Freeland tribune. (Freeland, Pa.) 1888-1921, 1892-11-14
comes in. Then, again, take the follow
ing extract from the same articles:

! Kind and the enjoyment of which would brinl
happiness, prosperity and peace is secure tt
every person in the United States by the con
stitution. These rights existed before the Dec
laration of Independence and We're reaffirmed
| by it. These natural rights by individuals are
affirmed in the constitutions of each of the
states. But the old barbaric instincts of op-
| preston and cunning have been at work since
our government was formed, so that these
natural rights have by statutes too frequently
| been abridged.
Without entering upon discussion of
the constitution of the United States,
which does not "secure" the things
credited to it, though it may be treason
TO say so, it is well known that it is no
infrequent occurrence for the tools of
capitalism and plutocracy to take refuge
behind that document when measures
looking to the return of the peoples nat
ural rights are proposed. The abrldg-
ment of natural rights brought about by
sbarbaric instincts" manifested in
statutes" have been declared "constitu-
tional" by the high courts of the land.
Therefore either the supreme courts are
barbaric or the constitution is not the
great thing it has been cracked up to be.
Our Columbus friend admits as much
in the following paragraph:
The only reason for the existence of any
law is that right and justice shall prevail,
that each shall have his own. But will any
intelligent citizen contend that there are not
multitude of laws both state and federal, the
operation of which is to enrich some at the
expense of all?
Have l shown that the Columbus
lao nfn
error as to damage the search for the
true light, and that because of its appar-
ent friendliness for the workingman it
has helped to befuddle and deceive
him?
Passing from a teacher-which every
editor is, to some extent-let us see how
one of the rich men looks at this subject
Baron Alphonse de Rothschild, billion
aire, was recently interviewed by the
Paris Figaro, and some of the things he
said were so much like what the average
editors say that one is inclined to the
belief that he and they understand each
other pretty well. Said the baron:
With few unfortunate exceptions, inevita-
BILE accidents, each one in general has that
portion of capital which he merits by his in
telligence, his energy and his work. Certainly
chance and luck meddle sometimes with the
fate of individuals. Unworthy people are often
favored by chance, while men Of merit are
sorely tried, but the same law exists for all,
and it is the same at all the steps of the social
ladder, and the only just law is the law of labor
for all.
Reporter-The present social organization is
criticised because it makes thousands of men
f1atp 60. r,.,1.
division is perhaps not equitable.
NJ. de Rothschild-If it is not equitable, if
the workmen consider that they are under
paid, they can strike. They have the right
TO strike. 1t is legitimate, and nobody dreams
of taking it away from them. Let them
exercise it, and indeed they don't deprive
themselves of 1t. But Is it not natural that
the man who puts in the first indispensable
force, capital, and in addition gives his in
telligence, his powers of organization, of in
vention and all the force of his intellect, should
be better recompensed and have more luxuries
than the coarse and brutal workman who
brings merely the unintelligent help of his
/ arms?
The baron is not so careful in his Ian
guage as the American type of million
aire. In this country they do not speak
of the workman as brutal and coarse
| that is, not publicly.
1t is real kind of the baron to admit
the right of the discontented brute" to
strike when conditions become unbeara-
BILE. Andrew Carnegie makes the same
admission, but he hires gang of thugs
and puts guns into their hands to see
that the strike doesn't avail the discon-
tented anything. But the baron also,
like the American lord at the banquet
and the plutocratic editor, is assured
that only few agitators are dissatisfied
with the condition of working people:
For my part, have no faith in this work
ingmen's movement. | am sure that the work
men-l speak in general-are satisfied with
their condition; that they do not complain.
Certainly there are agitators who try to make
all the noise possible around themselves but
they have no hold upon the honest, reasonable
and industrious laborers, and no influence
over them. But we must make distinction
between good and bad workmen. Now, for
example, it is absolutely false to state that the
good workmen want eight hours only for q
days labor.
The fellows who make the demand are the
lazy and the incapable. They reason in this
way: ut is tiresome to work ten or twelve
hours day, and. moreover, there are men
among us who are less lazy and more expert
than we are. They produce more in the same
space of time, and consequently they earn
mere. Let us endeavor to make them work
less. Our interest and our laziness will be
protected thereby" That's about the amount
of it. But the others, the fathers of families,
the sensible and steady men, don't want to be
prevented from working as long as they please
for their own benefit and that of their families.
But let us admit that they should be forced to
work eight hours and no more. Do you know
what the majority would dor They would
drink. They would spend more time in the sa-
looms, and that's all. What else could they do2
If this rich man really speaks in ac-
cordance with his understanding he
hasn't sense enough to dig bitches. And
he Is fair representative of a class
which rules the destinies of millions of
men, and whose superiority is constant
ly dinned into the ears of those who
protest against the injustice of present
inequalities.
Again we turn to the columns of a
newspaper. The Chicago Post, discuss
ing the refusal of the Trades assembly
of that city to parade on the opening of
| 4l,o Co1,,,n \; m avpocitio, ca,,g,