Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-08-22

But we are not unfrequently reminded
when an act Of tolerated mob violence takes
place that q community may have an alb
themselves when they see the law openly
and publicly set at defiance that the re-
spect for It, which should be its chief sup
and perhaps be replaced by disregard and
contempt. II they look on with unconcern
while such an act Is taking place, II they
give no aid when steps are being taken for
dition of public insensibility to this class Of
offenses Is likely to be brought about, the
result Of which is that whenever the COM
munity is excited and therefore specially
in need Of legal restraint the law Is found
to be powerless.
Duties of Tolerant Citizens.
eff every citizen who thus countenances
or refuses to aid in REFRESHING crimes Of
this nature would consider a little what
must be the natural consequences Of his
action or of his failure to act, he might
perhaps come to appreciate the serious
nature Of his fault and to understand how
little he would himself deserve the protec-
ton Of the law If some mob should select
him as a victim OF lawless violence. He
would then have the conviction forced
upon him that by his course he Is teaching
disregard Of law; that the act he aids or
excuses is one step In the direction of the
chaos the anarchist would establish; that
aiding to create a public sentiment which
may, by and by, tolerate and protect the
lynching Of any person whomsoever for any
act. bad or good, which happens to arouse
public anirosity or even for no other cause
than that the obnoxious person had, in
worldly pursuits, been more successful than
his fellow-citizens. He will, perhaps. reflect
also that when the disorder which he
countenances in a single instance becomes
general, 1t will not be the vagabond or
the beggar that lawless classes will select
for victims, but the man who. for any rea-
son. is important and prominent in the
community"
II DESIRE" the speaker said, ito en-
phasize the fact that the extent to which
the lawless restraint Of personal liberty
may go Is less important than the public
sentiment which tolerates any invasion
whatsoever. Recently a man was hanged
In one state as supposed murderer; In
another state officer was publicly tarred
and feathered for action, which the per-
sons assaulting him. considered iradmis-
sible to one in his position; and in still an
other delegate to political convention
was dressed in petticoats and publicly ex-
posed to ridicule because the local COM
munity was not pleased with vote he had
cast on question of suffrage.
In the degree Of wrong to the individual
there was difference in the three cases.
but the lawlessness. the disregard of the
obligations Of citizenship and the injury
to organized society was equally plain in
all and equally deserving of unqualified
that in not one Of the communities in
which these criminal disorders took place
are life, liberty or property, which our
written constitutions undertake to protect
so secure and Jealousy guarded as they were
before"
BOycOtts and Strikes.
Boycotts and strikes Of the year were
next considered by Judge Cooley. and par
ticularly the recent Industrial disturbance
growing out of the differences between the
Pullman company and Its workmen. The
case was In some particulars without prece-
dent. The attempt to force the railroad
companies to violate contracts with the
Pullman company under penalty Of a tie
up. involved also q coercion OF the public
The judge said:
"One question fairly arising upon the
circumstances of this strike, and which, SO
far as 1 know, has hitherto received no
attention, thirk may properly call to
your notice here. 1t concerns the rights,
legal and equitable. of those who were to
be affected by the strike. should one be
declared, and raises the question whether
under principles supposed to prevail wher-
ever free government exists, the strike as
against them could be fully justified with
out careful consideration of its probable
effect upon their interests being first had,
and II practicable an opportunity given
them to urge reasons from their own stand
point against it's being entered upon. The
parties who were to be injuriously affected
were: First, the railroad companies, who,
II they were allowed to be heard through
tpelr general managers or any authorized
committee on the question whether It would
De Just or reasonable to declare a strike
against them for what was not their own
fault, might possibly have convinced the
members or the order which was then
considering the question that the obiec-
tons to 1t from the standpoint Of their en-
pioyers were altogether reasonable: second
tne government Of the United States. whose
tTAnSD0rta mat arl
interstate commerce were to be very seri-
ously interfered with, and PERHAPS the
service OF federal process obstructed: and
! .nlrd' tne people of the United States hose
iesdI right TO be transported and to nave
inelr property Carried by rail was to he
IN part and perhaps wholly taken away
WINE the strike continued. at a cost to
the ana wntcn, IN an probability, must in
me end DC counted by millions.
mere were three parties, all innocent as
..sssarus the grievance in question, who. if
n one d actlon was to be taken after the man
ner ueemed necessary to prevent Injustice in
governmental proceedings. wou,d seer, ~
nave nad strong, equitable and indeed an
ihdeleasible right to have the effect upon
themselves first considered.
Sympathetic Strikes.
NOW. 1 understand very well that in
the case OF the ordinary boycott or strike
entered upon for the purpose of redressing
an existing wrong or to prevent one which
Is threatening, the case is to a considerable
extent different. Such a case partakes of
the nature Of self-defense, and Incidental
injury to third parties If 1t is unavoidabie
Is excused on that ground. But there was
nothing In the nature Of self-defense here
IT was third party who was supposed to
have been wronged in this instance. and as
innocent parties were to be directly struck
at and greatly injured the very least they
could justly be awarded would be a very
careful consideration by those proposing
the damaging action Of the question,
whether the necessary consequence even IL
they were successful in what they hoped to
accomplish must not be to cause injury to
innocent parties greatly in excess of the
gains, and II so whether the proposal
could in justice be accepted. But this was
a question of which no notice was taken.
Innocent parties, who must necessarily suf-
fer. not only had no opportunity to pro-
test, but their losses were not taken into
consideration as reasons against the boy
colt and the strike. On the contrary, they
were looked upon as favorable features
of the case, since they rendered success more
probable. But sympathetic strike Is bad
in morals and must be quite as bad in
policy, when the probable injury to innocent
parties will exceed the probable benefit to
the parties 1t aims to assist"
Judge Cooley expressed doubt If, in labor
organizations. when the subject Of strike
is preached. due elaboration is permitted