Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-10-09
INDUSTRIAL WAR.
A Review OF the Labor Question and au At.
tempt to Untangle the misconceptions
Relating TO IL.

discussion Of the so-called labor question
during the past few months must have
observed that strict definition OF terms
and phrases is the arst thing needed in
the discussion and the one thug that has
most been wanting. The loose use OF
terms, tolerated by the economists has
been extended by thenewspapers, adopted
enormously by the preachers, abused by
the professional labor reformers, and
finally entirely misunderstood by the
employed until the popular notion OF the
mitter has become little less than tan
gle of fallacles and misconceptions of
social facts, relations and possibilities.
He who says "sociap' nowadays takes
license TO promulgate vague and whimsi-
cal notions or projects having for their
general aim to bridge the traditional gulf
between meum and tuum, or TO take from
one Of his neighbors and give to another,
according to his good judgment Of what
would be mere "iust." As an illustration
OF misuse OF terms / mention the use OF
"capital and laborn to designate employer
and employe, and as an Illustration of the
abuse of catch phrases refer to the al
most suicidal misuse OF "an injury to
one Is aninjury to alp In the Southwest
strike.
The only attempt have met with in
this discussion 10 define what the labor
question is formulated f. in this way;
"With the growth Of democracy the po-
liticai power has passed into the hands Of
a numerical majority, while property is in
the hands of minority. There is there
fore danger lest the former use the polit-
ical power to plumber the latter, unless
the latter conciliate the former by timely
concessions. II this were the question,
1t would, no doubt, be serious enough.
IL would mean that political institutions
are not the safeguard OF liberty and prop
erty under democracy any more than they
were such under older political forms;
and that they are still only convenient
means for those who can control the in
situations to violate liberty and property
TO their own advantage. 1t would mean
that all our boosted political progress
was In question; for instance, that cannot
guarantee property cannot be stable.
Democracy would either have TO yield
at once to communism as the only real
izatlon Of Us own principles or It would be
overthrown by monarchial reaction to
secure property. Furthermore II the
question were as stated, it would be one
that would arise amongst the property
classes, and would be suggested by alarm
for their interests; it would not be ques-
ton raised among the employed, and
bearing on their struggle for their inter-
ests. The question would, therefore, be
a political question and property Ques-
ton. 1t would not be a labor question.
II attempt, out of the vague, sentiment
tai and declamatory expressions Of the
parties Interested and their friends to
formulate the question they try to raise,
IL seems to me to be this: How can those
who have neither land nor capital, and
who must therefore enter the organlza-
ton or of society as wage workers, get
their living, or get better living, or get
more than they now get out of the stock
OF goods In society, for the productive
effort which they ran put into the work OF
society? The socialists answer this ques.
ton by saying that committee
should be appointed to apportion the
work OF society and distribute the pro-
Duct according to some standards, which
each school Of socialists says can easily
be Defined, but upon which no two
schools are agreed. The PROFESSIONAL
socialists say that some more "iust''
distribution ought TO be found, that sup
I'J HhN NNhiNho wa NV uO, luhb Int So
ciallstic schemes will not do, and that
"ethics" must be asked to decide. The
press, the pulpit, the politicians, all who
solicit the power that the wage-class, by
virtue Of numbers, now possesses, stand
eagerly ready to hatter aud calole it by
any proposal or proposition that will
please It.
Is the question above stated properly
raised, or properly forced upon public at
tentionp venture TO maintain that 1t
Is not. The question of how we shall get
our living, or how we shall get the best
possible living, is common to all OF us but
That Insignificant minority which has Iu-
herlted land or capital enough to support
family without work. The question is
no more anxious and perplexing to arti. |
sans or handicrattsmen than II is to the |
mass OF farmers, lawyers, doctors, clergy
men, teachers, book.keepers, merchants, |
editors, etc, or to the aged, invalids, |
women, and Others who depend upon |
small investments. IL is constantly |
alleged IN vague and declamatory terms
mat artisans and unsklled laborers are In
distress and misery or are under oppres.
SION. NO facts to bear out these asser-
lions are offered The wage-class Is not
pauper class. 1t is not a petitioner for
bounty nor social burden. The prob
lem how that part of society Is to earn It's
living is not public question. II is not
class question, The question how to
earn ones living, or the best living posi-
pie In ones circumstance, rs the most
distinctly individual question that can be
raised A great deal might be done, by
instruction and exhortation, to inform the
individual mind and conscience, especially
OF parents, so that this question might be
more wisely solved than 1t now is, Such
would be u legitimate Aeld for discussion,
and the social consequences of foresight
and early self-denial, such as are now EN-
ployed blythe best parents and Young peo-
PIE among us, would be incalculable;
but no public question can properly be
raised as to how some shall make a easier
Tor others TO get a living when the arst
are already fully burdened with the task
OF getting living for themselves, Here,
as at every other point IN any unbiased
attempt to deal with tins subject, Il is found
that the real question is whether wa shall
maintain or abandon liberty with respon.
sibillty. AS'f N
IL Is sometimes said to be shocking
doctrine that the employe, enters into u
q ~ - nIN A. Il