The Labor enquirer., 1883-11-03


NeekSIheibre the cIois cf the oe6Gfoa
| It Was pqt upon IL 6nn1 palsaGo On III
|last Thursday Of tie session and NJ
defeated, falling e receiye : constitrt
tional majority q the house twenty
fiye votes Only tWenty y-nine votes Were
c4st altogether. On the next day Friday,
I set to work to procure reconsideration
Of the vote by which the bill was de.
feated, in the hope that upon full vote
Of the house the bill would pass Gut d
the fourteen members Who voted againsI
the bill on the day previous only one
could be found who would ct all enter.
tam the idea to move 4 reconsideration
That man was Joel w. Shack Alford.
went To him lfirst time / ever spoke tG
him in my life) and asked him to move
reconsideration Of the vote. He, o1
course, wanted to know why asked it
l told him the workingmen wanted the
law, had it in nearly every other state in
the union and were entitled to it here,
In reply Mr.. Shackelford said he had
been led to believe that the workingmen
we're opposed to the bill, because, if il
became q law, it would destroy their OPP
portunities for obtaining credit from the
merchant. With the able assistance oi
Judge Tilford it WAS soon made clear to
Mr.. Shackelford that he would befriend
the workingmen by securing the passags
Hof senate bill No. I, and upon that un-
derstanding he moved to reconsider the
vote. The motion was defeated, receiv-
ing very few more votes than was cast in
favor of the bill on the day previous.
Now, j submit that in face 6f all the
facts Mr.. Shackelford not only showed a
friendship for the workingmen, but that
he was open to reason upon the subject
in which they were interested and de-
ferred opinion to one who was and is OF
the laboring mans ranks.
The point attempted by Schenck, that
Shackelford was absent from the house
when the vote occurred on the lien bill,
is certainly without good sense in the
face of his (Schenck's) declaration that
Mr.. Shackelford was the enemy of the
Wcrkingman. If he had been what
Schenck would have us believe, he would
certainly have been present ia vote
against the bill.
Mr.. Editor, I have always been re-
publican until last fall, when |, with two
thausand other workingmen of this
county, took strong grounds against the
dictation of Boss Chafee, and today /
stand as an independent voter, not tied
to,any party or ring, but endeavoring at
all times TO do what consider for the
best Interests of the working class, of
which am proud to be. But the stump
ers Of the republican party in this county
have seen fit to drag out the record of
the last legislature, with reference to the
workingmen. wish to say that with
the exception of one man Mr.. King, Of
Clear Creek, every prominent republi
can in the last legislature was opposed
to the workingmen's interest. George
Clark, chairman of the Arapahoe county
delegation in the house, is a republican.
To the beautiful work of Mr.. Clark was
due the defeat of the exemption bill, he
never losing an opportunity TO publicly
assault it orsecretly conniye against its
passage, and am confident the fact that
the bill was reported passed, and after
adjournment discovered to have been
defeated, was due to the trickery of this
representative republican.
1fit were necessary In this article to
go into review of the position of the
two parties with relation to measures
bearing directly on the worklngman,
which were considered by the last gen.
eral assembly of this state, Mr.. Editor. /
could show that, with one exception, the
workingm.n's friendswere democratsand
their enemies republicans. But do not
desire to make this partisan article.
Ny sole object in this communication is
to show that / am entirely consistent in
my support Of Mr.. Shaokelford for sher-
iff as opposed to Jerome B. Chatfee, a
man whom my one vote aided in defeat
ing one year ago.
The statements in the foregoing are
facts, and | stand ready to make affidavit
to them and produce volumes of proof
While am at this work, allow me to
say that the writer of a communication
which appeared In this mornings Trib-
une, signed "One Who Knows" not
only talks of what he knows nothing
about, but betrays plainly to zone who
knows that he is not in position to
know anything about the organizations
which he so freely handles. No member
in good standing in any genuine labor
organization in this city would dare to
use in public print SO freely the name Of
the society, and we all know this, If /
am correct in my opinion land tits
shared by all with whom / have talked
on the subject) "0ne Who Knows" is a
person who cannot gain admission to
one of the societies of which he so IA
miliarly speaks. Respectfully,
u = -.t J. R. BUCHANAN.