Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1882-04-10
Aalslaste1 fltelligenee1.
MONDAY EVENING, APRIL 10. 1881.
An Absurd Law.


An Absurd Law.
The absurd lengths to which dema-
gogues and near sighted agitators will
venture to carry legislation is Illus
trated by the attempt to have the New
York Legislature "prohibit the man
ufacture of cigars in any building any
part of which is used for dwelling pur-
poses, except upon the ground floor,
under penalty of fine from $40 toSlOo
and imprisonment from ten days to six
months, or both" The purpose Of the
bill, as expressed in its title, is to pro-
mote the public health, and in support
of its passage it is maintained that the
health of those engaged in making cigars
in tenement houses is impaired by it. Of
course this absurd pretensiOn cannot be
sustained. Investigation shows that the
atmosphere pervading them is as pure,
the average space occupied 10y each
worker larger, the light and ventilation
better and all the hygienic conditions
more complete than with factory en-
ployees, and yet it is proposed On false
pretext to turn 10000 people out of work
or drive them from their homes into the
large factories A.! And it is even said this
stringent and outrageous legislation is
pressed by trades unions which cannot
control cigar-making families pursuing
their avOcation at home. We have no
idea that any such law as this, even
could its passage be bull-dOzed through,
would stand the test of constitutional
ity. The right of people to engage I'D
any lawful calling in their own homes is
too sacred, and the distinction between
their carrying it Oh in one floor or an
other is too ridiculous to warrant the
belief that any such legislation would be
worth the paper it is written on. But
the attempt to have such law passed
illustrates the too frequent tyranny of
labor in direction which if capital took
there would he deserved Outcry against
it. The people who work ut cigar max
ing in their own homes find it to their
economical and sanitary advantage to do
so and no doubt their health is better
since that is the ground the bill is put
upon-tllan that OF those who are packed
into the great factories. Thousands
who can thus earn 4 subsistence
between the hours of family cares
would I've thrown out of their
means of getting living 10y the passage
of this bill and if this precedent were
set why not next forbid tailors, seam
stresses. wood -carvers and every class Of
laborers and artisans from pursuing
their calling i'll their own houses, herd
ing them in the great workshops and
factories. to be ground between the ex-
actions Of greedy employers and the
tyranny of trades unions
THE editor Of the Erdmiicr explains
that when he charged the editor of the
Ne~ Era with having been bribed to
let Democrats edit his paper in
1861, it was not the E.cnmiacrs purpose
"to pass a criticism or reflection upon
the editorial management Of the Express.
This remarkable explanation, we fear, is
somewhat tarly in its appearance, as i'll
the meantime the editor of the Ne" Era
has exhumed from the files of the E.r-
press of 1861 direct charge that when
the editor of the EtGmincI was in the
state Senate he entered into a. corrupt
combination to plunder the state and
"pocket the reward" of his iniquity !;
that he violated the instructions of his
constituents, assisted to commit an 8 out
rage upon the rights Of the taxpayers OF
the commonwealth and that for this
corrupt service of the Legislature in be,
half of corporation large amount OF
money was paid the sum paid to
each senator for the support of these
measures was $1,000, and for each mem
ber of the House of Representatives
$1,OOO-except those who riolated the in
e.ructions Of their constituents, whose con-
sciences were Modified by an addi-
tional thousaud.' The NCw Eru
moreover, says that though the editor
of the Examiner was repeatedly
challenged to test before a court and
jury this allegation that he had been
paid $4,000 for his vote, the challenge
was never accepted. True, the Eecnai
aer has recently declared that "life. is too
short to fight the battle of 1861 over
again. but it is not too short to say in d
few words whether or not this revived
allegation of corruption on the part of
the Examiners editor, while a senator, is
true or is libel. We would greatly
prefer to believe that so eminent an in
structor of public morals, and one who
has gone after Senator Kauffman's pub
lie record of twenty years ago in such a
''red-hot" manner, was guiltless of the
vile and veEal offense of receiving $4,000
as the reward of his iniquity in betray-
ing his constituency and outraging the
taxpayers of the commonwealth. We
wait for his reply!
The New York Tribune cannot, by a
policy of silence, evade the direct ques-
tions put to its editor by Mr.. Hastings
IF the Commercial Advertiser, who says
Is it true that during the summer OF
1880 Whitelaw Reid took a large sum OF