The Labor enquirer., 1884-04-05

man yet, has dared to defy it. Every
man that has met 1t has been crushed to
powder and the only hope of any effect
ual grapple with it is by rousing the
actual masses whose interests perma.
nently lie in an opposite direction to
grapple with this great force for you
know very well that our great cities are
the radiatlng points from which 60 forth
the great journalism. the culture. the edu-
cation, the commercial influences that
make and shape the nation. The great
cities are the arsenals of great wealth,
! where wealth manages everything its
own way. I N
Now, gentlemen, to me the labor
movement meansju this :. 1t is the last
noble protest of the American people
against the power of incorporated wealth,
seeking to do over again what the .Whig
aristocracy of Great Britain has success
fully done for 200 years. Thirty thou
sand families own Great Britain to-day /;
and if you multiply John Bright by a
hundred, and double his eloquence, it
seems impossible that he should save
\ England from violent conyulsion in
the great grapple between such power
and the people who have determined to
have their way.
Men blame us, the representatives of
the workingmen of the nation, that We
come into politics. The other day it was
my good fortune to meet that dlstin-
guished Frenchman, Monsieur Coquerel,
and he asked me what was the motto of
the workingmen of the United States.
l said to him, Short hours, better educa-
tien, cooperation in the end, and in the
meantime a political movement that
will concentrate the thought of the
country upon this thing"
THE SAFETY Y-vALvE-DANGER OF DELAY.
2 Now here l take issue with the best
critic which the labor movement has
met, refer to the Rev. Sam johnson, of
Salem, one of the thinkers who has
spread out before the people his obj bjec-
tions to the labor movement of this
country His first objection is that we
will hurry into politics. Well, now, our
answer is tn him, and to the score of
other scholars who have been criticising
US, gentlemen. we see the benefit Of
going into politics. If we had not
rushed into politics, had not taken
Massachusetts by the four corners and
shaken her, you never would have written
your criticisms. We rush into poll
tics because politics is the safety-valve.
We could discuss as we'll as if you would
only giveus Bread and houses, fair pay and
leisure. and opportunities to travel; we
could sit and discuss the question for the
next fifty years. It's very easy thing
to discuss for gentleman in his study,
with no anxiety about to morrow. Why,
the ladies and gentlemen of the reign of
Louis XIV. and Louis XVI, in France,
seated in gided saloons and on Persian
carpets, surrounded with luxury. with
the products of India and the curious
manufactures of ingenious Lyons and
Rheims, discussed the rights of man,
and balanced them in dainty phrases
and expressed them in such quaint gen
alizations that jefferson borrowed the
declaration of independence from their
hands. There they sat, balancing and
discussing sweetly, making out new
theories, and daily erecting a splendid
architecture of debate till the angry
crowd broke open the doors and ended
the discussion in blood. They waited
too long, discussed about half century
too long. You see, discussion is very
good when a man has bread to eat, and
his children all portioned off, and his
daughters married. and his house fur
nished and paid for, and his will made;
but discussion is very bad when the
children, oh, my brothers, are weeping
ere their sorrow comes with years" dis
cussion is bad when class bends under
actual oppression. We want immediate
action.
We would fain save this issue from an
outbreak of actual violence. Therefore
we 60 into politics.
WHY A LABOR PARTY?
Well, then our critic goes on to say ::
What do you call yourselves labor
partv for? All men labor. Rufus Choate
labors. Daniel Webster labors. Why
do W con fine your party to the men
that work ?" Well, now, we contine 1t
because thus there is no mistake. Now
suppose you should take up book pre-
senting the condition of the laborlng
classes of Great Britain. Mr.. Gladstone
works harder than any other man there.
Lord Brougham did more work than any
other man there. Lord Palmerston, up
to his eightieth year, worked hard as
any man there. But if you were to take
up book on the workingmen of Great
Britain, do you think you would lind
the condition of Lord Brougham there ?
If you took up book on the British
laboring class, or how much they eat
what kind of houses they live in, etc., dc
Won think YOU would find Gladstone's
income, and the number of rooms he
had in his house, and how many chill
dren on an average he had had the last