The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1886-03-23


present withd avail OF active labor
from the roads of the Gould South
western system. On their suggestion
these gentlemen went to see Mr..
Hoxie and attempted a settlement. II
was agreed, in Difference 10 their
wishes, that we should submit to
them all our grievances, with the un-
derstanding that they would ar
range meeting between Mr..
Hoxie and ourselves. They
desired permission TO settle as best
tn y could, on an understanding that
we would abide by their decision. To
this we demurred unless we were first
permitted 10 pass upon the terms OF
settlement. With this understan ling
we consented to their interposition be-
tween Mr.. Hoxie and themselves. Mr..
HoXie refused to receive a delegation
from their employees or the Knights of
Labor, and the Governors received
from Mr.. Hoxie the document pub
lished yesterday, which was given to
the press even before we were permitted
to see it. Now, in justice to ourselves
and the truth Of history we desire to
make the fallowing points OF fact;
First The interposition OF the Gov
enors was voluntary on their part,
coming to Kansas City and seeking an
interview with our borad
Second--We refused them the privi-
lege Of adjusting our difference or ac-
cepting terms OF settlement without
first submitting to this committee for
approval. Notwithstanding which,
they received Mr. Hoxie's proposition,
qualifications and all, and turned them
over to the press and public before we
were even permitted to see them.
Third-They say to Mr. Hoxie, after
careful investigation we are unable to
find wherein the Missouri Pacific
Railway Company has violated the
terms and conditions of the agreement
made on the 18th of March, 1885,
touching its employees in our re-
spective'States.
To say the least OF such a statement
it is not credtable to the minds and
hearts of men to whom has been COM
mitted the welfare of q great people,
to say that they win take advantage OF
our want'oi skill in legis alive techni-
calities and wink at gross violations of
sacred agreement in its plainly man
ifest spirit because its technical letter
gives an apparent advantage to a great
corporation. The Governors state
further; "We recognize the fact that
the Missouri Pacific Railway Com
pany may Justly claim that the striE e
of March &, 1886, relieves it of the
obligations it assumed in the circular
of March Is, 1885"
In rendering this verdict the Gov
ernors have blindly ignored the fact
that the obligations assumed in said
circular at that time took effect on all
the roads operated and leased by
the said Missouri Pacific Railway
Company, as was fully understood so
to apply, although by oversight but
two roads and States were mentioned
therein. Evidence is at hand that the
stri ing employees of that State. were
up to the date of the strike
WORKING for less pay than be-
fore the strive Of last year,
showing not restoration of old pay,
but really a reduction, in violation OF
said circular agreement. Evidence is
at hand that bridgemen have been
compelled to work many hours over
time without receiving the agreed
over time pay.
Evidence is at hand to prove that in
order to make it necessary to reduce
the force OF workingmen, work has
been sent to contract shops, and in one
instance, a whole foundry sub-let in
order to bring the men under u new
supervision, thus depriving the men
OF the provisions OF the circular agree
ment. All this done TO create dissat-
isfaction and induce the men to leave
the company's employ, after which
the men were employed, and always
at reduced rates. Evidence is at hand
that whole gangs of men have been
discharged Notwithstanding that Mr..
Hoxie agreed on May l8, 1885, that
rather than reduce the working force
he would reduce the hours.
Every effort 10 have these men re-
instated was refused by the company
on the ground that they were not COW
cred by the agreement, which agree
ment says: 1--WE will reduce the hours
Of work instead Of reducing the force,
whenever the necessity arises"
The outrages on the Texas and Pa
cacific railway are sought to be made
a matter entirely out of the range OF
the agreement. Men were, out of sheer
prejudice, discharged without an effort
TO reduce the hours of work. The re-
ceivers refused TO comply with the
agreement of the company's officials
with the employees, after the institu-
ton OF the receivership. notwithstand-
ing they do not repudiate other agree
ments Of said officials, showing a clear
intent TO use the United States courts
and it's officials for dishonoable pur-
poses.
II is charged by Mr.. Hoxie in pre-
vious statements that the agreement
of March 5, 1888 ;, has been violated by
the employees. Said agreement is pub
lished in the morning papers OF March
22d, and we ask any intelligent person
to read with care, and note ifit be pos
sible for the employees to violate any
provision of said agreement, be they
never 80 desirous and that for the
sole reason that it is an agreement on
the part Of the company to do certain
things; but requiring nothing what
ever OF the employees.
But why should we say more2 II
Mr.. HoNie did not now that he was
guilty Of gross wrong and injustice
why would he refuse TO listen TO our
evidence and hear our appeal for re-
dress? Why would he shelter him