Frostburg mining journal. [volume] (Frostburg, Md.) 1871-1913, 1890-09-13
MINING JOURNAL.
FRosTBURG, MD, SEPTEMBER 49, 1880.
The Poor Employer-His Lot is Not a
Happy One,

In doing so he cites a difference
that occurs between the great State of
New York and the JOURNAL.
The JOURNAL is thus honored over
much.
Yet, what is New York rather,
what is the Legislature at Albany
An association of demagogues, each
Of both parties in pellmell competition
to placate the crazy demands of the
so-called labor element of the State.
The Act, therefore, which Mr.. Rich
mond holds before the JOURNAL as
"law" is an answer to the clamor for
dangerous class legislation.
But is it "laso 7" If Mr.. Richmond
knew that it is circumscribed by linn
itations as to time that is, if he knew
it to be legal experiment., he did not
state the fact. Nor did he allude to
the other fact that its tenure had ex-
pired hence, legally no longer "laU."
Nor did he refer to Mr.. Webb'S IMAM
ly" declination to take advantage of the
fact that the Act had expired by linn
itation, but preferred to let the erperi-
ment go to trial in order that eventual
ly, perhaps, the highest court of New
York, or of the United States, and
not Mr.. Richmond, would determine
whether or not the right of any sort of
formal inquisition into private motives
is "lam."
70 the JOURNAL, therefore, it make
no difference what the Legislature of
New York does in the matter of re-
viewing the results and action of the
State Board of Arbitration. Let these
be what they may, the history of legis-
lation which provides for and pro-
notes such inquiries will not be com
plete until the highest judicial tribu-
nal in the land passes upon it.
1t was SO in the case of the Civil
Fights Act.
Mr.. Richmond does not fancy the
analogy the JOURNAL drew between
the rights of Methodists, Baptists or
Presbyterians, to inquisitorial pro
lection as we'll as Knights of Labor.
He goes so far as to say sit is foreign
to the issue" Why What is the
difference, for instance, between the
inherent "rights" of Methodist and
the inherent ''rights' of a Knight of
Labor And if the two professions
are combined in one individual, as
often happens, how much does his
"rights" as Methodist acquire by the
addition of his "rlghts" as Knight of
Labor? And what rights does he en-
joy in either case that he does not en-
joy in the other
No true analogy is foreign to any
issue. We know this from Mr.. Rich
mOnd's own pen, for he writes:
Suppose bank cashier, superintendent,
clerk, discharged after long service, and all
grounds of dismissal refused when requested.
Instead, therefore, of using the
terms, "bank cashier, a superintend-
ent, a clerk we employed, perhaps
unfortunately, the words, "Method-
lists, Baptists and Presbyterians."
Mr.. Richmond excerpts also to our
unqualified admission that the Fright
to ask is unabridged by any restric-
ton whatever. He says ''it is mere
quibble," and that "a right to ask car
ries with it the right to be answered"
Is this true No. All our rights are
active, not passive all our rights are
positive, not negative. Were it other
wise there would never have been a
Declaration of Independence. Nor
would there have been a Bill of Rights
in any State. Men would not be SOY
ereigns, but subjects of some sort of
inquisition. The ''divine right of con-
ficting kings" mi ght rule with alter
mating sceptre, and the vacillating
loyalty of "Robert Landry" be enact
ed with diverse fervor again and
again
Under which king Bezonian?
Speaker die!
Mr.. Richmond will do we'll to join
us in the prayer that the day may
never dawn on this goodly land which
is to inaugurate an era wherein every
man is to carry his motives and his
conscience under a lock to which
every other man has key. The law
already discourages, if it does not pro-
hibit methods which tend to self.in-
elimination. Let us hope that it will
continue to be at least equally liberal
with those whose private business, in
terests and motives are entitled to
protection from the impertinence and
sacrilege of any sort of inquest.
Mr.. Richmond contends that Mr..
Webb "never refused or claimed the
right to refuse to give his grounds for
dismissal" This is an error. Mr..
Webb fatty declined. He stood on
one of the rights he had not surrender
ed-that one concerning which he
said-'.there is nothing to arbitrate."
All that was therein involved of equal
individual right was settled long ago
when men had conceded certain
alienable privileges for the common
GOOD and the general defense and thew