New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1886-10-07
THE SJORp-ORDER SYSTEM.

The decision by Judge Gordon. of the Penn
sylvana Supreme Court. that the Antl-Storc
Order Act of 1881 is unconstitutional, Will
inevitably cause CONSERVATION in labor circles.
and tend to widen the breach between en-
ploycrs and employed. The language Of Judge
Gordon in his decision that the act is an
infringement alike Of the rights of employer
and employe, and il is an insulting attempt
to put the laborcr under legislative tuteage.
is not calculated TO console those who certainly
never regarded the act of 1881 as restraint
upon their freedom of contract The store
order system, like all other human institutions,
must he Judged by its results. and there does
not seem to nc room for question that IN tho
majority of cases those results have been pre-
judicial to the interests of the employees, and
have subjected them to loss which they could
not afford The pretcncc OF assisting the
cmploycs which is always put forward in JUS
LITIGATION of such arrangements fails wholly
lcfore the fact that the cmployc who obtains
goods in this way is almost invariably charged
prices in excess Of current market rates. In
effect it has been repeatedly demonstrated that
wherever the storc-ordcr system is in operation
the workingmen are unable to save any money,
and not seldom fall into chronic state OF
Indebtedness
Under the storc-ordcr system employees are
allowed credit at a certain store. The theory
is that they 90 into the arrangement vOun-
tarily. The fact is quite otherwise. No open
threats may bc employed TO cOcrcc them, but
as a rule il is understood that the man who re-
fuses TO deal at the cOmpany's store, or the
store with which the employers have an under
standing. is certain TO be viewed with disfavor,
and may cXpcct 20 lie discharged at the first
opportunity, if he escapes the far-Ieaching
vengeance of the " black list" or course
under these circumstances there are few rebels
against the policy of the employers, bu, the
dissatisfaction Of The men with the system is
too notorious TO bc ignored. and ii rests upon
perfectly simple facts. Now to assert that the
legislative prohibition Of the truck or store
order system prevents the workingmcn from
making their own contracts. in face OF the
wcll-known. facts is really an aTront TO the
intelligence of all concerned There is no
question of freedom Of contract in the case.
Precisely what undcrlieS the whole arralgn
mcnt of the sloic~ordcr system is lis cOmpul-
sorry character lis success depends upon the
constant exercise of cocicvc implications No
men ever consented voluntarily TO pay Nore
No men would ever enter into such an ar
rangcment unless the only alternative open TO
them was still more inmriouS and dlsagrccahlc.
The store-ordcr system has from the begin
ming been main ned solely by working upon
the fears of the employees. Rather than lose
their employment they have submitted to bc
robbcd-for the system involves nothing less
iban robbery, and that Of the mCancst kind
If they were free TO make their own contracts
they would to a certainty buy in the cheapest
market instead of the dearest. That they arc
moi free is the only reason why they deal Of
the companys store. AS to the "lcgiSlatlvc
tutcage" referred to by Judge Gordon, his
Characterization is to say the least, nicc Gus.
The Legislature of Pennsylvania was appealed
to to deliver the laborcrs from species OF
thraldom; for il is certainly thraldom when
man is not AT liberty to buy his food and
clothing wherever he chooses. The case was
one in which labor was powcrlcss to relieve
itself 1t demanded and obtained protection
from, the State. TO tel the bcnciiciarics under
the act of 1881 that they were degraded by
law which restored their independence 10 them
is assurcdly not calculated TO increase thcu
respect for the courts or 10 convince them that
they have been mistaken in suspccting that
there was one law for The rich and another for
the poor. In short the decision appears to he
alike unfortunate and ill-umcd. and if ii is
sound law its victims will bc apt TO think any
thing but admiringy of the Jurisprudence OF
which it is an example.