Workmen's advocate. (New Haven, Conn.) 1883-1891, 1886-04-25
COMMUNICATIONS.

10 Tie " OrhmPh& 4dtOcute:
The following communication, Mr.. Ed
itor, was declined by one of the least big
oted, perhaps, of our New Haven dailies,
The Morning NerS;
do not write in any controversial
spirit, but 10 treat one or two points Of
importance, suggested by the NeWS cdi-
torial of yesterday, which, i'll spite of its
exceptional fairness, (all the more danger
Gus on that aoCOuntl,tO fail in disclosing
the issue between the Knights Of Labor
and the Missouri Pacific, for it simply
allows that the one has the advantage in
the character of its chief, and the other
in the fact that the strike was CHuseless
one.
1t is assumed that Jay Could has
been known as an INSCRIPTIONS man,
whose rapaCity was restrained only by a
wholesome fear Of the law" Now, if a
vote were taken on that question to-
morrow, the country would most likely
be found divided in its opinion. and on
one side would be the working class, and
on the other the capitaistic class, as a
rule
Why, not long since, Yale student,
and Sunday school superintendent, de
clared that could was probably doing as
much good as any man in America, and
eXemptying in his life the teachings of
the Sermon on the Mount Certainly
lalea political economy furnishes us
with no reason for suspeCting Could to
he anything else than one of the hest
citizens as he makes himself ont to be
III his late letter. As to Mr. Powderly,
notice that the public estimate of him
has been almost reYolutionized within
the last forty-eight hours, since he has
declared himself Squarely on the side Of
the strikers,
Then it is stated that ''the strong point
| III the case Of the Missouri Pacific is that
| the strike ON that particular road was
| without provocaton; while nothing is
SAID about the charge against the Rail
road, (Which Mr.. PoWderly thinks lusti-
| lies the bringing to bear on the man
| Gould, 1.-THE whole power OF the Order. J.
! that iloXie refused to treat with the E,N-
ecutive Board, after its agreements with
| Jay Could, and also positively refused to
employ Knights Of Labor, whether they
/ had been active in the strike or not
/ Besides 1t Is not correct. to say that the
! Strlk" WAS confesscdly without proyuca-
ton. No such confession has ever been
made. Assuming the strike to have been
because OF the unjust discharge of one
man on the Texas Pacific, it may or may
not follow that it was unustitiabe
. That Is question which admits of argll-
ment, and depends on the principle in
VOWED. If the strike on the Missouri
Pacific Was simply throwing brick at
a private citizen who had nothing to do
with the injustice, then indeed, would
JAY Could deserve to come out victorious
IN this tight. and the like o myself would
fight for him. But other causes of griev-
anrc than the one mentioned have been
gwen; only the press of the country has
taken care not To give them to the world,
or not to say anything about them. The
Missouri Pacific Is charged in ten differ
ent counts with Violating the contract Of
March, 1885,.
1t is not fight between Powderly and
''utild nuf between the X. OF l.. even.
ami the Railroad, II is a fight between
two industrial ~ stems the cooperative
and the competitive, or the socalistir
and anarChistiC modes Of living; and i
has only begun. I. W. CURTIS.