New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-07-17
TBr QUESTION or EQUITY.

II seems 70 be admitted by the most intell-
gent workers at Homestead, rs 1t Is admitted
Inv Mr.. Oates the Democratic chairman of the
House Committee after investigation at Pitts
burg. that the workers employed by the steel
company at Homestead have no legal right to
resist by force the employment of other men
in their places But Mr.. Oates implies, and
many men undoubtedly feel, that the men have
some moral right to hold their places, even
though violence and unlawful acts should be
necessary in order to prevent the employment
of new men.
The question here is not whether the wages
offered by the company were a. high rs they
ought to have been That they were unusually
high is no longer disputed. The tables printed
by TIE TRIBUNE have already proved first,
that the wages offered TO the only men affected
by the dispute at Homestead were higher than
the average earnings Of other workers IN oc-
equations Of like character. and second, that
these wages were higher than the men at
Homestead themselves had asked and agreed
upon when the last contract between them ana
the employers was made in 1889. In TACT,
these wages are believed 10 be higher than are
paid anywhere else in the world for similar
work. and tho testimony before the House
Committee indicated that this was largely be-
cause new and improved machinery had vastly
increased the efficiency of labor, enabling the
men with the same hours of work to turn ont
far more tons of product than could be pro-
dnced elsewhere and therefore to earn higher
wages at the same price per ton of products
But let it be supposed that the menssad rea-
son to be dissatisfied with the wages offered
them. The question still remains whether they
had any right whatever to resort TO force IN
order TO prevent other men from taking their
places, accepting the wages and dong the
work which they did. To most men this viii,
seem very simple question, and one scarcely
needing any discussion. But the speech of
Senator Palmer, of Illinois, indicates that some
men of large ability have come to the con-
clusion that the workers in great establishments
have in some way acquired proscriptive right
TO retain their places indefinitely, and to shut
ont anybody else who may be willing to do the
same work at different rate of compensation.
In all these reasonings it Is mistakenly as
sumed that the same workers have been con-
tinuously employed during all the years in which
the great Homestead works have been de-
veloped so that, a. Mr.. Palmer and others have
said these workers themselves built mp and
created the property. But this is by no means
true as to any considerable portion of the men
employed at Homestead, and probably four
ffths, if not larger proportion, OF those there
employed are men who have not been in any
way connected with the company moro than
few years. The capacity of the works has
been enormously increased, it is admitted, so
that vastly greater force of hands has be-
come necessary, and the men formerly en-
ployed if all had been retained to this day,
would have been wholly incapable of working
the machinery now in position at the Home
stead works. But beside this there remains
the question whether, IL the men had been thus
continuously employed, at wages which they
saw fit to accept as fair, that fact would give
them any right to shut out by force and vio-
lence other workingmen who might be willing
to do the same work on different terms.
1t does not seem to TIE TRIBUNE that there
can be any reasonable doubt about this mat
ter The workers took no part OF the risk in
the establishment Of the Homestead works, but
received what they regarded as satisfactory
pay for the work they did, month by month.
The development of the property has gone on
with their aid, only as it would have gone ON
with the aid of other men if others had been
employed in their stead That there were
many others ready and willing to be employed.
the rate OF wages paid in past years and offered
this year seems to establish without doubt.
1t cannot be said, under such circumstances.
that body OF workers has any right 10 take
possession of an establishment and exclude
everybody else from opportunity to run its ma