanchards were there, of
course, and so was Philip Archer. And Mr. Chillingworth, on this
occasion departing from his usual indifferent attitude, condescended to
show some interest in one of the most important questions of the day.
The hall was crowded, for the most part, with a very different audience
from that which had been collected to hear Roland's lecture; but a part
of it had, by Roland's care, been specially reserved for the workingmen,
of the more intelligent of whom there was a good representation; so that
"Capital" and "Labor" might have been said pretty fairly to divide the
audience between them. Mr. Jeffrey was a tall, spare man, of striking
and manly presence, with a slight stoop. His fine broad forehead was
shaded by waves of iron-gray hair. His dark eyes and firm mouth carried
out an impression of earnestness and decision. He entered the hall,
accompanied by Roland Graeme, who briefly introduced him, and listened
to his lecture with the combined earnestness of a reporter and a
sympathetic auditor.
The lecturer began by expressing the pleasure it had given him to come
to Minton, to reinforce the good work begun by his esteemed friend, Mr.
Roland Graeme; the pleasure of whose acquaintance he owed to their
common interest in the grand movement, in favor of which he had the
honor to speak to-night.
This prologue caused a distinct sensation in some quarters. Harold
Pomeroy opened his eyes, and glanced at Mr. Archer, whose moustache
curled as usual, though with what expression, it would have been hard to
define. Nora gave a slightly triumphant look at both, and Kitty stole a
mischievous glance at Mr. Chillingworth's somewhat contracted brow. As
for Roland himself, however, though naturally gratified by the
recognition, which he did not report, he was quite unconscious of any
implied compliment; regarding it quite as a matter of course, that
community of interest in any great movement should draw together those
who were engaged in it. Mr. Jeffrey, in entering on his subject,
remarked that he could not possibly prevent his subject from appearing
somewhat dry; but that, notwithstanding its dryness, it was fraught with
the deepest interest and importance to human welfare. He began by
referring to the unquestionable fact, that "the laboring classes of all
civilized nations have been and still are, as a body, _poor_," while
another fact, "that nearly all wealth is the production of labor," would
seem to make it natural that all should have possessed some of it, had
not something intervened to prevent this result. What that was--that
"something," that cause or causes--and whether this seemingly unnatural
result could be changed, or modified, he now proposed to inquire.
He then explained the nature of property, as being almost entirely in
some way the product of labor. As this, then, was the means of procuring
property, and in a healthy state of society the only means of doing so,
it followed that "to obtain labor without rendering a fair equivalent,
is a violation of the rights of property." No one could deny this. The
only difference of opinion would be as to what was a fair equivalent. Do
the workingmen of America, for instance, receive for their labor a fair
proportion of the wealth they produce?
Following somewhat in the line of Roland's lecture, Mr. Jeffrey then
traced the causes that led to more and more unequal distribution of
wealth, the great discoveries that have made expensive machinery,
division of labor and production on a large scale, essential features of
our complex civilization. He sketched the processes by which large
concerns have gradually swallowed small ones, by which small mechanics
and traders have been gradually driven from the field; while "the
master-workmen and journeymen of a hundred years ago are to be found at
the bench or lathe of the mammoth workshops of the day, not as
independent workmen but as mere _automata_, to pull the levers which
release the cranks, gears and pulleys of the machinery that performs the
former labor of their hands."
This state of things, however, was an inevitable accompaniment of
scientific and material progress. If it had this unquestionable
disadvantage, we have to take the evil with the good. We could not enjoy
our railways and telegraphs, our cheap papers and books, and a thousand
other comforts and luxuries of life, without such drawbacks. And while
there was truth in the contention of Mr. Ruskin that the minute
subdivision of labor tended to destroy the artistic feeling of pride and
pleasure in finished work, still this might be more than counterbalanced
by the growth of the spirit of coöperation, of brotherhood, in labor.
Men might learn to take pride in combined work as well as in individual
work, as the soldiers of a regiment take pride in gallant achievements
of the whole body. The artistic spirit in work might be called forth,
and men might cease to work as _automata_, if they felt that they were
sharers in an enterprise, not mere "_hands_." But the increasing
inequality of the distribution of wealth utterly prevented this feeling
of proprietorship in work, and placed employer and employed in a
position of selfish antagonism. How could this be remedied? At this
point the lecturer took up a clipping from the _Minerva_, containing one
of Mr. Wharton's articles. That gentleman moved uneasily, and settled
himself into an attitude of critical attention.
"Look at Wharton!" whispered Mr. Archer to Miss Blanchard. "He knows
he's going to catch it, now!"
It was maintained, he said, by the writer of this article--published in
one of their leading journals--that the poor were _not_ growing poorer,
that the average laborer of to-day was not more poorly but better paid
than the average laborer of the past. The able writer of this article
had submitted a formidable array of statistics to prove his position.
Well, he was not going to question the accuracy of the statistics. But
there is much force in the saying, notwithstanding all that we hear of
"mathematical truth," that "nothing lies like figures," that is, when
they are called in to prove more than _sums_. Aside from the great
difference in the value of money, which was somewhat set off by the
greater cheapness of many articles to-day, there were many other
considerations that must not be left out of sight in determining whether
the laborer was even _as well_ paid now, as, for instance, in England,
two or three hundred years ago. For it must be remembered that comfort,
after all, was largely a relative term, depending on our ideas and
requirements. A savage would find comfort in a life which to a civilized
man would be intolerable. Our growing complex civilization had developed
many artificial needs, many of them an integral part of progress, the
non-gratification of which involved real privation. He would ask them to
hear the description of the interior of an English manor-house, about
the time of Queen Elizabeth. They had all heard about the old English
manor-houses, with the mention of which they were always ready to
associate the most refined and graceful life of the day--the
manor-houses of Trollope, for instance, through whom most of us know
them. Well, this is what they were like in those days; he quoted from
Thorold Rogers:--
"As might be expected, the furniture of the manor-house was scanty.
Glass, though by no means excessively dear, appears to have been rarely
used. A table, put on tressels, and laid aside when out of use; a few
forms and stools, a long bench stuffed with straw or wool covered with a
straw cushion worked like a bee-hive, with one or two chairs of wood or
straw, and a chest or two for linen, formed the hall furniture. A brass
pot or two for boiling, and two or three brass dishes; a few wooden
platters and trenchers, or, more rarely, of pewter; an iron or latten
candlestick, a kitchen knife or two, a box or barrel for salt, a brass
ewer and basin, formed the movables of the ordinary house. The walls
were garnished with mattocks, scythes, reaping-hooks, buckets,
corn-measures and empty sacks. The dormitory contained a rude bed, and
but rarely sheets or blankets; for the gown of the day was generally the
coverlet at night."
"Now, then," he said, [1]"compare this 'interior,' with what we see
to-day in the home of the average manufacturer, the beauty and luxury,
the thousand costly superfluities;--and would any one say that the
condition of the laborer had improved in anything like the same ratio?
It might even be gravely questioned, in many cases, whether it had
improved absolutely. For, although there were many additional comforts
within the reach of all but the poorest, still, the unhealthy conditions
of life resulting from massing families together, in close and
unwholesome houses, more than neutralized the advantages. But if any one
wanted to know more of the actual state of things in this free and
independent America, let him read in Henry George's 'Social Problems,'
certain statements by commissioners of labor statistics. Let him read of
the intelligent workingmen of Illinois, that 'the one half are not even
able to earn enough for their daily bread, and have to depend upon the
labor of women and children to eke out their miserable existence.' Let
him read that, in cultured Massachusetts, the earnings of adult
laborers are generally less than the cost of living; that--in the
majority of cases--workingmen do not support their families on their
individual earnings alone, and that fathers are forced to depend
upon their children for from one-quarter to one-third of the family
earnings--children under fifteen supplying from one-eighth to one-sixth
of the whole earnings. Was it any wonder if such children died
prematurely, worn out by unnatural labor?" and here he quoted, with
telling effect, Carlyle's famous description of the sad fate of the
murdered little Dauphin of France, ending with the strong, touching
words--"as only poor factory children, and the like, are wont to perish,
_and not be lamented_!" And, to quote Henry George again, let them think
of "the thousands who swelter all summer in swarming tenement houses and
dirty streets teeming with squalid life! Draggled women will be striving
to soothe pining babies, sobbing and wailing away their little lives for
the want of wholesome nourishment and fresh air; and degradation and
misery that hide through the winter will be seen on every hand." It was
pictures like these, he said, that brought home the facts of the case,
whether the position of the workers was better or worse. Even Minton, he
doubted not, could supply them with some such scenes.
[Footnote 1: For several passages in quotation marks in this chapter,
the author is indebted to Henry George's works, to "Labor and Capital"
by Edward Kellogg, and to articles in the "_Popular Science Monthly_,"
by George Iles, and Benjamin Reece.]
At this point Mr. Wharton took his note-book and pencilled an entry.
"Wharton's getting ready for a reply!" whispered Mr. Archer. "He thinks
he's got a point for his answer." But Nora scarcely heard him, so
riveted was she in painful interest on the lecturer's words. He went on
to another point.
"He knew," he said, "that the laborer was said to be extravagant.
Doubtless neither laborers nor their wives were always economical,
judged by the standard of the New England housewife. But that required
special training--ages of training--and what chance had they to acquire
it? But, after all, what opportunity had the laborer to be extravagant,
when the price of the day's work would hardly pay the day's board and
lodging in a comfortable house in our cities? Do the factory operatives
in most countries live extravagantly, or the seamstresses in London or
New York? Yet they earn three, four or five times more products than
they actually consume, and these go into the possession of the class of
persons who live comfortably or luxuriously, without performing much, if
any, productive labor, or advancing the moral and intellectual
well-being of society. Might not the laborer, on his side, in such
circumstances, say that his earnings are swallowed up by the
extravagance of employers?"
He next touched the question of "over-production." "There were periods,"
he said, "when one house is filled with families, one to each room, from
cellar to garret, and the adjoining house stands empty for want of
tenants able to pay the rent. Goods are piled up in store without sale,
while great numbers of the laboring community are ragged, and are
begging from door to door for old clothes to shield themselves and their
families from the piercing cold; and for the crumbs that fall from the
tables of the rich, to keep them from starving! Was such a state of
things really the result of over-production? If this be indeed the case,
public measures should be taken to avert such disasters by preventing
the excess of labor. Is it not strange that, at the time when the amount
of surplus production is the subject of national lamentation, the people
who produce by their labor the very things which they need for their own
use and comfort, are the ones that are often destitute of them, while a
few capitalists who do little or nothing toward the production or
distribution, are supplied with all the comforts and luxuries of life,
at half or less than half their usual price? But a surplus of cotton has
never remained because no one needed it! The evil," he went on to say,
"does not arise from over-production, but from _under-consumption_ by
the great masses, the natural result of the unequal, and, I would add,
frequently unjust distribution of wealth, keeping, from the toiling
multitudes, what they needed for health and comfort, while the wealthy
minority could not possibly use their surplus for their own needs. And
so the underpayment of Labor reacted on the profits of Capital." He
would not, he said, dwell on the other causes that aggravated the
discomforts of the workingman's lot--the unduly long hours of toil that
wore him out prematurely, and made him almost a stranger to his
children, the long and close confinement of the week; what wonder if,
exhausted and weary, he kept out of their churches on the one day of
rest! Would not most of his hearers, in similar circumstances, do the
same?
Mr. Chillingworth, who had been listening attentively, began to pull his
long dark beard thoughtfully, a habit of his, when thinking about a
perplexing subject.
"But now," the lecturer said, "having explained the evils, I am going to
turn to a possible remedy. Would it not add, _should_ it not add to the
happiness of every one," he asked, "if we could secure the removal of
the grinding poverty and wretchedness, that was not caused by pure
misfortune or misconduct? The residuum would be very easily grappled
with. If," as he fully believed, "the produce of labor constitutes the
natural recompense of labor, why then do not laborers get all they are
justly entitled to receive? The laboring classes make their own bargains
with capitalists, and one another, and all are equally protected in the
property which they lawfully acquire. Undoubtedly, both parties are
governed by their own interests, in making their agreements; but the
circumstances under which contracts are made often render them very
unjust toward laborers. Suppose one of the contracting parties to be in
deep water, where he must drown, unless he receive assistance from the
other party who is on the land. Although the drowning man might be well
aware that his friend on the shore was practising a very grievous
extortion, yet, under the circumstances, he would be glad to make any
possible agreement to be rescued."
Now, as governments are established to protect the just rights of the
governed, he believed that legislation was needed to regulate both the
minimum of wages and the maximum of hours. He had faith enough to
believe in the ultimate triumph of righteous principles of action, and
in the future general fulfilment of the command to every man to "love
his neighbor as himself." But, in the meantime, we need legislation in
many ways, to protect society from the injustice of those who love their
neighbor not at all; and he believed such legislation was needed in this
direction, otherwise the selfish and unscrupulous employer would
frequently crowd out the humane and just one. Railway companies and
joint-stock companies especially require regulation, since corporations,
as we all know, have no souls! He thought that joint-stock companies
should be prohibited from contracting liabilities beyond their actual
capital, since the power of doing so immensely exaggerated their already
too great advantages. He believed that the government should, by all
possible precautions, preserve unappropriated land for the use of the
community, as opposed to selfish schemes of individual aggrandizement.
And he was glad that the Knights of Labor took the attitude of
opposition to all further grants of land for speculative purposes.
In conclusion, the lecturer hoped that the Knights of Labor would be
true to the principles laid down by their public spirited founder. He
trusted that they would maintain an unselfish policy. They were
committed by their constitution to demand for women equal wages for
equal work, and that was well. But they must be generous to unorganized
labor also. Their cause must be the cause of labor as a whole. If they
were to discriminate selfishly between the organized men and the
unorganized, to try to crowd out the tramp or even the criminal who
needs the remedial influences of work, they would simply be repeating
and perpetuating the injustice against which they desired to protect
themselves. Mercy, as well as justice, must be their watchword. For,
"there is no justice without mercy, _it is just to be merciful_!". In
such a combination they would find their true policy, their true
success. The lecture closed with a peroration similar to Roland's
quotation, describing the ideal possibilities of a state of society in
which justice and mercy should prevail, and, in the words of the old
Hebrew poet, "Righteousness and Peace should kiss each other."
The charm of the lecturer's voice and manner, combined with his clear
presentation of his subject, had held the close attention of almost the
whole audience, with a few such exceptions as Kitty Farrell chiefly
occupied in watching her friend Waldberg, who as usual came in late, and
whose services were not, this time, called into requisition. Neither did
he approach Kitty after the lecture, leaving her to the sole attendance
of Harold Pomeroy.
It was Dr. Blanchard who moved the vote of thanks to the lecturer,
saying, that in opposition to the interests of his profession, he was,
nevertheless, moved, by the spirit of the lecture, to thank Mr. Jeffrey
for his clear exposition of evils which included in their result the
production of more disease than any other cause. Mr. Archer, this time,
was equal to the occasion, and gracefully seconded the motion. While Dr.
Blanchard, Mr. Alden, Mr. Chillingworth and Mr. Wharton were engaged in
conversation with Mr. Jeffrey after the conclusion of the lecture,
Roland Graeme accosted Nora, with an expression of half-amused concern.
"I am sorry to say," he said, in a low tone, "that strike we have been
dreading seems inevitable, after all! and, the worst of it is, they will
be crediting this lecture with it, though it really had nothing to do
with it. Turner, that man over there," he explained, pointing out the
man who had seconded the vote of thanks at his own lecture, "tells me
the men have determined to interview Mr. Pomeroy to-morrow, and if he
won't make the concessions they want, to strike at once. I suspect your
friend, Jim Mason, has had a good deal to do with it. He's very bitter
and obstinate. I only hope it will be all quietly done and that the
rough element won't be guilty of any violence."
"Oh," said Nora, in dismay, "what a pity! A strike is such a dreadful
sort of thing, isn't it?"
"Well, there are strikes and strikes," said Roland, smiling a little. "I
rather think this won't last long. And you know there's nothing in a
strike contrary to the laws of God or man, however inconvenient it may
sometimes be for an employer. A workman has just the same right to
demand a just price for his labor, that a merchant has for his goods;
and what he has the right to do singly, he has the right to do in
combination with others. When there is combination to oppress, there
must sometimes be combination to resist oppression. And I think the men
ask only what is right."
"I suppose so," said Nora, thoughtfully. "But I do hope there won't be
any trouble, if it's only for Lizzie's sake."
"I trust so too," replied Roland, as he bade her good-night.