Frostburg mining journal. [volume] (Frostburg, Md.) 1871-1913, 1890-09-20
MINING JOURNAL.
MD, SEPTEMBER 20, 1890.
That zone More Word"

the questions they please concerning his
reasons for discharging certain en-
ployees.
The JOURNAL not only never denied
that right but upheld it.
The JOURNAL, however, did and does
now deny in toto the right of any phys
ical, moral, or religious power on earth
to extort a single reason from Mr..
Webb against what he may esteem to
be his own or the interest of his corpo-
ration.
Yet Mr.. Richmond comes along
again this week and, assuming that
we have taken position that we
could not stand upon, affects to fatter
himself with the fancy that he has
overthrown one of the JOURNALS pet
doctrines.
One only, when all that we have
contended for is founded on this one ?
aye do take my house when we take
the prop that sustains my house,"
But Mr.. Richmond has "overthrown''
nothing the JOURNAL has set up, and
all pretension to that effect will 60 for
its intrinsic, not its face value.
As to the New York Legislature.
The JOURNAL contends that the law
providing for arbitration of labor dis
putes is, by its own terms, not now in
force. AS sop to counterfeit labor
demands-its only redeeming pro-
vision-its tenure, is spent. The his
tory of arbitration, as we'll as the
GENT. of the theory, had taught the
more conservative and careful heads
of the New York Legislature that the
settlement of strikes by this method,
to be successful, must be voluntary, not
compulsory. Hence, the saving clause
which makes the Act an experiment.
But, as stated last week, Mr.. Webb
did not waive his right not to be tried
by its provisions. Like the man that
he manifestly is, he let the issue 60 to
trial-to the end that eventually the
people may see that there Is liberty
of choice left with every man in re-
publican government which shall not
be accounted as crime, or attainted
as sort of treason.
Mr.. Richmond lays great stress upon
the mandatory character of law. The
JOURNAL admits all Mr.. Richmond
afirms in this connection. At the
same time it notes how careful some
times law is concerning it's own func-
tons, especially where original per-
sonal rights are concerned.
The Masters and Workmen Arbitra-
ton Act, for instance, passed by
Parliament in 1872, has neuer been
put in force. Why7 Because it
has always been found that some.
body's inviolable territory would
have to be invaded-in other words,
that compulsory arbitration-in still
other words, that arbitration under
stress of law, as contended for by Mr..
Richmond, is tyranny!
Why Mr.. Richmond, when, in 1875,
at the instance of the Trades Union
Congress, local boards or councils of
"conciliation and arbitration" were
sought to be formed-in the prelim-
mary stage of carrying out the pro-
visions of the Act, the project had
to be abandoned as impracticable. 1t
was found that as long as men had
any choice whateuer left, arbitration
could not even be begun-not even its
conciliatory features.
So that in all the domains of Britain
no such board was ever established
under the Act cited.
Is it any wonder, then, that even the
demagogic Legislature of New York
should hedge it's own Act about with
provisos, one of which, unwaived, is
fatal
But the wonder is that Mr.. Rich
mond should "smile" when the voice
of history and the suicidal terms of an
Act should unite in pronouncing what
he esteems claw" to be in actual fact
two-fold nullity.
We must leave Mr.. Richmond's
demonstration of post norton mirth.
In the outset of this controversy the
JOURNAL disclaimed any ability or de-
sire to discuss questions of law with Mr..
Richmond, and we have done so only
where the facts involved contradictions
of what he claims with needless rally to
be law. We knew then and we know
now that all laws except moral, nat
ural and Divine laws-the latter par
ticularly excepted, are lawyer-made
and lawyer construed. Hence it is
with reluctance we attempt to illustrate
his "footman and cook" citation:
Suppose Mr.. Richmond discharges
his office-boy for suspected theft. The
boy demands reason why-not per-
sonally, but through some brash little
Mr.. Powderly, the latter being the
head devil of permanent office-boy
conspiracy against lawyers. Mr..
Richmond gives his reason, however.
Now the question isis that reason,
given to Mr.. Powderly, "confden-
tial communication" to the 6oy'