Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-03-04
REPLY TO Mr.. ROYAL.
BoJce,,Ius, Thousb Frecsnecrtsd, Not VA
lawful, and Therefore Net hesA' ~
spiracy.

To the Editor Of The Disp@ch
Having read the well-considerad and
temperate argument Of Mr.. W. l..
Royall in the Dispatch Of the Goth
ultimo, | will, as you invite dis
cussion of the question, state few OBJ
jections to it. II has been eilectuaily
answered by knight Of Labor in your
issue of the 2Sth ultimo, yet as
knight of Labor may be considered an
inter ested party, and as have no in
terest whatever in either side Of the
question, will supplement his reply
by the following;
Mr.. Royal illustrates his view Of the
boycott " By stating that if certain
number Of people were to blockade
Main street accidentally it would be
no conspiracy, but if they did so by
preconcert it would be a conspiracy.
That is true and may add that such
preconcerted blockade would not only
be a conspiracy, but very unlawful
act. Much confusion in the use OF
terms has resulted from the ambiguity
Of the word conspiracy by confound-
ing its chronological with its legal sig
MITIGATION. Every preconcerted action
is ETY. mologically conspiracy, but it
must be an unlawful preconcerted action
to make it a legal conspiracy. Mr..
Royal has thus reasoned in a circle in
taking the ground that the boycott "
is a conspiracy because precOncerted.
He is taught by his classical training
that preconcert and conspiracy are the
same, and he is taught by his legal
training that a conspiracy is unlawful.
He therefore argues backwards--that
the preconcerted action of the boy
cotters " is unlawful, whereas he should
first establish that 1t is unlawful before
be concludes that it is legal conspiracy.
And | do not see upon what grounl
it can for moment be cOntended that
the preconcerted action of employees
in order to &c: remuuerative prices for
their labor is unlawful. The illustrl-
ton of Mr.. Royal is also inapplicable
| for the additional reason that it leaves
entirely out Of view the fact that cap
ital is monopoly, and has for centu-
ries to a greater or less extent been itself
the bOycOtter; each capitalist or firm,
or company of capitalists, being pow
erful combination within itself, and
expressing labor when not restrained
by counter combination. Mr.. Royals
illustration would have been more
nearly correct If he had supposed that
one man had barricaded the street with
a power beyond the reach Of the law,
and that the rest Of the community
had then combined by their united
strength to overthrow the barri-
cade. This concentration Of capital
seems to exist only in manufacturing
and commercial centres. In the coun-
try the subdivision of capital allows
the competition resulting from the re-
lation Of supply and demand to adjust
the price Of labor, and this is done in
this portion Of the State so much to
the advantage Of the laborer that farm
ers to protect themselves agains. the
risk Of loss have to resort to the share
or partnership system in the employ
ment Of their laborers The same
NAV be said of the relations between
landlords and tenants-the advantage
being decidedly in favor Of the ten
ants, and much land lies idle for want
Of tenants. But this is much better
than the state of things existing in
Ireland, where the eviction of a tenant
means to him and family exposure to
the pitiless storm, starvation, and
death. But a manufacturing firm
OF company of capitalists in
city control vast accumulations
Of capital just as the landlords of
England and Ireland do. One such
firm employs l,5Oo hands. Now, this
firm proposes to fix its own prices for
labor, and to force the laborers to &C
cept them, attempts to deal with them
singly. But the laborers say: We will
not deal with you singly, for by so do
ing we would not be trading on equality.
Your ability, by virtue Of your capital,
to employ l,jo0 men makes you l,jU0
times as strong as each one of US taken
singly, and we will therefore be en-
tirely at your mercy; you will simply
dole out to US on business principles
the least possible amount you think we
can live on, as you would regulate the
food of your horse or COW; bat we are
human beings, and claim to possess
human intelligence, and we propose to
some extent at least to be ourselves
the judges Of how we should live and
the comforts we should enjoy. To OBJ.
tain those rights we must deal with you
on equality, and we therefore propose
to deal with you in body-as l,joo |
men against your capital.
But Mr.. Royal argues in effect that
when they have done this the laborers
will cut their own throats by forcing
capital out Of profitable employment
andconsequently causing its withdrawal
from the channels Of trade by which it
is made accessible to laborers, which |
argument of Mr.. Royals | will illus
trate for him by the fable Of the man
WIN Nu' OpVh thV SOoeO w SCb tuc
golden egg. But Mr.. Royal seems to
forget that this argument is based on
the assumption that the laborer has no
more sense than the man in the fable. |
1t will be much nearer the facts of the
case to assume that laborers will not
push their demands to that extent, but !
that as soon as they are placed !
in situation to contract with |
capitalists on terms of equality they
will endeavor to make their contracts
intelligently for their own permanent
interests, which will be upon a basis
approximately fair for both capital and
labOi-apprOrimdtely, for exact equity |
is not possible in human affairs. But |
each side in thistqual conflict of opin-
ions and interests may occasionally geta
slight temporary advantage of the other. |
But the average result will be fair and |
equitable. Nothing, it appears to me,
however, could be fairer in the adjust |
ment of such a conflict of interests |
than for an intelligent committee repre- |
sentiDg the whole body Of employees
in certain line Of business in any
commercial or manufacturing centre and |