Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-05-02
A snlntinn snprAslsh.

FoRr WORTH, TEN Aprli 80, 1885,
Editor GAzHrTE The rocomm ndatior
made by President Cleveland IN his mes
cage OF April %, 1885, 20 appoint ma
tiuhal commission or hoard OF arbitration
whose dniy IT viii DO to adiudioato dis
uies between employer aud emplOle,
anu so far as possible harmonic labor
aud capital, teens 10 meet with very gen.
ersl communication throughout the
country, aud three Of the foremost. ia.
Decd | might say, the three foremost
men Of the nation (COnkling, Thurman
aud MacDOnald) have been proposed as
III SUD proper persons TO I'M those high
offices, which To great extent, .tnk inu
into consideration the offering conditions
aud civil zatlou," would resemble IN,
Roman tribunal in It's mission aud
auctions. Ia our form of goyernmen al
the ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Uf the federal or cen.
ttal power Is always regarded with sus.
picipn, ana states iighis are zeal.
ogsly guarded In Consequence OF
WhlCh the question arises, would this
national commission deal directly with
tue parties In dispute, on would they ap.
polnt a state commission, or nominate
persons to be approved Of aud commits.
stoned by the governor or simply advise
with him In the natter
Heretofore, IN all local troubles, tho
Ftste government has been found strong
enough to drat with them. and tbr
natlonal government has ohv defended
such properly MS was IN the hands Of IN,
court, and administered on hy ila 10.
etNttsi but, take ID ON the other hand.
SHOULD the state be- powVfluss 10 enforce
lls laws, would Is not rat or prove thai
the majority were IN favor Of a spniimsni
Which me minority wert hylpG t. crush
ny invoking national aid Whieh wnuli
he the case II national commits.
sluh was called lu to stllp lural
Issues, Tor who 80 well pnatta, 4
70 d 81 with such quesuons AS tbese
lAmiii4r with the controversy irDm ~.
oulset Assuming IL to be correct that
ieuttai in'etyeutipn IN state affairs such
as the aforementioned Is unnecessary ana
unconstitutional, aud thar we advocate
the principle Of local stlf.sny. rnn.pnt
would ask why not nave slate
commissions or state cbprfa. ~.
lore WHOM the aggtleved partins
cuulu appear either Ia perst,n
of py COUNSEL, where the general hmil.
AiNy Of all parties with the snhia,,
matter Would cusble the court to afSiys
~ an equitable decision ID amuch shorter
Hne SUI az much less txiepar. witb a
greater probability Of giyinn saiisiartinn
iqan ~ tpipg ihe ssme cause b, iors a
commission appointed from djffers,,t
s'alvs who would necessarily be NJ.
h9iant az many apparently ipsilfpilleani
iscts, hnl ones which would tlnhtiess 81
laf ieWaul assisting loDal or state ludr.
20 90 equity TIE appointment ~ !
ssplpVltfl commission infant deal with
,rese questions for the pn.seni, but IN.
lptre iaet q hayifga court or enmp,is
.i'a on arbitration or inquiry, 20 which
she q dissspsious between capllsl anil iabg,
.euio oe referred, would nave
tendency C greatly Inn,.ssa
nn,noer 81 questions they woala ~
caH 4 ON TO decide, sna tbis eon,n,ss,.,.
@.ala either dsytnp LTD petmsesn'
pody, OF give Use TO ths f4rm,tian =,
sncli an one as would be fully .,,nI,,,',a
70 zeal with az dti FENCES a,,lir~ NV
tween labor and cspitai.