The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1886-03-24

the fact that the Missouri Pacific Railway Com
pany may Justly claim that the strike of March s,
1885, relieves il OF the obligations it assumed in
the circular of March Is, 1885"
In rendering this verdict the Governors have
blindly ignored the fact that the obligations as
on ali the roads operated and leased by said Mis-
souri, Pacific Railway Company, and was fully I'M
dsIstood to SO spPly although by Oversight but
Evidence is at hand that the striking employees OF
that date were, up to the day Of the
stEae Ssia, s working for less pay than
showing not a restoration of old pay, but really
reduction in violation Of said circular agreement.
Evidence is at hand that bridge men have been
compelled to work many hours over time without
receiving the agreed overtime pay. Evidence is
at hand TO prave that in order to make it neces-
sary to reduce the force of workingmen, work has
been sent TO contract shops and in one instance
whole foundry sub-let in order to bring the men
under new supervision, thus depriying the men
Of the provisions of the agreement. All this done
10 create dissatisfaction and induce
employ, @ eh after which ae the men We're % employed
and always at reduced rates. Evidence is al hand
that whole gangs OF men have been discharged
Notwithstanding that Mr.. Hoxie agreed on May
Is, 1885, that rather than reduce the working
force, he would reduce the hours. Every effort
TO have there men reinstated was refused by the
company en- the ground that they were not COW
cred by the agreement which agreement says 1--WE
will reduce the hours of work instead Of reducing
the force whenever the necessity arises"
The outrages on the Texas and Pacific Railroad
are sought TO be made amatter 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 receiver refused to comply with the agree
ment of the company officials with the employees
after the institution of the receivership notwith-
standing they do not repudiate other agreements
OF said officials, showing a clear intent to the
United States and its officers for dishonorable
purposes.
II is is charged by Mr.. Hoxie in pevlous state
ment that the agreement of March, 1885, has been
violated by the employees Said agreement was
published in the morning papers of March p,
and We ask any intelligent TO read ii with care,
and note If il be possible for the
employees to violate any provisions of said con-
tract, be they ever 50 desirous. and that for the
sole reason that it is agreement on the part OF
the company to do certain things, but requiring
nothing whatever of employees But why should
we say more? il Mr.. Hoxie did not know that he
was guilty of gross wrong and Injustice, why
would he refuie TO listen to evidence and hear
our appeal for redress? Why should he shelter
himself behind subterfuges and technicalities!
Why did he refuse TO treat with the men he
has wronged with evasive letters
to Governors who can not possibly enter into the
merits Of the controversy. The truth is simply
this: Mr.. HOxie wants trouble. He has provoked
it; he is still inciting ii, and making innocent
public pay the price of his per6dy How long
will the public consent ior Gould and Hoxie thus
to rule or ruin? We wait to see.
By order OF
EXECUTIVE BOARD DISTRICT ASSEMBLY lO1