The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1892-09-30
cuAUNCEY r. BLACK ON TIE HONE
STEAD STRIKE.

nomination for Governor, and who Is
loading lawyer in that State, has con-
tributed an article to the Forum on the
troubles at Homestead. In stating the
case he uses the following language:
At Homestead the men were grievously
discontented with certain new arrange
ments proposed by the company. They
belonged 10 the "Amalgamated Associa-
tion Of Iron and Steel Workers., one OF
the most conservative Of the labor orgnnl-
cations The company refused to sign
tho scale presented by the association,
but announced, instead, an arbitrary re-
duction Of wages. on the ground that
new machinery increased the earning
power of the men, thus taking to itself
all the advantage Of Invention and OK
perence. while denying 1t to the other
side. When the men came TO remon-
strate. through their usual committees
and in their usual orderly manner. they
wore met with the ultimatum. Accept
the reduction. abandon your organiza-
tion and submit yourselves in every par
ticrlar 10 the arrangements which our In
forests shall suggest and you may work
in these mills, but upon no other terms
whatever.
In Mr.. Blacks view a case is here
stated in which injustice was done 20
the workmen at Homestead. Now let us
look at each allegation and see If either
one by itself or all taken together con-
stitutes or constitute a case of injury TO
the men.
Carnegie was under no obligations TO
yield anything TO the worknen because
they were "grievously discontinued with
certain new arrangements that he con
templated making That is certain. He had
the right 10 arrange concerning his own
az he pleased. Nor did the fact that
they belonged to the "Amalgamated Asso-
citation of Iron and Steel Workers. which
NAV be. as Mr. Black alleges. "one of the
most conservative of the labor organiza-
tons" create any obligations on his part
TO Yield anything TO their "grievous dis
content" with which he had nothing to
do. So that these two elements of the
case may be laid wholly or one side.
Did the company have the right to re-
fuse 10 sign the scale presented by the
Association? IL seems to us this ques-
ton is answered when you answer the
further question, Has any employer the
right to say what he will pay his en-
ployes. or must he pay them what they
demand? If any employer may deter
mine for himself what he will pay those
whom he hires we see no reason why this
right should be denied to Mr.. Carnegie.
So that we see nothing in this proposition
that makes a grievance for the workmen.
Having refused to employ the men at
the price for their labor which they de-
manded, Mr.. Black says that Carnegie
was actually cruel enough to announce TO
the men prices which he had arbitrarily
fixed on in his own mind as the highest
prices he could pay for their labor; and
we cannot perceive that in pursuing this
course Mr.. Carnegie usurpcd single
function that was not his by right or de-
MED to the men single right that was
theirs.
But, says Mr. Black, he based his &C
ton upon the ground that he had in
vested large amounts of his money IN
buying new machinery for his works,
which greatly increased their earning
capacity, ard he proposed, though keep
ing the wages of the workmen as high
as they were before the purchases of
the new machinery, to take all the in
creased profits that that machinery pro-
duced TO himself.
Now. for the life Of us. we cannot see
where Mr.. Carnegie took anything in
this that was not his due. or deprived
the men of anything that was theirs.
Employers do not usually spend their
money TO increase the producing capacity
of their plants for the benefit Of the en-
Moves. but for their own benefit, and
the world at large quite justifies this
practice in employers If the employer
keeps the wages of his employees as high
after the purchase of the new machinery
as they were before. they have nothing
to complain of. and this we understand
| Mr.. Carnegie did.
Mr.. Blacks next count in the indict-
ment against Carnegie is that when the
men respectfully demonstrated against
his proposition. he announced it as his
ultimatum. Well we have satisfied our
selves that he had right to make the
proposition, and we cannot see any diff
ference between his saying he would do
| this and his saying it was all that he
would do As for the rhetoric tibet is
used for stating the case, that, of course
is no more than leather and prunella
The question is did Mr.. Carnegie have
the right 10 come TO the conclusion that
be reached? If he did. consequences, like
the flowers that bloom in the spring,
"have nothing to do with the case"
On the whole we do not see how Mr..
Black has made any case at all different
from the ordinary one when an employer
is willing TO pay one price and the en-
ploye demands a higher price, where
uDon. bv common consent the only thing
for the parties to do is to separate, en-
ployer going bis way and employe going
his way.
@--=------
THE DISPATCH AND THE COURTS
The Dispatch has taken up the matter
~ usurpation by the courts. We would
I CnipiNn MnOn FMS