Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1886-05-08
THE NATURAL OUTCOME.

Inc violence ana DlOOuSneu ab CuiCaSO
and Milwaukee reveal the true spirit of the
trades union against which We baye so Of
ten and 30 earnestly protested. They are
not, as many claim, the wanton excesses OF
a small band of socialists, who have trans
ferred the red flag from the hot beds of their
order in the Old World, and finding them
selves unrestrained in land of freedom,
have mistaken liberty for license. The
principles of the first trades union ever or.
ganized have in them all the elements of the
bloodiest riot, and the policy of coercion is
everywhere and always the determined foe
of law and order.
All such organizations are violation OF
the most sacred natural rights, and would
have been indictable at common law as
criminal conspiracies. In taking our stand
against them we said at the outset: 1.-THE
system of coercion once adopted can have
in the nature of things no recognized limits.
Revolutions, inaugurated in conspiracy, may
have peaceful beginning, but are sure to
result in violence if the end cannot other
wise be attained" And we were simply
forecasting the result drawn from our own
observation and experience, when we add
ed 1--WE know that in theory the strikers
often say that they will stop at the line
where violence begins, but in practice they
never remain inside of this limit in any
great struggle" Not blow has been
struck, not scene Of disorder presented,
during the last few days, that is not the nat
ural sequence Of the demand that hired
laborers may combine to enforce upon an
unwilling employer, and against all other
workmen, their own terms of service.
More than month ago we called atten-
tion to trades unionism on exhibition, and
predicted the inevitable result of the strug
gle We said: I'm the contests they in
vite and promote there may be an avowed
purpose Of moderation, and the use of only
peaceful measures, but where the resistance
is stubborn and concessions are refused,
there is always the same resort to violence
and reckless damage to persons and proper
ty." We have wondered at the justification
of strikes by many Of our leading writer's
and speakers. The ferocious, bloodthrsty
Tartar is but thinly disguised under the
skin of the mildest unonist who organizes y
band to dictate terms to his employer. We
care not how soft-spoken he ia when be
makes his demand, nor how much he may
talk Of cancellation and arbitration in order
to work upon the public sympathy he is
not bargaining as between man and man;
he is debating as tyrant to his serf, and
he means to be obeyed, or worse will follow.
The exhibition may be made in our day on
larger scale, but the main features of the
scene are always one and the same. When
the employer and the employed stand on an
equal footing, each having the conceded
right to offer and to refuse the terms of SER
vice without prejudice to either, the rights
of both are preserved.
But combination on the part of society
of employers 10 oppress their workmen, or
an association Of laborers to compel an em.
ployer to hire them on their own terms, is
the assertion of the principle that might
makes right: it is the old robber refrain that
"They may take who have the power, and
they may keep who can"
AS the bandit is always mild if his victim
yields his purse without dispute, so the
strikers will never speak an angry word if
their demands are promptly conceded. But
il the employer refuses, their open palm
soon becomes a clenched fist, and the force
of the pressure increases with the resist
ance to be overcome. A strike never has
but one meaning; it always signifies coer.
cion, and those who concede that force may
be applied, cannot logically discriminate
either as to its extent or character. There
can be no line drawn between what is call
ed 'moral force" and physical violence. To
deter willing workmen from engaging in
the strikers place by calling him opprobri.
Gus names, is as much violent restraint of
his natural rights as to strike him between
the eyes, or to break his legs with bale.
stick, all of which are among the forms of
"argumentn with which our columns have
been recently quite too familiar.
Some have justified these combinations Of
the so-called "workiugmen," because they
have not fully understood their true char
acter. Demagogues and partisan polite
ians have favored them to secure the sui.
frages of the members. Not few have
honestly believed that they could be made
useful to the poorer laborer, and restrained
within peaceful limits. The plea has been
that labor organizations and trades unions
may be recognized" and even petted and
encouraged, while socialism in all its man.
ifestations is put down with a stern, un.
Welding hand. No wit of man, much less
a legal statute, can distinguish between the
two when they array themselves in force to
secure the end they have in view. They
NAV sometimes wear robe with different
stripe, or carry flag of another hue, but
they are born of the same parents and nour-
ished on the same diet. Their one princi-
pie is, to ignore the rights of all Others, and
to assert, by whatever force is necessary,
their own right to govern the world after
their own fashion in all matters affecting
their personal interests. They believe in
coercion as their ultimate right, and, when
they are resisted, will do all they dare to
enforce their demands. Socialism in its
worst aSpecfs ui11 do No moro
We started in the discussion several weeks