Omaha daily bee., 1886-10-25

Al the tlmC the supreme court OF
PENNSYLVANIA rendered the decision dc
claring unconstitutional the law of
that state prohibiting the store order
system, we made extended comment
on the subject, concluding with the
suggestion that ii is the duty of work
ingmen everywhere TO resist the applica-
ton of the system. We observe that this
view is very generally held by news
papers friendly to the interests of labor,
and in Pennsylvania such papers are
urging the workingmcn to stand together
in opposition to this method of payment
properly characterized rs an abuse. They
are assured that if they Will stand to-
gethcr in insisting upon the complete
abandonment of this system they will
not need to ask protection from the leg
islature. In this matter they can be GER
tam of having with them the sympathy
and support of the public, tor the abuse
is so palpable that no intelligent and
candid man can fail to see and admit It,.
1t is an arrangement the advantages
of which are wholly on the side of
the corporations winch adopt the system,
there being in ii not II single real benefit
to the wage worker. 1t is system which
takes from the workingman n consider
able percentage of his earnings beyond
what ne would be required to expend for
an equal amount of the necessaries of
life purchased in free market, where he
had the advantage of competition in
trade, and its effect is to place him in a
sort of vassalage to the employer. Con
trary to the view held by the supreme
court of Pennsylvania, it operates to de-
stroy the manhood and independence of
the worker.
The system is not peculiar TO Pennsyl-
vania, but exists in many other states,
and in nearly all of them where mining
is carried on to any great extent. Hence
it is a matter in which the laborn g
classes generally are Interested, and in
reference to which they should assume Il
definite and positive position. 1t was eX-
pected that the convention of the Knights
of Labor would have taken cognizance
of the decision of the Pennsylvania court
and made some declaration on the sub
jcct, but we have not observed that it did
so. However, the omission need
taking such action Us the cir
circumstances shall require, or those in
sympathy with them from extendin Q
proper support. Worklngmen-mine
rs well as others-.should insist upon re.
ceiving their wages in cash, and
wherever practicable payment should be
made weekly, though the latter require
ment Is perhaps not of vital Importance.
Some employers of large numbers OF
men, notably Mr.. Andrew Carnegie,
have, however, found the plan of weekly
payments to work most satisfactorily
He maintains that the welfare OF the men
is best subserved by payments of wages
at short terms, and no one is better
qualified than he to speak authorlta-
| lively on matter of this kind. But
whether payments be made at short or
long terms-weekly or monthly-iustice
| to the wage Garner requires that they be
| made in cash, and not in some substitute
therefor which will compel him to pro
| vide for the wants of himself and family
in prescribed channel, at extreme prices
and thus turn back into the pockets oi
employers who are Interested in the
store-order system an undue percentage
of his earnings. From every point oi
view the syS TEN is unjust, and should not
! be tolerated or submitted to anywhere.