Workmen's advocate. (New Haven, Conn.) 1883-1891, 1890-07-26

ture are on record, we will cite that of
the late civil war. The Southern States
attempted to secede, regarding merely
their own interests. The Northern
States, being the strongest, claimed
that the Union must be preserved
because the aceDdre Of the nation de-
manded it, and by bloody war, which
cost millions in blood and money, en-
forced the principle. No foreigners
were concerned in the question. 1t was
one relating to our community alone,
and was settled by force. Will anyone
to-day dispute the wisdom of the North,
or its right to coerce the South? The
very men who are now the most active
in their opposition to the course of the
labor unions were equally active in sup
porting the North against the South.
Having established, beyond any further
dispute, that in union is strength-that
one portion of union, if strong enough,
has the right to compel the minority to
yield to the will of the union--having
used force to carry the matter TO its
conclusion, they now turn upon the
laborer and abuse him for resorting to
the same methods to work out the same
results.
Again: We have a vast territory,
divided into minor ones. AS fast as
these smaller sections become sufficient
ly peopled they are made into States.
Now let us imagine, for a moment, one
of them saying
"We do not wish to become part of
your Union; we will remain as we are;
we do not wish to take our wives, our
children and our chattels and go away,
but on the contrary we wish to remain
in your midst, protiting by our assocla-
ton with you, and deriving all the
benefit we can from your larger in
tluence and power; we have no objec.
ton, either, in any struggle you may
have with our common enemy, to profit
by your triumph, but we reserve to
ourselves the right to assist him if we
think it likely success may perch upon
his banners"
How long would it take the Union of
States to make up its mind to send an
army into that refractory territory and
| compel it to become a member of the
great commonwealth; in other words
to force the unit to take its place as a
portion of the great whole?
A rule which logically applies to great
bodies of men coordinated for mutual
benefit applies also to small ones. The
cloakmakers of New York city are
striking" example. They stood to-
| gether for mutual benefit, and every man
in the trade, except about fifty, fought
for principle. The fifty, regarding
their backs and their bellies before any
thing else, neutralized their efforts and
remained at work. 1t is perfectly true
that it was, under our laws, which are
all against justice to the laborer, OPP
tional with these men whether they
remained at work or not.
But was it not equally in their power
to regard the common veal of their
brethren? Is it not true that, while the
latter were fighting in body for their
rights, the fifty were in exactly the
same position as the rebellious territory
| have cited? If the cloakmakers had
failed they would have feathered their
own nests, (only temporarily, however,
for the manufacturers care little who
stand by them when they have gained
their point, but when the strikers sue
coed they wish to be partners in that
success as well. And in addition they
wish to be permitted to bring into the
union their obnoxious leaders, who on
larger field would be regarded as Grimm
ais. Criminals they are, to the COM
munity of cloakmakers, and l think the
moderation shown by the latter in
agreeing to permit their dupes to come
into the union is to be commended,
while l admire the pluck which made
them stand out against the leaders.
| Furthermore, while it SOUNDS very
plausible on the part of the manufactu-
rers that they should demand certain
things for the men who gave them aid
in the fight, is it not little transparent?
The enemy, having been thoroughly
discounted, realizing the vantage to be
gained by having foothold just over
the border, demands that his friend shall
be treated with consideration and
allowed to remain. Thus the Southern
Confederacy might have demanded that
Jefferson Davis be given a seat in the
| U. s. Senate.
But" says one, ''there are exceptions
to every rule! Would you have fifty
men turned away, they and their fam.
| lilies to starve?''
My reply is that, stern as it may seem,
sentiment has nothing whatever to do
in this question. The very people who
ask the question justify the existence of
hell upon the same ground. Men,
| according to their belief mot mine, be It
understood), die every day and are
damned because they chose the wrong
instead of the right course
| There is no exception to a moral ldw.
This is fundamental principle of ethics.
Right is right-wrong is wrong. Those
who choose the wrong course must
suffer. We may charitably mitigate
the suffering, but we must not sacrifice