The workingman's advocate. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1864-1877, 1869-06-05
4 WASHINGTON. Mar 18th.
REPLY oF TIE PREsir sSf or TIE n. 2. G..
OFFICE ~ rHs NATIONAL LAB0R. UsIOS,
PHLAufLFnfA, Mas, q 1863.
E. R. HoAR. Uaited states Attorney Generals


g. r. HoAR Uniied states Attorney General:
sm-Your note auk no~ledgug The receipt II
nv letter 81 the 18Th inst. l. received. You
have adopted the easiest way IN the world OF
replying % all unausserable argument, aameiy,
by throwing yourself gpOn your dignity and tell
ing me | never read tour opinion, and did not
know what | was talking about But let me
assure you Sit, that am not TO be slleuced 10
that way. L. was not my intention 70 be 'abu
sige, but If anything | said bit YOU, or hurt
you, the fault was DOT nine, tor my remarks
Wer- intended for where they belrng Il seems
ca me that w note Of the 18Th places you III
very ridiculous position. Y1u Say, d" rhe sec
ond sentence in your letier is exactly contrary
tu The fact" Nv, the stcou sentence iu my
b tier reads, 4" Iou ,ay ne Effect OF thr law re-
ducrg tur hours OF labor VI, % reduce the
wag ~ You say tha. this wy. rtion III mine il
" exsc,iy contrary 70 The fact" Do YOU mean
by this that your opinion. was against any
reduction Of wages. charge yon sinh having
decioe IL Favor OF d reduction Of wages You
say thal is ex4cly coLtra.v TO the fsct.' "Ex
actly contrary 70 what | said would be that
that you decided AGAINST reduction Of wages
II this be true, 10 your "OpiniOu was against
reduction OF wages, because NJ q reduction Of
hours then Secretary Borie's order j. in direct
conflict With, and in direct opposition to your
legal opinion.
But what are the facts IN the case? Secretary
Borie issues an order reducing the wages OF en-
ployes in the government Sorkshops twenty per
cent because Of the reduction o. the hours Of
labor from ten to eight. This action was pro-
tested against and the question referred TO
you. Your opinion sustained the ac-
ton Of Secretary Borie, and the order Of the
Secretary reducing wages, stands to-day unre
UnkpA this nrfla a no IL
exactly contrary g your opinion, or your
opinion " Is exactly contrary 70 your letter to
me. If your statement to me II true, then the
order OF the Secretary reducing wages Is
contrary % Law, and If said order L not contra
ry 70 law. then your statement to me that my
assertion was ex city contrary is not true.
" VIII you allow me to express a hope, as |
have not the pleasure Of your personal acquaint
ance, that IN the progress of zine you may be-
come, il not wiser at least more consistent.
Yours truly, w. II. sYLyIs,
President National Labor Union.
As the proclamation Of the President,
published in cur last, and since the fore
going was written, is direct reputation Of
Mr. Hoar's opinion, we hope the successor
Of the immortal Evarts will follow the Usual
custom-when the action Of a subordinate is
set aside BY bis superior-and resign his
portfolio. By so doing he will escape fur
tber humiliation, and at the same time gra-
tfy the working peols Of the nation.
While the said proclamation does not by
any means meet the requirements Of the
law, as it withholds for months the. TO which
they are clearly entitled Jun remWnerd-
ton for their laoor-we hail it as a step in
the right direction, and as another lndubit-
able evidence that Rtrolu. ions nerer 30
bdckwards.