Workmen's advocate. (New Haven, Conn.) 1883-1891, 1890-08-30
WHO SHOULD OWN THEM

WITH OTloOLO OWlN 'CW !
We notice in the Oakland, Cal, En-
qttlrer, the following letter in relation
to the railroad strike and the question it
naturally suggests as to the ownership
of the social means of transportation;
Editor Enquirer: A morning paper
says editorially that THE Knights of
Labor have decided that they own the
railroads of New York. X And as
consequence traffic is paraly zed. r n In
the meantime people who never injured
the Knights of Labor are suffering Pc
cuniary losses every day"
Allow me to say that the Knights of
Labor have not decided that they own
the railroads" When they have at
tanned sufficient wisdom to arrive at
such decision they will have the power
to take their own and manage it in such
way as to entail no paralysis of traffic or
pecuniary loss to any one. 1t is precisely
because they have not decided that they
own anything but their labor and the
right to sell it to whom and under what
conditions they choose, that the pre-
sent conflict is brought upon them.
If the railroads belong to any class,
they belong to these Iaborers, who have
built, maintained and operated them
with no compensation save bare sub.
sistence for themselves and for the
generation of slaves who are to take
their place when they are killed.
Carlyle tells us of widow in London
who could assert her kinship with hui
mainly in no other way than to die of a
contagious disease, which spread and
killed hundreds. Perhaps astute journal
lists who prostitute their intellects in the
defense of "things as they are" for $40 a
week; fools behind the counter, who
shoulder a musket and shoot strikers
into submission for the glory there is in
it; petty tradesmen whose only means
of living comes from the robbery of the
workingman, in short all that great
middle class upon whom the million
aires depend to do their fighting, per-
haps they can learn of their kinship with
the sweating Knights of Labor, only by
having traffic paralyzed and by meeting
with pecuniary losses every day. Cali
ban, and even Lazarus too, daily learn
of their kinship with the rest of man
kind. 1t is probable that with such
knowledge will come that of enforcing
a recognition of their wrongs by those
who hold themselves apart and declare
that providence has assigned 10 all their
mutual position, which should be &C
cepted without murmuring.
In lengthy editorial reply the Oak
land Enquirer succeeds admirably, by
the weakness of its arguments, in
strengthening the position taken by Mr..
Hough. 1t says, in substance: tLet us
admit that the railroads belong of right
to those who, by labor of any kind, have
contributed to the building, maintenance
and operation of those public highways.
The question is, who are they and in
what proportion is each of them entitled
to ownership" 1t then shows, by sue.
cessively considering the laborers, the
mechanics, the lumbermen, the miners
the farmers, etc, that the labor of the
whole country has either directly OF
indirectly contributed to this accumula
ton of capital in the form of railways
A natural conclusion would be that
the railways belong to the people in
commOn--that is, to the Government OF
the United States, like any public build
ing or public work, to be used for the
benefit of the whole nation.
But the Oakland Enquirer hates moth
ing ST much as natural conclusions, and
it therefore concludes that since it is
impossible to divide the railways be.
tween their legitimate owners it is best
to leave them in the hands of the thieves
that have stolen them.