The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1893-04-12
Light from New ALBANY.


the New Albany Ledger by some recent
remarks concerning the Toledo decisions.
and 10 have called dewn on the head of
Mr.. GEORGE the following:
THE SENTINEL seeks very unsafe counsel
when it goes TO HENRY GEORGE to build up
or sustain an argument The trouble with
his writings is that his verbosity OF Ian
guage Is in the inverse ratio to his facts.
His reasoning is speciOus and his premises
frequently, in fact generally. false.
This will be a sad TO many Indi-
snIans who have resu and admired MIR.
GEORGES compact and forcible English.
Ii is safe to say that he has made a greater
impression on American minds than any
writer on economics OF this century, and
this very largely on account of his literary
skill. Ii will be only fair to Mr.. GEORGE
TO mention that the Ledger has a protec-
ZIONIST bias. The Ledger further AYERS:
The strike does not rest upon the in
dividua. right to wOrl; or not to work"
That rs Just where one wrong comes In.
The history OF strikes in this country
shows that IT nine cases out of ten they
are originated by few men and against
the real wishes OF large number. often a
majority of those engaged in them.
Ii the history of strikes did show any
such thing. and we are very certain thst
il does not, it would not affect the propo-
sition as to what the strike at bottom
rests u pom, as stated BY Mr. GEORGE. The
perversion of principle does not change
the foundation on which the principle
rests. And again. the Ledger says:
The right to quit work is not in issue in
the Ann ArbOr cases. nder existing
laws and customs there is no question as
10 the right Of an employee 10 quit and
OF an employer TO discharge q workman at
any time, where the employment is of a
private nature but when it lie of public
character, third party, the people, have
rights 10 be considered. For Instance: 4
railroad corporation has no right. legal or
moral. 70 discharge a train crew on the
road and so interfere with the traffic and
Inconvenience the public. Neither has a
train crew or any one OF them the right to
Quit the service of the company when bv
80 doing the traffic will be interfered with
and the public put to loss and incon-
Venience.
Wrong again. No one said 1.-The right
10 quit work" wasin issue. THE SENTINEL
ssid that it was the only right recognized
by Judge KICKS. The men can quit work.
but they cannot strike, under the inter-
state commerce law. IL is not true that
any such distinction exists between pri-
vate and oussi-public employment as here
mentioned. There are certain limits to
the rights of both employers and en-
DlOyes as to quitting work. A hOd-carrier
has right to quit work half way up a
ladder and let his load fall to the ground.
An employer has no right to discharge an
| employe at the bottom of we'll and
furnish him no means to get out. But
railroad companies do have the right to
| discharge men at any point, and do exer-
else that right though they would be un-
| der obligations to return a discharged
man to his home. or place of employment.
! And in these very cases Judge TAFT
! decided that the mon might quit work,
| and interfere with traffic, and incou-
venience the public as much as they
| liked, provided they quit work between
runs. We would advise the Ledger to read
HENRY GEORGE and the Toledo decisions.