The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1893-10-14
MIR. McGUY AND THE STRIKE.

-
MIR. McGUY AND THE STRIKE.
Two operatives representing the Oh
NEVILLE strikers called at The News Of
fee last evening for the purpose OF
correcting what they considered an in
justice to Richard McGuy and Edward
l.. Cannon. From an editorial on the
labor trouble in Olneyville they received
the impression that the men named were
charged with instigating the strike.
They stated that at the meeting held on
Friday evening of last week neither Mr..
McGuy nor Mr.. Cannon advised a strike,
but on the contrary counselled the oper-
atives to remain at work. This state
ment is undoubtedly true.
The News, however, has never made
the charge that either Of the men In
question instigated the strike. What
it did say was that it had no doubt the
action of the operatives in precipitately
leaving their looms was in great part
due to their talk at the Friday night
meeting. 1t will be remembered that
among other statements made on that
occasion by them was one to the effect
that the reduction in wages was the re-
suit of a conspiracy on the part Of the
mill owners to crush the operatives and
compel them to work for starvation
wages. They further declared that the
reduction was unnecessary and that had
the wage workers an organization the
cut down would never have been at
tempted.
Even with the advice given against a
strike we regarded these statements as
calculated to excite and infiame the
workers and render them less likely to
act c~onservatively when the reduction
was actually made. Possibly had the
remarks not been made the result would
have been the same. At least that is
what the committee claims. Our view of
it, however, is that these injudicious ut
terances were harmful and tended to
lead the operatives to adopt summary
measures in resisting and resenting the
proposed reduction.
The attention of The News was
called to the fact that since the inaugu-
ration Of the strike Mr.. Cannon has in
no way been connected with it. This is
conceded and in no way has it been
claimed that he was. With Mr.. Nc
Guy the case is different. At the
Friday night meeting he told the opera
tives they were in no condition to strike
yet when they did leave their work he
turns about, insists that they must hold
out for q year If need be, and moreover
tells them they must make no advances
looking toward a compromise.
Does not this inconsistency Of advice
and action tend to bring his sincerity in
counselling against a strike into question:
If a week ago the Olneyville operatives
were, as he said they were, in no condition
to enter upon a struggle, are they any bet
ter prepared for it nov after a week OF
idleness? And if Mr.. McGuy was so
sincerely opposed to a strike as he de-
clared then and his friends now insist
he was, why does he oppose the sending
of a delegation Of operatives to confer
with the manufacturers for the purpose
Of securing, if possible, a revision of
the wage list that will DO mutually sat
isfactory?
When Mr.. McGuy refuses to permit
any effort toward "A compromise to be
made he is, as we conceive it, doing
positive injury to the cause of the
strikers. This trouble must be settled
if at all by mutual concession. Defiance
and demagogic buster will never do it,
and we hope the time is not far distant
when the operatives will have the good
sense to see the matter in this light and
the courage to do their part toward
bringing about a compromise. In any
effort they may make with this end in
view they should be met in a spirit Of
fairness by the manufacturers, and If
they are able to show that the new
scale is unjust it should be revised
immediately.