Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1888-09-03
ANOTHER 'sINTELILGENCER
BOOMERANG.


The Intelligeneer's sudden and vicious
attsck upon Senator FAULKNER is quite
an astonishing msuoever.
Senator FAULKNER's recent speech has
hurt the IRtelHgeneer. In fact the young
Senator's logic and plain statement of facts
has laid the Inteihgeneer and all other
monopoly organs upon the fiat of their
backs Our neighSor cannot answer Mr..
FAULKNER's argument on the tariff. 1t
is forced to tune and fret in silence on this
question. But il must work OF its fury
in some way, so il attempts (purely out OF
spite, for Mr.. FAULKNRR is not a esndi-
date for anything) to prejudice working
men against him by disappearing SIM
pie act Of duty he did some time ago, as cap
tain of militia, in suppressing riot. Mr.
FAULKNER's act M soldier OF the
State in 1876, cannot by any stretch
of the imagination be psrslleled with
BENJAMIN HARRIsoN's acts against the
railroad strikers in Indiana in 1877. Had
HARRISON simply done as FAULKNER did
no workingmau would have word to say
against him, for he would have done moth
ing but his duty. But HARRISON over
stepped his duty as an officer Of militia
if he were such Mt the time-and gratui-
tously Insulted workingmen, who were
striking for living wages. He made Vio-
lent and bitter spseches against them. de
was n railroad attorney at tie time end
his notorious aud uncalled for action
against the striking workmen incensed,
not only workingmen, bnt all fair-minded
men at the time. He went far beyond the
necessities of the case in his public denun-
Citations of the strikers and far beyond the
recommendations Of Governor WILLIAMS.
In fact HARRIsON's violent utterapces
against the striking railroad men were
made before the Govegnor ordered military
intervention.
How do these wanton acts of HARRISON
compare with what Mr.. FAULKNER did
a. captain of militia under orders from
Governor MATHEWS? We shall take the
IatelFgeaeer's garbled and untrue account
OF the affair, which is absurd on its face.
The cases are not similar. Mr.. FAULK-
NER had to deal with rioters; Mr.. HARRI-
SON had to deal with peaceful strikers.
HARRISON wished to use force when there
was no call for it. FAULKNER tried to
preserve the peace by peaceful means when
there was call for force. HARRIsoN's
sympathies were with the corporations
which paid him. FAULKNER's sympa-
thies were with the workmen, as
shown by the facts in the case. HARRI-
SON asked for soldiers to shoot down peace
ful men who refused to work for insuffici-
ent wages. FAULKNER with his little
company of militia was face to
face with an armed and angry
mob which fred on his company
of soldiers before any soldier fred mus
ket. Mr.. FAULKNER WAS, and is, liked
and respected by all the workingmen who
know him. Mr.. HARRISON is denounced
in strong terms by the labor organizations
of his own city and State. Mr.. FAULK-
NER, ~ a Democrat, has always fought on
the side of labor. Mr.. HARRISON never
performed an act beneficial to labor and
never said word il labor's behalf. On
| the contrary he voted fourteen times
against restriction of Chinese immigra-
ton, snubbed the requests of labor organ
izstions while Senator of the United
States and bitterly and unwarrantedly at
tackled peaceful strikers, as if they had not
right to refuse to work for what they
considered insufficient wages. Mr.. HAIR
RIsON said in 1877, as many competent
witnesses testify upon oath, that "A dollar
day is enough for any workingman" and
that "If he were governor he would compel
these strikers to return to work at the
point of the bayonet."
The IateHigncer made sad political
mistake in it's baseless and senseless attack
upon Senator FAULKNER. False and vi
cious as its attack is, there is not word
in it to show that Senator FAULKNER did
anything but his simple duty as a soldier,
and in the performance of that acted as
mercifully ~ it was in his power to, APP
psaling to his angry troops, when they
were fred upon and one of them wounded,
not to return the fire-although the Intel
Hgeneer, by resurrectipg an incorrect dis
patch regarding the riot, would have us
believe that he ordered them to fire. A
soldier who was wounded by a shot from
the rioters, instantly fired back, without
receiving any order, hitting the man, who
had shot him, in the arm, from the eff
fects of which wound the man afterwards
died. There is not the fsintest suggestion
of a parallel between this case and that Of
HARRISON who, without just cause, bit
terly attacked peaceful strikers.
WAGES AND THE TARIFF.