The record-union., 1894-07-25


General Public.
Under this heading the RECORD UNION will
publish short letters from correspondents on
topics OF interest to the general public. The
matter in these communications Will be un-
derstood TO represent only the views of the
writers. All communications must be accom-
panied by the name OF the writer, not Tor
publication unless so desired, but as guaran-
tee of good faith.-EDs.
The Right and Wrong of the Strike.
EDS. RECORD UNION: A strike may
be legally right and morally wrong. 1t
may be both legally and morally right
and yet wholly inexpedient.
AS matter of fact, it seems to be gen.
eraliy conceded that no strike has ever
yet been expedient for those that IN
augurated it. 1t sometimes happens
that factory is run at very small
profit, or even a temporary loss. In
such case strike does little or no injury
to the owner. and it is plain that the
operatives will not secure an increase IN
wages. Even if they do secure an IN
crease it seldom remunerates them Tor
loss through enforced idleness.
Laying aside all other considerations 1t
is evident that strikes are financial
failure Even Henry George admits
hat. 1t follows then that oppressed
seek some other means OF redress. But
Just here we must insist that every little
dissatisfaction does not imply oppression.
The farmer pays his man 81 day, be-
side furnishing him a home and board.
At the end of the year this man receives
$500 without having cent invested and
without any of the responsibility OF the
management and without sustaining one
dollar of the loss incident to all enter
prises, when the farmer himself may not
be able to pay off one dollar OF the mort
gage that covers his farm. Yet the hired
man, ignorant of the true state OF affairs,
may feel that he is not receiving his share
of the profits OF the farm, when in fact
he is getting all the profits above the
farmers living and current expenses.
The same thing may be, and often is,
true of other enterprises. A capitalist
has 100000. He can loan 1t, say at per
cent His income in that case would be
S., 600. Does anyone suppose that he Is
going TO invest his money in manu-
featuring enterprise with all the risks in
cident to fire, etc., without prospect OF a
greater return than per cent?
Suppose then that his business for the
first year is prosperous; no loss by ire;
no loss through bad depts; ready sale for
goods; so that his profits net him 70 per
cent, or 0,000. He pays his operatives
81 80 day, or say $3.50 year. That
seems small compared with $4,000. 1t is
small also when compared with $1,000,
which could have been obtained as mere
interest.
Is, therefore, the workman to become
dissatisfied with his pay because it is
small compared with the profits of the
business? Ought he not rather to be glad
that the capitalist afforded him the chance
of earning $3.50 a year? Ii, however, he is
not content with his salary there is no
law expressed or implied that forbids him
to better his condition if he can. BY all
means let him quietly leave his employer
and do better. He is under no more obll-
CATION to work for his employer than his
employer is to hire him.
The Constitution does not provide, and
common sense does not suggest that it is
| the duty of one citizen to provide en-
ployment for another citizen; but when
the relations of employer and employe
| do exist they are necessarily mutual, and
when they cease to be so they must
cease to exist.
| have said that strike may be NOR
ally wrong. Let us take an example Of a
fruit-raiser. His business is such that he
requires the help of ten pickers. They
agree to work for stipulated per diem.
Everything goes along satisfactorily to
all parties till the hight of the picking
season is reached. when the men, know
ing that they have their employer at a
disadvantage, refuse to work longer with
out an increase of pay. OF course they
have the legal right to do this, but who
will contend they have not taken mean
advantage of an emergency, and hence
are not morally wrong?
Our coast railroad strike, 1t seems to
me, comes in the category OF the morally
wrong. l fail to see how it is right to in
jure one man for the sake of assisting an
other Ii the strikers answer that they
were pledged to stand by their order.
then l reply that they were wrong TO
pledge themselves to do that which might
lead to the injuring of others. In this
case it has led to the injuring OF thousands
of others, their friends, too, totally inno-
cent of any connection whatever with the
railroad more than to depend upon it as a
common carrier.
That they have greatly injured the rail-
road company goes without saying. TO
willfully injure a man implies that the
injured has done the injurer wrong.
The reverse is true in this case.
The railroad managers may have no de-
sire to retaliate; but if so, they are more
Christ-like than they get credit for being.
| believe the majority of the strikers
themselves will, when they reflect
calmly. acknowledge that they have done
wrong, and that they have very greatly
damaged themselves and the cause of
labor.
If so, then the strike was inexpedient-
the strikers suffering as much at least as
any one else. They are finding out that
the railroad can do without them as we'll
as they can do without it.
The affair recalls one of Hsop's fables.
entitled, 1.-The Belly aud the Membe ~
The latter decided that they could get on
without the former. and that therefore il
should be boycotted. So the hands re-
fused to carry food to the mouth, the
mouth refused to receive anything to be
swallowed, etc. This heroic treatment
lasted but short time before the rapidly
| weakening members felt rather than saw
their fatal mistake, and like wise mem
bers they hastened TO make all possible
reparation.
Labor and capital are interdependent,
and when differences arise only legal
means must be used to end them. The
| boycott is an exotic. Let it be relegated
| to countries whose people love freedom
and fair play less than we do.
c. " OsRORN