Frostburg mining journal., 1880-07-10
WHOLE NUMBER, 459.

us dlsono Saysi w Poini" " 0VS''
obhge, parties to break the law, be-
cause others are breaking il" This
is absurd on it's face. ,.i f
But the means used to force pat
ronage and payment shows the ini-
guilty of the thing. If the law of
1868 permitted, even by omission,
companies to keep stores, the right to
special enforcement of these obliga-
tions would be implied if not fully
admitted. The power of attorney to
collect wages, or any other exaction,
or involuntary concession, written or
oral, is an absolute, unqualified con-
fession of the insecurity of their legal
claim upon the patronage. Remem-
ber, that the privileges yielded to
corporations are always erpress. If
the State says "you may keep stores"
it also says "you may retain the wa
ges of your employees" If not, why
desire company store? or why per-
NIT a company store? But the dis
crimination against general trade
would be too glaring, and this is a
position the State cannot afford to
take. The tenure of the company
merchants claims upon employees Is
therefore gripped, riveted, mort
gagged, one way or another, to make a
dead sure thing of it. And here we
have that naked nonsense about the
"right of private contract" as if any
body really enjoyed that right who
signs an order to collect or retain
wages.
At this stage the new law comes
into question, supplying in its way,
the deficiency Of the old. Corpora
tions are contesting it, although it
abridges not single privilege of cor
porations, and, strangely enough,
contesting it as defendants. 1t pro-
vides that nobody shall be allowed to
retain money for any store, agents
or otherwise. Anything partial
about that ? Company stores" are
antagonizing it with all their force,
but it by no means puts them at a
disadvantage. TLey may keep as
many as they like, although virtually
against the law of 1868, but they
must, like all others, take their
chances to gather in the floating cash.
That is all the law provides for
equality of privileges to win trade in
this boasted age of equality of rights.
Had the Legislature the constitu-
tional power to enact this law? Isay
it had. 1t interfered with not sim
gle legal right of a corporation or in
dividual on the contrary, the rela-,-
tions of the two were more than ever
equslized. / earn so much money;
they pay me SO much money-not an
goods. I take the latter, drive the
best bargains l can at cash prices and
to any amount that suits me at the
time. The balance, if any, I lay up
for future use. The law puts the
merchant on the same footing as hon.
orable competitors for trade made
free to all. Competition is stimu-
lated ; goods cheapened, and credit of
no necessity.
1 will go further and say the Leg
islature had no right not to pass this
law. 1t had no right to refuse to un-
lock the manacles illegally fastened
upon its citizens. 1t had no right to
decline to put the seal of reprobation
upon the brazen evasion of statute
which had already fixed the legal and
moral status of this monopoly. 1t
had no right to refuse to vindicate its
own law.
So, Mr.. Editor, the aim and sum of
the whole business comes to one con-
clusion and one demonstration. The
passage of the law was necessary to
define more certainly that compa-
MES have no business directly or in
directly meddling with the earnings
of their employees, and to state more
explicitly that no company has, or
can have in any shape, carte blanche
from the State of Maryland to mon
opolize the trade that belongs to the
community at large. The State
could not do otherwise. IF it could
say that company might pay its
earnings in sug II, coffee, muslin, &c.,
il could say also that the company
should also pay IN butchering, tam
ming, shoemaklA.,, washing and IRON
ing, and other t.4l4. 5 too numerous to
mention" IL ii .e the theory good
it must "go th2 Waole hog"