New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-03-26
TIE LAROR PROHLEM.

IHE LdDOh IhObHH"'
In tho discussion of tho tcchnicalties OF the
Ann Arbor case, the broader features OF the
matter. which arc of the greater interest, arc
liable to be forgotten. Before the courts the
question is whether the law of the Brotherhood
will nullify a law of the United States Be-
fore the people the question is whether one
body OF laborers has any right to in]ure all
others i'm the effort to secure higher wages lor
itself. Ii is stated now that the men IN the
employ of the Lake Shore actually resigned
before they were ordered to transport freight
from the boycottcd railroad. This may be
somewhat important in the case pending IN the
courts. 1t is not of the least consequence be-
fore the bar of the people. The country needs
to know what power organizations OF labor
have to arrest its necessary business. 1t needs
to know whether they have power to suppress
or restrict or tax its traffic, in any case wher-
ever they please. Were the principles once
settled, the people are disposed to submit to
any decision by the proper courts, as they ought
to be, but they are strongly inclined TO meet
with stubborn resistance every attempt to GRE
ate monopoly Of labor, as they arc to resist
any monopoly in prices or supplies o: products
In any branch whatever the laborciS are very
few, compared with the whole body Of con
sumers, who are laborcrs also and produce other
things. In its naked shape. the question is
whether any, organization whatever has right
to levy upon all other labor forced tax. II
it is able to do this in any one case. it is able
to do 50 in all. Some will say, if this Is pos
sible and can be practically accomplished for
the benefit of one class of laborcrs. why should
nl,.;o, /. that all
others in turn would increase their wages and
the prices OF their products, so that everything
for which tie aborcr pays out his money would
be enhanced in price quite as much rs tho
wages which he receives for his labor. 20 It
comes back to this. that certain organizations
of laborers claim the right 10 tax all tho people
for their benefit whether other departments OF
labor secure corresponding advantages or no..
They claim the tight TO tax all the farmers, and
all merchants and clerks, and tcamstclS, ana
others who live upon the transportation OF prod
ucts whether other laborers obtain like advan-
taccs or not When such an organization sets
itself against the general interest OF society
there is sure to be stubborn resistance. The
next STEP in every such case, is an attempted
boycott Of the company or the firm which takes
the front in resistance. Then tho question
comes whether this organization has the right
not merely t. tax the public for its benefit, but
also to subject parties who have no interest
whatever in its controversy 10 n share OF all
the losses and all the sufrerngs, by means of
BOYCOTT on those with whom it has its contro-
vcry.
When it is stated that the public has rights
in this matter, the meaning is only that other
labOrcrs than those Immediately employed have
rights. For the public, broadly speaking, gets
its subsistence by labor and by the wages of
labor. Whatever tends to render the wages OF
labor in any particular class exceptionally and
unreasonably high tends necessarily to tax all
other laborers, as well as those who arc not
living upon the wages of labor. The power of
the labor organizations, through the boycott
and other methods, cannot be cxertcd with eff
feet without imposing upon all other laborers
except those Immediately benefited some adj
ditional burden and tax The true question
underlying the Ann Arbor case is therefore
this Whether the public has any right TO
protection in the courts against the orders Of
labor organization, where those orders are
calculated to impose additional burdens upon
all other laborcrs and all other citizens.