Workmen's advocate. (New Haven, Conn.) 1883-1891, 1888-09-08
frice ; Gents

=
norant and bigoted natlvists-here
WAS u city official using his influence
against Organized Labor, when but
few years ago he played the office
seeking dcmhgogue and tlattered the
workers. The secretary of the Cen
tral Labor Union read fitting and
scathlng reply to the Mayor which
was adopted at last Sundays session
of the Central Labor Union. And
here is the letter, which no capital
istic paper published in full:
NEW YORK, August 30th, 1888.
Hon. APRNM s. HEwlrT, Mayor
SIR Without commenting unneces-
sarily on the first part of your casuistcal
letter of the 9th inst, | feel myself
forced to state quite plainly in relation
to your assertions in the other portion
that the Central Labor Union, pending
any action of yours, would never have
allowed the three victimzed women to
have starved. No longer is there any
need for the children of one of them to
be obliged to beg on the streets and be-
come criminal vagrants SO AS to obtain
sufficient niCkcls to add to their mothers
wretChed pittanCe as wage slave in or
der to keep them and her from hunger.
AT the very time you were inditing your
sophistries to me the three victims of
capitalism had been taken care Of by
organized labor through an association
of wage workers of their own sex which
had good reasons for being organized
against their capitalistic oppressors
For had not the dependent condition
of workingmen and women upon the
eXploiters of capital stared them in the
face and forced them to combine?
DO you suppose that we are not aware
of the facts which have brought about
the state of things now existing? Did
not the tenth census statistics, without
tine aid of the Ford Congressional Com
mitee, tell US all that was necessary?
How that in this city of which you are
| the mayor, II 1889 manufacturing and in
! dustrial establishments employed some
| 1900 women and 10000 children under
| 10 years of age as against $1,000 men.
| How the average wage through the en-
| ployment of these women and children,
mostly on labor saving machines, has
been reduced in the United States to
| $3.50 per week. How the bosses of the
| II ,339 factories and industrial concerns
| in New York City made profit of be-
| tween $50, 600, 600 and 800, 000, 900 in the
| tenth census year. And how a quarter
Of million of manufacturing establish
| ments in the United States made a profit
| on their labor of 2,13S, 800 hands of
| 81 ,025, ,S0l ,041.
In my letter of the 25th inst. stated
very distinctly that we objected to your
investigating the case of these three
wage workers, because you had made no
such distinction in the Long and Hartt
case, but had Immediately as a million
| aire and manufacturer, and therefore a
partisan, attacked labor unions on tho
mere assumption that scabs must be
| right.
1t is to be regretted that you pretend
to misunderstood plain English and
while evading with cynical sneers the
issues presented you attempt to ridicule
! the honest efforts in behalf of right and
| Justice Of the Central Labor Union. The
marrow prejudice you are pleased to
charge lis with entirely belongs to your
self and is proved in the simple fact that
you desired to investigate the grievances
Of union people, while those of scabs
were proven in your opinion without
such investigation.
That you could for moment suppose
that our sisters in this righteous cause
would BtoOp so low as to touch money
directly collected for the benefit of the
enemies Of organized labor and thereby
| tI hn-
! besmear their fair names demonstrates
either hypocritical pretence or utter
| ignorance Of the cause of humanity as
represented by labor unions.
Besides there was no Just reason why
you should have offered the money col
leCted for scabs to these three honest
workingwomen. Had you been really
anxious to help them you could have
sent out separate appeals for the victims
| for truthfulness sake. But no, with a
certainty of refusal you wilfully and ma
liciously offer them the ''pieces of silver"
collected for Judas Iscarot of the labor
movement.
You lay great stress upon the fact
that we designate you an ''enemy of or
ganized labor Can you blame us for
this belief? 1t is only IA few years ago
you proclaimed quite fearlessy that
labor was right in organizing. Not alone
that, you went further and endorsed CO.
operative enterprises such as the Social
lists demand for the settlement of the
| labor cause.
But you have a dual individuality.
Sometimes you pose as Socialistic
philosopher trying to help labor, and on
! ar Il Hxgn
aire using all your might to cursh out
the labor organizations of the industrial
| masses.
A LITTLE ANCIENT HISTORY.