Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-03-10

ieaslng 4 ore In The railroad
troubles, which now have such 40 all
absofbing intsre-t, Is Gov, John g.
Brown, fec lyer Of the Texas 4 Pacific
raIiway Gov. BfOWl seems ~ be- held
solely resp p-ible ~ the strikers for their
grleyapcgs, and ~ him also they attrihuie
the pulley stiicb the rDdd has adopted ~
closing is lines, ~ running them accord
ing tUis Jwu methods n policy which,
10 ~ vigorous determination and I'M
DenduR viii, s. strongly suggestive
~ tho meth1ds Of Jackson,
himsi A AhErfg representative
called Rt ihs office Of Gov,
Brow discovering sud received pleas
AMI WecOms ~ response ~ tho r..
quc ilr a1 interview 10 rrgard 10 the
strkr 0D ~ Texas B PaeIdc be said that
he gn- anfuus fgr tie puJiie % be folly
aeon lnt.I gitb ail the glrdu instances ~
Diu lnatter "a "a would cheiTiuilY furnish
al fn Information he could giye Boating
upon
"GDyenof, Mr. lil OK, member Of
The o., tive 30 ,rd, claimed Ia 4 speech
nt lbc fDu worth iBs-mectins that yUn
mad id-ei 70 Afbitrttu tho present
trou,l9, nd ihat lbs onlei,ls % iba
TICS = PaeiC hed gene out u their
way 7Q0 q abrasion clmnittees."
hfmt untrue. We have not gone
out ~ pIr Fty 10 hvOd anybody. We
were uilIhsd ibtt committee, which II
s0cqis wts comp rod ~ mrn not Ia our
cDplIy. wtfc coming tD meet u.s. but
they never came. Wnat is II proposed %
arbtfatcY"
Tho reporter suggested the matter u
Hail'H dla8targe NJ Marshall, and the de-.
mand FOR an increase ~ tho wages ~
unrkiied iabor nom 81 10 70 $50 per
day
"Mr Hall has never appealed 10 us 70
invrstHttr Ms cast; nobody has 70.
quesied ha rdnstitcmont. No demand
haH b ca made upon Us for an Increase
in WAGES "
"would you DO willing 70 arDilrate the
mat 0uW2"
eve arG Allllng % hear and redress
The grievance ~ auy oi our employees
The nrn WhD ne complaining are not IN
our mplny WIN tnrm We have moth.
ing ,htnYar ~ dun
HpWe "a @ Speakers last night stated
that tlg oGurs atre corrupt aud manpu-
lated by the railroads aud yourself WIN
ron sly anything ~ 10 tbis2'
whenever men declare the judiciary
corrup', or that they arr run by any In
tcroet. u shows most clearly that they
are driven % tn wall on the facts and
the nfgnnont, This In always the r,fupe
~ mon vim are conscious tha. they do
mol have right on their side. IL IL need.
less fuT ne 10 say that JUDGE
Patdne, against whom the charge seems
70 be aimed, IN one OF the most indeppnd.
ont, c1ns'fyA i've aud pure men adjoining
any bench. llr Is IN the interest Of no
man Or lmblnttion Of mon or capital. "
what, To your opinion, vas the cause
OF the strike on your road2"
"'fhr sole reason ~ the strike was the
refusal Ot the receivers 20 sign proposed
Ut date goth January, 1885, OF
which this ~ copy"
Tue governor htndcd the reporter an
extract witch viii be- found reproduced
~ Me- general statement of the receivers,
published below
IBID the men have any redress from
your rrfu4al 10 eigu that contract2"
"Crrihinly, they had AS mucn right 10
apply to tbs court which appointed the
receivers aud ask tho court 10 order the
rerciVofH to sign the contract or agree.
inont, ~ You hnve TO sue mo In one OF the
courisuf this state for any grievance
hnd II they had applied to Judge pardee
ior such an order aud satisfied him that
" Was rlrht no power or Influence would
nave prevented him from making the
order"
would you have sIgnod the agreement
II ordered "a do 80 Ivy tho courtfn
unquestlonably
"You understand OF course, governor,
that the Knights az Labor claim the
Texas 4 Pacific N still part OF tho Gould
H0u hweatorn aystem and say they will
not 20 back TO work on tho Missouri pn.
cine until the strike on the Texas & Pa.
cinc Ii ondtd.h
"rhe Texas & Pacific IL IN no way con.
neeled with tho Missouri Pacihc, They
have no voice In the management and
have not nor cannot In the slightest man.
ner control the receivers Ia the mattor Of
the htfiko nor otherwise"
"Do you not fear that II general boy.
colt ~ enforced against the Texas & Pa.
clio you VIII bu restricted TO q mere local
huAineHs1"
''Fhat Il not question for us 60 con.
sidcr. We deliver our frolghta 10 con-
Meeting lincs--at least we mako q tender
OF it--and lhcro our own responsibility
ceases "
Who becomes Responsible ihcnSi
THAT II for the courts g. settle. We
arc only lntUrostud In tulhlling our own
oblilAilona TO The public"
'ln case the Knights should be success.
iul IN THEIR boycott against you, would IL |
not be the rgnt as we'll ~ tho duty ol the |
public, which would then become the |
greatest sufferer, 90 Interfere through tho /
agencies Oi leRialAilnn2"
~ believe IL 10 DO the duty of both
state and federal legislatures TO passlaWs
icaling with these trOuhles.n
"What system of legislation would you
nropnaof"
"fhAt IL "a question am not prepared
70 answer. Il involves an ISSUE which IN
Extremely difficult TO solve Besides, N |
N luld make q suggestion these men
would say, that comes from the rAil. |
roads, and antagonlge II az once. No
Aw eau or should compel any man 20 la.
Dor, but he should not Interfere with
others who are willing TO labor"
"Dn you believe that II the Missouri
Pacific should adopt the policy " the re-.
seiveranlp aud shut down rs lines II II
could not ind mon TO operate them, Il
Hould defeat the strlkorsg"
Gas 70 that can make no predictIonfn
"in u not probable that the success OF
he Texas & Pacific In nnding men To
substitute the strikers will Induce many
roads 20 seek the protection OF the federal
government through rooclvershlpin
I