tion to make the appeal? I ask this Convention to adopt some resolution that will tell the railroad monopolists that our farmers will not submit to the exorbitant rates that are charged some portions of the year.

Last year I wanted to ship some grain east. I found I could get corn here for 40 cents per bushel; but on inquiring into the freight business, I found it would cost two dollars to ship to an eastern market. The secret of the matter is that eastern capitalists control our railroads, and require them to charge what they please. Will the Legislature of Ohio lay supinely on their backs and let these railroad monopolists rob our farmers of what would be remunerative prices for their products? I am proud to say that we, the farmers of Ohio, own three-fourths of the property in the State, and have a right to the protection which our Legislature can afford. I ask this Convention to adopt some resolution looking toward such relief.

The first resolution was then adopted.

2. Resolved, That all combinations of men, under whatever names organized, intended to depress or increase the market value of labor, or the products thereof, are unjust in principle, subversive of the rights of those who are controlled or unfavorably affected thereby, and against an enlightened public policy.

Without discussion this resolution was adopted.

The third resolution was withdrawn by Mr. Millikin, for the reason that it did not seem necessarily a part of the series.

4. Resolved, That all combinations of carriers, for the purpose of maintaining or increasing rates for transportation of property, are embarrassing to those engaged in trade, and oppressive to producers and consumers, and should be prohibited by law.

Mr. Jones. I would ask the gentleman who drew this resolution to what he refers in the clause, "the efforts now being made to reduce the hours of labor for a days' work to eight hours." I do not understand that there is any proposition anywhere to affect the number of hours that shall constitute a days' work on our farms.

Mr. Millikin. I understand that there is a bill pending in the Legislature of Ohio that is intended to make eight hours a days' work; and though not specially applicable to farms, it would have a tendency to embarrass farm labor, and to increase the value of every article of labor 25 per cent. so far as labor enters into the cost of the article. And further, there are organizations all over the country in favor of adopting this eight hour system. The Society of Washington City has coerced the Government of the United States to submit to their regulations on this subject. There was recently a labor Congress in session there, which called upon the President and asked his interference on this subject, and demanding that the Government should yield and make eight hours a legal day's work.

Mr. Jones. I understand that the proposition has been made in the Legislature of Ohio, to provide that eight hours shall be made a days' work in certain branches of labor, as for example in mines and in foundries, but expressly that all labor contracts on farms shall be exempted. The objection I have to this resolution is, that we are asked to declare against something as existing that does not exist, as threatening the interests we represent; and whether we should go out of our way before the interests we represent are threatened for the purpose of making these declarations, is a question I very much doubt.

As to this matter of combinations of labor for the purpose of increasing the price of labor-although I have preferred that some one should discuss this question, no one else seeming to be willing to do it, I cannot refrain from saying a word or two in regard to it. Where has there been a combination that has increased the price of labor, that has made the laboring man rich? Answer me the question. But there are combina. tions that cannot be reached by any legislative act; they exist throughout the whole country, tending to depress and keep poor the man that is getting his living by his labor. Look at the stone front corners that are produced in Wall street, put up by the profits of half-paid labor; look at the corners that are made by men who have the means of getting rich to an extent never before known, and then oppose the efforts of laboring men to obtain such wages as will enable them to exist. I do not believe in the eight hour system, but I say that there is no such danger threatened as the resolution speaks of, and this Convention is not called upon to interpose and denounce such combinations.

What is our Wool Growers' Association but a combination to put up the price of wool? I might mention other associations of a similar character. We ask for a tariff-for what? Why, that the price of wool may be higher. And is it to be said that the men who are at the foundation of all the wealth of the country, may not consult together and say that in their judgment they ought to have two dollars a day, and won't work for less? May I not say to my neighbor that we will not sell for less than such a price? In the neighborhood of there is a set of fellows engaged in growing this long wool, who were determined to make something nice out of it; and they make such a combination as to enable them all to sell their wool together at a fixed price. Nobody objected to that.

I am not here for any buncombe purpose, I despise anything of the sort, and despise any man who talks of the laboring man as if he were not entitled to all the remuneration for his toil that he can get. I believe in absolute and abstract justice. So far as I know there has been no combination of the sort complained of, interfering with the productive industry of the country.

Mr. Harris. I am not aware that this principle so seriously affects the agricultural interest as it does the mechanical. I have no doubt as to its serious influence in towns and cities. I do not object to men combining together to fix the price of their labor. That is a matter, a right, resting entirely with themselves. Neither do I object to manufacturers or capitalists fixing the prices that they will pay for labor. The demand for and supply of labor will regulate the price. What I object to most in these combinations, is that they do not only attempt to regulate the price of labor, but the terms or conditions also. Take, for instance, the Printer's Union-one of the most accursed tyrannies that our craft has had to deal with. They will say not only what we shall pay them per one thousand ems, but how many apprentices we may have, whether we may employ women to set type, whether we may admit this or that article into our papers, this or that advertisement; so that instead of being employees, they become our masters and dictators.

Judge Jones says he does not know of anything of this kind seriously affecting the labor of Ohio. The founderies of Zanesville have been lying idle for weeks because the men have attempted to enforce their rules requiring that there shall be only so many apprentices in their establishments.

As a general thing capital has the advantage of labor, but there are such instances, as I have mentioned, in which labor combinations become abominably tyrannous.

James W. Fitzgerald (member of the House of Representatives, from Cincinnati.) There is such a thing as running a matter into the ground. When this Convention comes here and discusses matters that are strictly legitimate for it to discuss, it is well enough and proper to do so; but I deny the immediate relationship that this resolution has to the interests of this body. I deny that this Convention has any right to say how many hours a man shall work upon a farm. It might as well say how much the farmer shall pay him for the labor performed. The law of supply and demand regulate these matters.

With reference to trade's unions and their combinations, doubtless there are some of them that go beyond what is right and proper, and the one to which the last gentleman referred, the Printer's Union, is, perhaps, the most faulty in this respect. But what do you propose? Do you propose that capital shall destroy labor? From what source do you derive the wealth and prosperity of this and other cities? Is it from labor or from capital? The remarks of the gentleman stigmatizing "the hewers of wood and drawers of water," are unworthy of him and of this association. The men who are so designated are a useful class of society, and should not be branded in this way.

Mr. Millikin. The gentleman greatly mistakes the use I made of that

quotation. I said that we, the farmers, were not to be made "the hewers of wood and drawers of water," not characterizing anybody else as such.

Mr. Fitzgerald. The inference naturally to be drawn from the allusion is, that they who are "the hewers of wood and drawers of water" are to be despised. But what do you propose to do? You would attempt to legislate for our cities, and say what our mechanics and laborers shall and shall not do. Capital has now too much power; by its combinations it controls nearly all the labor of the country, both as to the amount that shall be given and what shall be paid for it. Where do you see the laboring classes getting rich, and rearing up stone fronts, and indulging in the luxuries of wealth? When you gentlemen of the country-laboring men yourselves-attempt to oppress the laborers, whether of the city or the country, as to their time or their wages, you do that which is unworthy of you and against your own interests in the long-run.

The advocates of the eight hour system contend for no such preposterous idea as that a man should receive as much for eight hours' labor as for ten, unless he does as much work. Of course men should be paid for what they accomplish, rather than for the number of hours employed. I trust the resolution will be laid upon the table.

Mr. Innis. There is a part of the resolution that I like. The part declaring that combinations exist, I don't like. The part condemning any combinations, whether to increase or decrease the price of labor, I am in favor of. I am opposed to any combinations of men dictating to me how many hours a man shall work for me, or how much I shall pay him. I think he and I are equal to make our contracts. I am opposed to the eight hour system on farms. Everybody knows that farmers furnish their own teams, and hire men by the month. Suppose we adopt the eight hour system-when will we get our work done? During rainy seasons our men would not earn their board; indeed, at such times I would prefer handing them over to some eight hour advocate, and I would pay their wages for him.

If you make a distinction between laborers on the farm and in the mechanic arts, you will get up a jealousy between the farm hands and others. I like the advice I saw some time since in the Cincinnati Commercial, as a substitute for the eight hour movement, as a means for benefiting laboring men; it was, that if laborers wanted to make anything of themselves, they should go to work for themselves and stick at, not eight, but sixteen hours a day for sixteen years. That has been my experience. When I commenced this world I commenced without anything. I was a single man, and worked ten or twelve hours a day, making rails for my neighbor, to enable me to pay his wages. While working thus half the time, I made a crop, and out of that crop I made enough

to pay a man to work for me all the time. I would just as soon you would reduce the hours in the day as the hours of labor; in either case you would put it out of the power of most laboring men to better their circumstances.

A vote was then taken on the resolution, and it was adopted.

EVENING SESSION.

Mr. Millikin, with the leave of the Convention, withdrew his fourth resolution.

INTEREST IN COUNTY SOCIETIES.

Wm. Rawle offered the following question:

What can be done to promote the interests of county societies in general, and their annual exhibitions in particular?

Mr. Rawle remarked: I understand that there is a large number of small and weak county societies in the State; and it is with a view of strengthening these societies, and increasing the interest in connection therewith, that this question is presented. Some of the societies in the State have been very successful; others have been laboring under an incubus of some kind for many years, and to-day are in no better condition than they were eight or ten years ago. The object is to obtain from gentlemen present, who are identified with the successful societies, some suggestions as to how that success has been acquired. Sometimes a single hint or two will accomplish very much-be the starting point for some great and noble work. Some of our languishing county societies need that starting point. The labor in county societies generally hang upon the shoulders of a few individuals; the interest in the work is not sufficiently distributed; there is a disposition to throw the responsibility and keep it, either of success or of failure, upon the shoulders of the few. The question is, how can this responsibility be more equally distributed, and all feel that they are identified with the success of their county organization? What is the secret of success? How are your fairs made successful? How do you excite an interest in the business of society?

Mr. Steadman. The subject before the house is a very important one, and I know no better way to answer the question than by stating a little incident that occurred in my neighborhood. One of our Western Reserve boys, seeing an advertisement in some paper headed, "How to make a fortune in a short time," sent on his money to the advertiser, and in due time received this answer: "Work like the devil, and live within your means." I think that is the way agricultural societies can build