The advocate and Topeka tribune., 1892-10-26

8 0enDGrA60 attempt DY men Without authority
TO control others In Ghe enjoyment Of their rights
The men had right to refuse TO work and
persuade Others to Join them, hUE the moment
they attempted TO control the works and re-
| sorted to violence, they placed themselves Out
side the pale Of the law.
II we were TO cOncede the doctrine that the
empl0ye may dictate to his employers che terms
Of bis employment, and upon the refusal Of the
latter to accede to them may take possession Of
his property and drive others away VINO were
willing to work, we would have an anarchy. No
business could be conducted upon such basis.
That doctrine when once cOuntenanced would
be extended to every industry.
The justice then defined as treason the
organization OF a large number Of men
in q common purpose to defy the law,
resist Its officers and to deprive any por
tion of their fellow citizens of their
rights under the constitution and laws:
It Is state of war after business plant has
to be surrounded by the army OF the state to
protect It from universal violence at the hands
Of former employees,
Every member Of such asserted government,
whether it be an advisory committee or by what
ever name lC Is called, who has participated In
such uSurpati0n, who has Joined In q comla0n
purpose OF resistance to the law and denial
OF the rights to other citizens, has committed
treason against the state.
Within the definition Of this offense Is the ct
tempting, or oveFturnlng OF the government OF
the state; such intention need not extend to
every portion OF it's territory 1t ls sufficient II 1t
be an OVerturning Of 1t In particular locality,
and such intent may be inferred from the acts
committed. II you dnd from the evidence that
the defendants have, or any OF them hasC0m-
mitted, participated and sided In any of the acts
which have defined to you as constituting the
OtfonSe OF treason, 1t win be your sworn duty to
find atrue bill against the party or parties 80
offending.
With the chief Justices remarks as to
possible results of conceding "the doc
trine that the employe may dictate to
his employers the terms Of his employ
ment," and as to whether we should
shave some sympathy with mob driven
to desperation by hunger, but none for
men receiving exceptionally high wages"
etc., we have, at present, nothing to do.
What we ask is, not whether particular
doctrine shall be conceded, nor with
what prudence we should look after our
sympathles, but do the acts charged
against these men constitute levying war
against the commonwealth of Psnnsyl-
vanis? Or, rather, we wish to learn
which of those acts constituted such
levying Of war. His honor is too shy Of
dstalls. He seems wary of specific state
ments. Although 1t should be conceded
that every act these men did was unlaw-
ful-was crime--thst settles nothing.
The question is not whether they COM
mitted crime, but whether they COM
mitted the crime of treason. Suppose
their conduct was "a deliberate attempt
by men without authority to control
others In the enjoyment of their rights"
cannot the same thing be said Of the con-
duct Of the highway robber, or Of the
corporation which by intimidation con-
trolls the votes of its employesY / do
not see in the statute anything about con-
trolling people sin the enjoymen: Of their
rights" the statute speaks only Of levy
Ing war against the state. Perhaps 1t Is
true that "the moment they attempted
to control the works and resorted to vlo-
lence they placed themselves outside the
pale Of the law" but in doing this, did
they levy war against Pennsylvania
Please, Mr.. Chief Justice, If you can do
80, get to the point. Perhaps, also, ut is
q state of war after a business plant has |
to be surrounded by the army Of the state |
to protect 1t from universal violence at
the hands Of the former employees" but |
If so, surely it is a state Of war brought |
about by the state, inssmuch as the
" former employees" do not bring the