The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1886-03-03
LAROR AND CAPITAL.


LAROR AND CAPITAL.
It Is said that one thousand of Mr.. McCor-i
nick's locked out force have determined to-
take their case out of the hands of the.
Knights of Labor and viii be taken back on
recognizing the right of his Eve noa-uniou-
men to work The report lacks confirmation,
but whether true or not it ~ well as the difss
ference thatproduced Aeisckeus is efideace:
Mat some legal responsibility is necessary to
settle these constantly recuning Differences
1t seems outrageous that all aese people,
must be made to suffer loss through the des-
potic viii of one nam or cfaue Of men
who may HeeFftate strike. Both capital
and labor shonId be restricted in what 1t
considers its right TO do a. it Pieases because
ETY. in general, as well a. on the labor and
capital that may be directly interested.
1t is plain axiom that any man or body
Of men have a right to do as he or they
please, so far as the right does not interfere
with another man O. body of men. 1t Is
plain that strike lockout injuries in
nocent people, and society has right to in
terfere with either the capitalist and laborerii
and compel either or both to observe certain
safe restrictions.
The Knights of Labor for several years
have had incorporated ia their platform a
demand for legal recognition. This should
be granted. But rs this recognition implies
legal responsibiiity-not only power to make
contracts as a body, but leaves it open
to suits and judgments for damages,
real and consequential. as body-it should
be accompanied with laws and powers to
regulate to a certain extent the nature and
degree of wages and ether matters that
are operating causes of the costly wars be-
tween labor and capital, or rather between
employed and employer.
All these things ere necessary yet they
represent a series of radical changes that
many parts of the country are not ripe for
Very much of the trouble between labor and
capital is a result of absenteeism, and in
stock companies, when the real owners reside
in New York, Boston or Europe, leaving
their affairs in the hands of irresponsible
agents. whose only care is to create the high
est quantity of dividends without reference
to the way they are obtained. In the small
towns, aside from occasional large concerns
located therein, the relations of employer
and employed are personal. The employer
works with his men. treats them as eeuais,
knows exactly how they live and all the de-
tails of iife The workingman knows the
condition of his employers business, what
he can afford to do and what he can not, so
that there is little friction and No particular
cause for a change in the reiatioaship or fos
extra responsibilities. This class, both
lsborers and employers, would resent legal
interference as UNNECESSARY. They would
not understand it and it would fad.
But with that class in the cities and manu-
featuring centers, where men work in masses,
whose employers either hold aloof from
status of relationship is necessary. This
class of employers have. under the false
political economy that persists in calling
labor a commodity. come to consider their
employees precisely as they dc their ma
chimes or raw materials-as 50 much on the
credit side OF their ledger accounts, bearing
gust that relation that the other figures in the
CQunuH uO httc III 10 buhb tlc law SuOuiu
interpose, for from here flows the mischief
known as labor trouble. This reckless spirit
has begotten a spirit equally reckless among
the employees. who have come to consider
employers in the light of an enemy in the
same degree that the employers have con-
sidered them in the light of a commodity.
But 1t would be exceedingly difficult for a
law TO divide the line between responsible
and irresponsible employers Perhaps the
line might be disregarded. To those whose
relations are fraternai, and who have no
trouble, there would be no need of inter
position. In fact. it would apply only to
cases OF de facto war. wherever 10 might be.
We admit this legal recognition is a depar-
ture from our traditional ideas of personal
liberty. An employer would not have an
absolute power of discharge, nor would a
workingman have the absolute liberty TO
quit when ae pleased. In fact. beth wouid
be teid responsible to we'll defned contracts
and agreements. This alternative from the
present condition presents many disagreeabIe
features to an average American miRd, bat
seems less SO than this continual disturbance
of the peace OF cities and the prosperity of
wodungmen and employers. to whom the
continual agitation and disturbance is con-
hnsai nightmare.