Alpena weekly argus. [volume] (Alpena, Mich.) 1871-1893, 1885-02-04
The Little Controversy.

The Journal tells us that its course il
not hypocritical, and the only reason i
gives is its charge that the publisher o.
this paper did Job work for the county near
ly three years ago at less than regular
rates, which is not true. But supposing the
charge Of the Journal is true, how does
that help il in its present course? The
Labor Journal was started, if we have read
its declaration rightly, for the express pur-
pose of teaching labor principles. BY
working for less than its regular rates, il
violated the principles it professed to teach
also a leading principle of labor unions
that u.s. not to work for less than the es.
tablished wages-and became, in our opin-
ion, hypocrite and a traitor to the cause
1t pretended to represent. That is tho
charge we made, Mr.. Journal. If the
Journal had been started as mere bust
| ness enterprise-to get a living for those
who published it and did the work, then
working for one per cent, or ten per cent,
or % per cent less than its regular wages
would not have been hypocritical. Ii
might have been unwise. But when it comes
among us proclaiming that it is a labor
paper, working for and in the interests OF
all who labor for a living, and violates a
leading principle Of labor, it, in our hum
bic opinion, becomes an hypocrite, and that
is all we charged it with-violating the
principles it professed to teach us and the
rest of the laborers. We merely said it
did not live up to what it preached.
Last spring the Pioneer offered to do the
job printing Of the city for five per cent.
less than its regular rates, yet the Pioneer
was not an hypocrite, because it did not
profess to teach labor principles. If the
Journal had not been awarded the city
printing the Pioneer would probably have
got it, as it was the next lowest bidder. We
believe our charge that the Journal violat-
ed the principles it processes to teach, is
true.
You, Mr. Journal, complain that we are
attacking you and that you are merely act
ing on the defensive, but your complaint is
not true. You commenced the little dis
cussion. You began the attack, and if We
have slightly exposed you, it is your own
fault.
All the ARGUS was doing, was merely
telling the Aldermen how their finances
stood, and what funds had been overdrawn.
That extra work we did for nothing, for
and IN the interests of the taxpayers, and,
although you sheer at the taxpayers and
appear to make fun Of their burdens, the
fact remains that they have been grievously
burdened the past year, and many Of them
had great difficulty in paying their taxes.
The work we did of preparing as good a
financial statement as we could, every
month, ought to have been done by the city
officials. The Council ought to know each
month the state of the city finances, so they
can regulate their expenses. This extra
work should not have been forced on the
newspapers, and we believe that the Coun-
Gil has at last taken steps which will make
it the duty of city officer to make such
monthly statements. We believe the pub
fishing of those financial statements has
saved the taxpayers hundreds of dollars.
If we can find room next week, we will
talk to you little in regard to the county
legal printing. We extend to you our con-
CALCULATIONS in regard to the great improve
ments you have made in your "Official
Directory" as compared to the preceding
weeks. One more name needs correcting
to make the column reliable. As regards
your personalities, your profanity, your
sucker stories, etc, we have no answer to
make we leave you with them, suckers and
all, for we can not demean ourselves or
disgrace the paper we serve, by descending
to such low levels.