Frostburg mining journal. [volume] (Frostburg, Md.) 1871-1913, 1890-09-13
CORRESPONDENTS.
Singing Low.


The space of your paper is valuable
to your many readers and | simply de-
sire to reply briefly to your views IN
the last issue of the JOURNAL.
Concisely epitomized, the position
assumed by the JOURNAL to which |
objected was this: That there was
no moral obligation on the part of Mr..
Webb to inform his servants of the
grounds of their dismissal: and, sec
ond, that no one had legal right to
inquire into those grounds.
In regard to the latter it is sufficient
10 say that the State of New York DIFF
fers with the Journal on that ques-
ton. The State Board of Arbitration,
acting by lar, moved thereto by the
public Gncluding the obnoxious Mr..
Powderly) has inquired into those
grounds, and has required Mr.. Webb
and others by lar to disclose them and
by the ensuing Legislature those
grounds will be examined and acted
upon.
1t is to be regretted, of course, that
the JOURNAL should differ with the
great State of New York as to what
its law should be, but so it as, and it is
rather late now for the JOURNAL or
anyone else to deny the fact of a legal
right which has already been executed
and enforced by lar.
Whether being X. of L., or a
methodist or a Catholic" is suf
ficient ground for dismissal | express
no opinion. 1t is foreign to the issue
| have raised with the JOURNAL. 1t
may be that the State of New York
will decide that man who spends a
great deal of time agitating his sup
posed grievances in the lodge room, or
over his devotions in the church, is
not fit man to work for Il rail
road company. 1t may decide the
contrary. have nothing to do
with that. But as to saying that
no one has legal right to inquire, &C.,
the JOURNAL stands convicted of error,
for the plain reason that it has already
been done IN the very case under dis
cussion, and done By lalo.
As to the moral obligation to dis,
close the grounds of dismissal it is fair
to presume that the sovereign people
of New York, the creator and master
of this master of Mr.. Webb, must have
considered this obligation a "moral'
one before they made it a legal one.
Be that as it may, take my stand on
the broad proposition based on the
simple law of h0n0r, that there Is II
moral obligation resting on every man
or corporation. when requested, to in
form servant of the reason Of his
dismissal.
The JOURNAL says "evers man has
Il right to ask" but this lisa mere quib-
BILE A right to ask carries with it the
right to be answered, and answered
truthfully. Mind, | do not say that
Mr.. Webb has not answered truth
fully. | have no controversy with Mr..
Webb's position on this point TO do
Mr.. Webb justice it is proper to say
that he has never refused or claimed
the right to refuse to give his grounds
for dismissal. The JOURNAL alone of
all the world has made that claim for
him a claim 1T would not make for
itself. know the JOURNAL well
enough to know, that it would not dis
charge its most uuruly 'devil' with
out informing him why. Then what
folly is it for the JOURNAL to volunteer
for anothera mean and arbitrary claim,
which its own sense of honor and JUS
tice Woulu HoI Tolerate III d uloilcHl
for itself.
Suppose bank cashier, a superin-
tendent, a clerk, discharged after long
service, and all grounds of dismissal
refused when requested. The JOUR.
NAL itself must admit that this would
be hard, unmanly, cowardly and un-
just. | can see no distinction between
that and the case of the most mental
servant. 1t seems to me that an hon
orable man ought not, and that a gen
tleman cannot fall below the standard
| haye set. Very truly yours,
BENZ. A. RICHMOND.