New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1886-03-24

THE NEW PHASE OF THE STRIhE
The new demand of the Missouri Pacific
strikers is an attempt to change the issue.
They did an unreasonable thing when they
stopped the Missouri Pacific traffic because the
Texas Pacific had not yielded to II cir wishes.
The Texas road was under control of the court.
The owners of the Missouri Pacihc had no
power if they had ever so much disposition, To
enter inUo any agreement controlling the man
agement of the Texas property while IN the
hands of receivers. But after intllcting great
injury on the men and on the business OF the
country, the labor organization discOv that
it had made demands which public opinion
would not snstan. and therefore sought to
change the issue. No other prctext presented
itself except the continued refusal OF the Mis-
souri, Pacific to negotiate about Il matter over
which it had no control. But the Knights chose
to interpret this as a refusal to recognize any
labor organization. The preteXt can hardly
avail. for Vice President H0xie had distinctly
said in his first published statement that the
company had always been willing and was will
ing TO confer with the men, or with any organl-
cation authorized to represent them, In regard
to any difference, but that the Missouri Pacfc
had no power over the matter now presented
as a ground of complaint. Thus the claim that
the continued strike on the Missouri Pacific is
justified by a refusal to recognize the knights
of Labor is plainly without foundation.
Internationally the workers have right to
organize themselves if they please, and to act
through an organization empowered to repre-
sent them. The right, however, involves cor
responding right of employers. They have
exactly the same freedom as the workers. The
men are free to organize OF not; the employers
are free to employ an organization or not. If
they refuse to deal with individuals, and insist
upon hay ing contracts with an organized body
of laborers, that is their right If they refuse
to deal with an organized body, and insist on
having contracts with individual workers, that
is their right. This is ObI ions when 1t is con-
sidered that in some kinds of work organization
WOULD be fatal alike to the interests of the men
and of the employers. There individual quail
ties and individual disposition are of vitaicm-
pOrtance. The workers themselves know that
organ zatiOn is not for their interest in some es-
Establishments, and cannot fail to recognize that
in some it would be fatal to the success of the
work to put the workers on equal terms, and to
have them equally represented by a common
body The right of employers to choose in
what form they will employ labor Is as absolute
and as sacred as the right of the men to decide
whether they will organize or not. If the men
consider whether organization will increase or
lessen the demand for their labor, so the en-
ployers must consde,.,t their own risk whether
they can best get the help they want through
organization or from individual workers.
Just here bill submitted by Representative
Glover, of Missouri, in Congress on Monday,
deserves attention. The bill is confined to rail-
way companies and their employees and gives
both the right to call upon a Judge of the
United States District Court 10 hear and de-
termine questions at issue. If one party COM
plains and demands hearing, the judge must
summon the other to appear and name an
arbitrator. The award of arbitrators has the
effect of a judgment of the court. But
the arbitrators are to have no power to
fix wages for the future without consent Of
both parties. This is a crude measure, and
could be made much wiser, and better for all
parties, as we'll as much broader in is appica-
ton to different questions and different inter
ests. 1t is of value mainly as an indication of
the direction of public thought