Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1886-07-06
a QUESTION OF OWNERSHIP.

The strikers at Chicago, in defending
their acts against the Lake Shore Rail
road, insist that they have taken no part
in derailing cars. They do not claim that
they have any right to throw cars from
the track, or to stop their going forward.
This, then, amounts to confession that it
is crime TO do so. But the cars were
thrown oil, trains were impeded, the freight
traffic was stopped, the passenger trains
were delayed, the right of the people to
travel was fatty denied, and the right of
The citizen to have his goods go forward
was nulIifed If the strikers did not do
these things, who did? \ mob? Then it
was acting, supposedly, in the interest
Of the strikers, and they failed to
enter their protest against such
acts, or to intervene, as they might
have done, to prevent them. This
denial of unlawful intent or act, while ac-
cepting the benefit of the result, is special
pleading, and will NOT deceive anyone.
The switehmen had a right to strike, but
as they did not own the road they had no
right to interfere with its operations, as
they did. 1t will not do to say we are
not responsible mob is doing Thu" for
all the world knows that such mobs do not
enter upon their work except to forward
some interest. The Inter Ocean recently
said;
The crowd yesterday prevented the move
ment Of freight on the Lake Shore Road by I'M
coupling and derailing cars and by placing OBJ
structions on the track. When the James
brothers and the Younger gang of desperadoes
stopped trains or threw cars from the track
every man among the strikers of yesterday prob
ably condemned the act as outlaWry. Where
IN was the act Of the James brothers different
from the acts OF the mob yesterday?
There YVES only this difference The
robbers were actuated by the desire to
secure money and property, the strikers by
the desire to occasion loss to others in
order to force their late employers to con
cede certain demands No matter how
reasonable and just these demands may
have been, the resort to violence cannot be
justified. Well might the Chicago Times |
ask:
Who are tie owners of the Michigan South
ern aud Lake Shore railway? This inter
estlng question is still undecided COM
pauy OF Swiichmen, lately in the service /
OF the railway company, are sti asserting their
ownership of that railway, by exercising con-
tr2i over Its operation. On the other hand |
oAlcefs OF the company still claim that they
represent AID have authOritytO act for the own
ers- IL the former are the owners it is right
proper and lawful that the persons who have
heretofore had the conduct of its administra-
ton shall Immediately retire aud turn over the |
property aud It's management TO the proprietary
hWt5ehmen.
There is no escape from it strikers who
fortify their right to strike by acts of vio-
lence prevent Others from lawfully con-
trolling their own property and enjoying
Its proceeds are offenders against the law,
and, practically, as much 50 as the men
who spring from hiding on the highway, |
with the call, Stand and deliver"
Workingmen cannot afford to indorse
any such methods, nor do we believe that
she great mass of them will do so. They
will presently see that, by such acts as
committed by the striking switchmen at
Chicago, their cause is being prejudiced. |
and the rightful claims they have are
being whelmed in theinevitable condempa-
ton the people viii pronounce against all
such methods.