The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1892-10-29
CHIEF JUSTICE PARSONS CHARGE TO
THE GRAND JURY


THE GRAND JURY.
Omitting that part Of Chief Justice
F; Parsons charge to the Pennsylvania
, grand jury which deals with the subject
| Of treason, the document is an admirable
discussion of the true relations between
laboring men and employers. and IT is a
judicial Endorsement of every proposition
for which The Times has contended in its
discussion Of the Homestead strike.
After discussing very lucidly the right
Of the labcrer to refuse TO work for less
| than a given sum and the equal right
Of the employer to refuse TO pay more
than a given sum. he points out very
clearly that 1t is an invasion of the en-
! ployers rights for the employee to inter
fere with him in any way in employing
ether persons in that employees place
for which the law will hold that employee
responsible by indcting upon him ex-
emplary punishment.
The Chief Justice then sums up the
law relative to the case thus:
"When the company shut down its
works and discharged its men 1t was act
Ing strictly in the line of the law IL
could not compel the men to work, nor
the men compel the company to employ
them no arrangement could be made in
such regard except in the nature Of a
contract agreed upon by the parties
Upon this subject their rights were mu-
tual."
There can be no question about this
being both law and common sense. No
business could go on an hour which de-
MED TO the employer the right conceded
TO him here. and the employee would be
slave If the rights were less than what
they are admitted to be. Having de-
fined the fundamental rights of the
parties the Chief Justice then takes up
the matter of the Pinkertons. and de-
claros the law relative to that TO be ex-
actly what The Times stated it to be. He |
says:
THE company had the undoubted right |
10 protect its property; for this purpose !
it could lawfully employ as many men as |
1t saw proper and arm them if necessary.
Most Of our banks and other places of |
business are guarded by armed watch
men. The law does not require il to
employ as watchmen the men from whom
II anticipated the destruction OF It's
works. When a man seeks TO protect
his house from burglars it would be I'M
reasonable TO require him to put the
burglars in possession for that purpose:
so as long as the men employed by the
company as watchmen to guard and pro-
tect its property acted in that capacity
and for that purpose it mattered not to
the rioters nor to the public who they
were nor from whence they came
1t was an act Of unlawful violence
TO prevent their landing upon the pro-
perty of the company. That unlawful
violence amounted at least to riot upon
the part of all concerned In IT; If life
was taken in pursuance Of a purpose to
resist the landing of the men by violence,
the offense was murder"
In q preceding part of the charge the
Chief Justice had referred to these men
as persons selected by the owners of
he works with the aid OF the Pinker-
ons, which aid, he said they had a per-
'ect right TO invoke. Having said this
much OF the rights of the employers.
he Chief Justice defines the rights Of
he employees thus:
The rights Of the men, as before
tated, were 10 refuse to work unless their
erHls were acceded TO, and TO persuade | !
liners TO join them in such refusal; but
ne law VIII sustain them no further. !
he moment they attempted 10 control .
he works and 10 prevent. by violence .
r threats OF violence, other laborers :
rom going 10 work there, they placed
themselves outside the pale OF the law.
[ cannot be tolerated for moment that I.
ne iaDorer shall say 10 another laborer: ,
on shall not work for this man for that =.
age without my consent, and then en- :.
orce such command by brutal violence .
pom MS person; and what will not be "
TO one man 10 do will not be -
TO an organization OF men"
Having given these very clear and per. {
city correct definitions OF the rights OF II
i parties he then gives his attention TO $
lie duties of the State in the premises a
I'd he declares then in the following ad b
irable remarks: al
IL Is the duty Of the State to protect
cry cltlzen within her borders In this
ere IS 40 distinction between the iaborer n
10 the capitalist; Il protects each with g,
ual impartiality. When the state fans e.
do this, IL fails In its duty as sover- -
sh, and II will protect with firm hand ~
{ INDIVIDUAL laborer from the tyranny 80
u unlawful demand of organized labor
10 Id" should be so enforced from the
'laware 10 the Ohio that the burnbIest
Doier can work for whom he pleases III
q al what wages he sees fit undeterred dI
t"e oiudseon OF the rtoter or the pistol Il
the assassin. II we were 10 conceae 81
doctrine that the employee may die ne
Ie 10 his employer the terms Of his an
ployment, and upon the refusal OF the do
ter TO accede to them TO take posses -
u OF MS property and drive others vi