The Labor enquirer., 1883-11-05

X fWoQkB Bc40&0 VIZ r " ! =
| It was put upon its 6nal paage on ths
last Thug )dUs ftx6 nf - wal
defeated, AiHn8 = stecfte ~ oonBtitu
| tional majority Of the hopse twenty
i've votes Only twenty mine votes Mere
cast altogether. On the next day FRIDAY,
sek rs MDrk 10 procure ! recouid derAti0z
Iof the vote by which the bill was de-
/ feated, in the hops that upon ! l6ll Sotf
Of the house the bill would paak Out ol
| the fourteen members who voted against
kthe bill on the day previous only one
.could be found who would ct al enter
tain the idea to move q reconsideration
That man was Joel w. Shackelfofd. ]
went to him first timesI ever spoke to
him in my life) and asked him to move
reconsideration Of the vote. He, o.
course, wanted to know why asked ii.
/ told him the workingmen wanted the
law, had it in nearly every other stste in
| the union and were entitled to it here.
In reply Mr.. Shackelford said he had
been led to believe that the workingmen
were opposed to the bill, because, if it
became law, it would destroy their OPP
portunIties for obtaining credit from the
merchant. With the able assistance OF
Judge TiIford it was soon made clear to
Mr.. Shackelford that he would befriend
the workingmen by securing the passaga
sDf senate bill No. Z, and upon that un-
derstanding he moved to reconsider the
vote. The motion was defeated, receiy-
ing very few more votes than was cast in
favor Of the bill on the day previous.
Now, i submit that in face of 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 Sehenck, 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 tSchenck's) declaration that
Mr.. Shackelford was the enemy of the
wcrkingman. If he had been what
Schenck would haveus believe, he would
certainly have been present to vote
against the, bill. Ell
Mr.. Editor, / have always been a re-
publican until last fall, when !, with two
thousand other worhngmen of this
county, took strong grounds against the
dictation of Boss Chaffee. and to-day /
stand as an independent voter, not tied
to any party or ring, but endeayoring 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 Greek, 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 or secretly 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. TN
If it were necessary in this article to
60 into review of tie position of the
two parties with relation to measures
bearing directly ON the workingman,
which were considered by the last gem
eral as ssembly of this state, Mr.. Editor, /
could show that, with one exception, the
workingmen's friendswere democrats and
their enemies republicans. Bot do not
desire to make thus a partisan article.
My sole object in this communication is
to show that I am entirely consistent in
my support of Mr.. Shack kelford for sher-
iff as opposed to Jerome B. Chaffee, q
man whom my one vote aided in Defeat
ing one year ago. .s....
The statements in the foregoing are
facts, and I stand readyfe akeaffdayit
to them and produce volumes Of proof &
While am at this work, allow me to
say that the writer of a communication
which appeared inathis 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 a 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 weuld 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 1t is
shared by all with wi1om l have talked
on the subject "One Who Knows" is a
person who cannot gain admission to
one Of the societies of which he so fa-
miliarly speaks. Respectfully,
91fG / : ~ ~. J.. R. BUCHANAN.
What They Want.