The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1892-07-10

SENATOR PALMER'S STRANGE VIEWS.
Because number of workmen have lost
their lives at the Carnegie works in Pennsyl-
vania in an unfortunate Affray, because that
hreling gang of Pinkerton detectives was
most unwisely thrust into the controversy.
no reason is thereby afforded why we should
lose our heads and allow our notions concern
| ing the rights of persons and things to be-
come confused.
We know very little of Senator Palmer, of
! Illinois, but what we know of him had caused
us to respect him; but the speech which he
| delivered in the Senate last Thursday upon
! the Homestead riots causes us to revise our
opinions of him and to prefer further devel-
| opments before we rank him as a statesman
fitted to lead popular thought.
Mr.. Palmer said that the workmen having
expended their lives in this service. they had
a right TO demand employment at reason
able compensation subject only to their mis-
conduct"
If MIR. Palmer claims no more than that
this doctrine is to be applied to Mr.. Carne-
gies workshop, We suppose he has some
ground for making the claim that the public
is not informed of. But if he means to say
that because a workman is once employed by
a manufacturer he thereby acquires a right
TO be always retained in that manufacturers
employment, we must enter our most en-
phatic dissent from the doctrine. Not only
SO. but we must DO allowed to say that it is
the most foolish and puerile proposition that
We have ever known TO come from any man
claiming TO have ordinary, everyday COM
mon sense, and too foolish and puerie for us
to be justified in making a serious exposure
of its nonsense. We drop it, therefore. with
simple statement of 1t. qualifying our re-
marks. however, with the further statement
that if the workmans service has been
long, continuous and faithful. he has
thereby of course established a strong moral
claim to continued employ ment, but no
shadow Of Il legal or compulsory claim. any
more. than the employer has acquired right
to hold him perpetually in his service as
slave. The rights are corelatiye. The en-
ployer may cease employing when he pleases
as the workman may refuse to work when he
pleases.
Mr.. Palmer made another most astonishing
statement. He said that great establishments
like Mr.. Carnegies must be treated rs pub
lie institutions, subject TO public obligations
like railroads"
For the past thirty years an idea has been
growing and developing in Yankeedom that
everything shall come under the protection
/ nd 10 &
The individual is no longer to work out his
own future under the good old rule that he
may do whatever he pleases with his own. so
long as he does not trespass on the rights of
his neighbor, but the meddling Yankee spirit
demands that each citizen shall pursue a
course in life satisfactory to that Yankee
spirit. and this meddling spirit
finds its ultimate proposition in the
doctrine that a paternal Government
shall take charge Of and regulate all
business. 1t commenced to manifest itself
in the doctrine that railroads should be regu-
lated by the States. It's next move was that
grain elevators. though wholly constructed
with private means should be regulated by
the State. Both these doctrines were sane
toned constitutional doctrines by the
Yankee Supreme Court of the United States
in the case of Mum V. Illinois, and now
comes Mr.. Palmer with bis proposition that
Mr.. Carnegie's establishment built wholly
with Mr. Carneeie's money. shall no longer
be regulated by Mr.. Carnegie as be sees lit b.
run it, but by the Legislature OF Pennsylvania.
dominated by those who propose To have the
works run in such manner as will divert the
profits to their pockets instead OF TO the
pockets of Mr.. Carnegie. Surprising the doc
trine were not odious and detestable from
every point of view; supposing that it were
possible to have any such principle of gov
eminent prevailing amongst free people.
We would like to hear Mr. Palmer state how
large an establishment must become before
1t ought TO be taken charge Of by the State.
Is one employing 1000 hands to be seized on
by the Legislature. but if it only employs
SOO 10 be left to its owner? Where
Is tho line to be drawn. or would he
Draw any line at all ! Does he mean that If a
man Is very rich. the Legislature will admin.
iSler his affairs, but If only moderately rich.
ne will be left to attend to his own business.
OF does he moan that he intends to como after