The Portland daily press., 1890-08-25
DRUNKARDS SHOULD Be DISCHARGED
But Competent Men Should Not Re
Placed Under Suspicion.
PowderIy's Latest Manifesto on the
New York Central Strike.
General Strike Probable at Albany
Trouble Brewing All Around.

mas maue reply TO tn6 statement OF vice
President Webb. Mr.. Powderly says:
see you have at last ventured to break
the long silence that has sealed your lips in
relation to the cause which led to the dis
charge of 80 or GO employees of the New York
Central Railway. Your alleged explanation
Is even less creditable to you than the silence
it has broken and does not in any way ex-
cuse the stand you have taken. Your state
ment is eminently worthy of man who can
drunkenness, incapacity, breach of duty and
lnsubordnation. Let me quote your exact
words: The company has discharged men
irrespective Of membership in the order of
capacity, breach of duty, insubordination
and for lack of sufficient work to employ
them, and it will continue to do so whenever
proper occasion arises" The knights of
Labor never questioned your right to take
such action as outlined in that statement.
Our order is as much interested in the lmain-
tenance of discipline as you can possibly be.
You are inordinately careful in the choice
Of words, for you. say ''the company has
discharged men irrespective of member
pany discharged any of the 80 or 60 whose
cases are in dispute. Youmay have referred
to them or you may have had reference to
the discharge of employees who were forced
out of the service of the company ten years
ago and who did not belong to the Knights
of Labor.
Granting that these very men were dis
charged for the reasons you assign, and that
Tom Jones was discharged for drunkenness,
Bill jenkins for incapacity. Patrick Murphy
for insubordination, and Harry Smith for
lack of sufficient work to keep him employed,
why do you smirch the character
all of the other offences? Why
not be just enough to name the men who
were discharged for the three causes and not
49, asAsA II
was discharged for want of sufficient work to
keep him employed and yet was classed with
those who were drunken disturbers. He
applies to another concern for employment
and is faced by your bold statement, which
includes him among rioters and imcom-
petents. Your attitude before that statement
was made was peculiar, to say the least In
order to shield yourself you charge all alike
with the offences of the worst among them.
No just tribunal will sustain you in your
position. All those men have the right to
know whether they were discharged for
cause. You cannot assert with any degree
of assurance that every one of these men
was dismissed for the causes you set forth.
You must depend on statements made by
your subordinates. Let me do you the favor
Of showing you. what manner of men you
have to rely OF for your supply of truth.
John Briggs is foreman in the employ Of
your company. He has the hiring and dis
charging of workmen. Upon his word you
decide the fate of poor fellows who appeal
to you against the decision of said John
Briggs. Appended to this communication
you will find afidavits from a number of
employees of the New York Company, which
may cause unbiased people to think that
drunkenness is excusable, if the drunkard
will only share his whiskey with the man
who inspires your statements. You will
furthermore learn that in order to retain en-
ploy in "the best corporation in America to
its men," poor laborers have to pay the
bosses several dollars each month to win ia
vor from the men on whose statements you
lean when asserting that you have the right
to discharge man for any one of dozen
causes without telling him which one applies
to him.
have yet to learn any reason why your
simple word based on hearsay should stand
unquestioned, or that it should have any
more weight than that Of an honest work
ingman. From five to 20 years the dis
charged men were in the employ of the COM
pany you represent, but only when they
joined the Knights of Labor you discovered
that they were drunkards, incompetent or
inattentive. You continue to assert there is
nothing to arbitrate Can you be SO blinded
by your associations and surroundings as
not to realize that the travelling public
ought to know which of these men Is a
drunkard, which incompetent and so on, so
they may not trust their lives in the hands
of such characters, either in your service
should you see fit to again employ them, or
in the employ of any other concern?
In the face of the plain and statesmanlike
words of your superior in office, Chauncey
M. Depew, you deny the right of arbitration.
Let me remind you, sir. that he does not, or
did not. sustain you in the position you have
assumed.
[Mr. Powderly then quotes from Mr. De-
pew's views as expressed by him when the
question of a national arbitration law was
before the country].
These words indicate where Mr.. De-
pew stood at that day. You alone claim to
have any rights in the matter, and nothing
but the fact that you are the possessor Of
immense wealth warrants you in taking the
located on the line of the Vanderbilt system
would not have done so had not the hope of
obtaining and retaining employment been
held out to them by the company. That
system could not be operated without work
men and they are mole essential than mere
money for they have by their labor made it
the great system 1t is. You have discharged
men whose rights in the localities where
they reside are co-equal with your own
as citizen. Ii the management of the New
York Central were to dismiss you to-
morrow without assigning any reason. you
would not submit. Men whose words have
never had reason to doubt make statements
that they were called up before the foremen
or superintendents and asked If they were
Knights of Labor and when they frankly ad-
ltlietCu tlOy WOi0 tuOJ WOlO
It is not arbitration alone you have refused.
You have refused to arbitrate; second, to
investigate; third, to face these men in my
presence and satisfy yourself whether your
foremen told you the truth; fourth, you
have defed the laws of the state in ignoring
the Board of Mediation and Arbitration
| fifth, you have refused to listen to the voice
of the public which asks for simple justice
and cares nothing for the personalities OF
either party to the controversy; sixth, and
last, you have shown that humanity
has no claims upon you whatever.
You do right in discouraging drunkards
you do right in removing incompetents, and
| insubordination should not he tolerated in
any well managed business. You do wrong,
though, when you discharge man for wanl
| of place to keep him employed In and then
assert that he is thrown out for being drunk
| incapable or insubordinate as you have done
| in your public statement. | have not and
none of my associates have asked you to
consent to the monstrous absurdity of sat
isfying them by some kind of arbitration OF
investigating persons other than the duly
constituted authorities, that causes existed
You have refused to satisfy the men whom
you have discharged and that act will always
stand to protest your claim to true manli-
ness. Had you satisfied the men there would
be nothing for US to ask. You are as much
in duty bound to satisfy them in this matter
as you are to satisfy the legally constituted
authorities of the company.
IT " POwnrpTv