Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1865-04-18
ssrIhes AmonE WorLingmen.


what is known IS the aNewton bill, /" intro
duced into the Ohio Legislature during the
session recently closed, the object Of which
i to prevent violence and threats among
wOrhngmen engaged in strikes The pro
eeedinss of the nesting the character Of
the speeches and the tenor Of the resolu-
dons shows that the mAss of those present
lAbored under total misapPrehension Of
the trus. character of the bill, and were
made the dupes of designing men for the
subserving Of selfish ends. We desire 70
point ont the mistake which the opponents
Of the bill labor under. In doing this We
are setuAfed by no feeling of unkindness
toward wOrkingmen. Realizing, as We do,
that the true interests Of capital and labor
are the same and that harm cannot be
done 70 the one without the other, in
the long run, receiving equal injury
We have the best Of feelings toward
the laboring classes. It is in view
Of this very fact that we condemn
the efforts Of selfish demsgogues to stir up
quarrsIs between employers and employ
ed. Such qusrrelS are as harmful to the
latter as the former, and it is with the de-
sire 70 advance the interests Of working
men that we call their attention TO the
faIsehoods and misrepresentation Of the
resolutions ard addresses of Friday last.
The grsvezt is in regard to the character
Of the bill itself-which, by the by, never
received the sanction Of the Legislature,
that body having adjourned sine die, With
out voting on it, before this meeting aOas
held. The bill does not prohibit strikes,
or interfere in the least with workmen in
demanding just such wages as they choose,
whether singly, or in CON binstions. It
only proposes to punish in proper msA-
ner al persons who sttempt to prevent, by
threat CT violence, any one from engaging
in sny employment, at any wages or COM
psnsstion. We sppeal to Working-men
themselvssto say whether there is any
thirg unjust in this. Can illegal violence or
threats be sustsined as right ? The bill
only prohibits these two things, and thus
in reality protects the lsborer against the
Illegal schemes Of those who seek to inter-
fere with his rigkt to work for what he
plesses. When this fact is known, every
one will perceive the folly and falsehoof
of the resolution passed by the meeting,
declaring that this bill aims Hto bind US to
s stste of slavery far worse, moro unendur-
able and more disgrsceful than the en-
slsvsment of the African race among u.s."
While we deprecate strikes, and believe
them more injurious, if anything, to the
interests of the working-msn than to those
of the capitalist, we do not believe that any
legislation directly prohibiting them is
justifable. Combinations among laboring
men to regulate wages esn be forbidden
with no more propriety than combinations
among bankers to determine rates of dis
count, or among newspaper publishers 70
Hx the prices Of advertising. Any work
man or body of workmsn have right to
ask their own price for their services and
to refrain from working when that price
is not given them. Lawmakers must not
NEEDLE with this right. The great law Of
nature, as wide and powerful in business as
that of grsvitation in physics, that of
Supply and Demand, is all sufficient to
determine the price of labor as well as of
everything else. It cannot and ought not
to be hsmpered by legislation.
But this very argument equally con-
dsmns all attempts to intimidate lsbOrers
and prevent them from working. If the
right Of lAborer to ask his own price for
work should not be interfered with by
Law, neither should it be by violence
which is far more arbitrary and dangerous.
The fsir-minded workman will concsde the
truth of this assertion at once. And Mr..
Newton's bill only prohibits this interfer-
ence with the rights Ct workmen. It did |
not, in fact go as far as We should have
thought justiHable. For not only is it
clearly wrong to use violence and threats
for the purpose of intimidstiDg workmen,
but It is equally so to apply OpprobriOus
epithets to them, to circulate their names,
coupled with slander and abuse, among
their craft, and to blsck-bsn them in so
cisty and trade. Ii is equally unjustiAAble
for wofkmen to enter the building of 8
former employer, against whom they have |
struck, and attempt TO persuade his re-
manning workmen to abandon him. All |
these acts are clearly arbitrary and wrong,
and could properly be prohibited by law.
Another feature of the meeting which |
should receive condemnation was the par
aiding, on transparency, of the motto,
., Rhodes, Gard s. Co, oppressors of the
Working Men," This is rot only an un-
justifsble attack, in public, upon private
individual, but il has no foundation in |
fact. Rhodes, Gard & Co. are no more
of working men than working |
men are OpPressOrs of Rhodes, Gard & Co.
These gentlemen feel, IS all right-thinking !
employers do, that the interests of their
workmen are identical with their own. In
advocating the passage of the Newton bill |
they were really consulting the best inter-
ests Of their employees. For this they are
pointed ont By this motto as a mark for
vengesnce-fOr, if its words had any mean
ing, they conveyed 8 threat to the firm they
named, and stirred up tie passions Of the
rowd that read them.
The truth is, the meeting of Friday was
In no true sense a demonstration of the
of Cleveland. It was started
and engineered by selfish outsiders.
Honest men joined in it, but they were de-