The Lambertville record. [volume] (Lambertville, N.J.) 1872-1968, 1883-10-31
LEON ALBEIT AND THE STORE Or
DER SWINDLE.

10 he Editor cfhe Slate Gazette:
DEAR SIR-The Hon. Leon Albeit in a speech at
Lambertvile, last Tuesday evening said his SYM
pathies were with the laboring man; that he had
iahored hard In fact used his very hest effort
voice and vote, to the passage Of the act to
secure to workmen the payment Of wages in cash
instead of shin-plasters and store orders &C. ap-
proved March 12th, 1880.
Warming up on the subject, he boldly proclaim
ed himself father of the BILL and that he fought IL
through inch by inch. There seems to be lie out
somewhere, and for the sake of truth and justice,
Viii you please give US the rock-bottom facts Of
MOUNT AIRY, N. j., Oct. %, 1888.
The exact facts are as follows: Gan act
for the better securing Of wages to work
men, workwomen and all laborers In the
State of New Jersey" was introduced in
the Legislature of 1865, when Leon Alb
bett was a member of the House. 1t pro.
vided that sit shall not be lawful for any
factoryman, foundrymap, or any person
employing persons to work or labor for
them, to pay such workman or laborers
In any way, except In current lawful
money, and any such employers that
shall pay such employees either iu written
or printed orders on any storekeeper or
shopkeeper, such written or printed orders
shall be held as of no effect In the paw
ment of such wages; the intent and mean
ing Of this act is TO secure the payment of
all cages to persons employed, IN money,
and IN no other aoay."
On the fifth of April, after long strug-
gle over the bill, Mr.. Kearney moved
that 1t be postponed, and on this motion
Leon Albeit voted AYE. (See Assem-
bly, Minutes 1865, page $685.
The next that we hear of this fight of
the workmen for cash instead of orders
was In 1877, when Leon Albeit was in the
Senate. The Legislature of that session
passed an act, which Mr. Albeit voted
for, which did not at all meet the case or
remedy the grievance. 1t was mere
tub to the whale, and was an insult and
outrage to the defrauded working people.
What they asked for was law that should
compel the employers to pay them in cash
instead Of orders on stores. In several
parts of the State the owners of manufac
turing establishments also owned stores,
and instead of paying their workmen
their wages in money, they compelled
them to take orders on these stores. Then
they would be charged much higher
prices for goods, often of inferior quality,
than they could have bought them for
elsewhere for cash. 1t was most oppres-
sive and rascally swindle. The Leeisla.
ture of 1877 offered these oppressed work
men stone when they asked for bread.
1t passed an act making it unlawful "for
any person or corporation TO issue for
payment of labor, any order or paper
whatever, unless the same purport 10 be
aedeemable on its face pdlue, in lascfa,l
money Of tho United States, By tie person
giUing or issuing The same' Provided,
however, nothing IN this act contained
shall be held to prsoent dny employer
from making any deduction for money
due him from arg laborer or employee"
This actually authorized and legalized
the store order swindle instead of abating
it, and SO the swindled employees found 1t
TO operate. The store order business
continued to flourish as rankly as ever.
The law was fraud aud a humbug, and 1t
was not until 1880, phen Leon Albeit scas
no longer IN tho Legislature, that an act
was passed that covered the ground and
abolished the evil.
This was sweeping and comprehensive,
and put final and complete end to the
store order system. 1t has entirely disap-
peared from the State of New Jersey. Mr..
Albeit was not the ssfather" of the act of
1880, nor of any other act on the subject.
He was the open or secret enemy of the
w0rkingman on this question all the way
through. These are the rock-bottom
facts in the case. State Gazette.