The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1894-11-13
..$j6,33.403
STEADY, THERE, cry COMMITTEE

Our city Democratic Committee should
| reconsider Its action, by which ii proposes
| 10 endeavor to influence the City Council
| in behalf Of day labor rather than con-
! tract labor for city work, and white labor
exclusively. There are several good and
sufficient reasons for this reconsidera-
| ton.
| The first Is that the City Committee
| is undertaking TO interfere with a matter
| that II has no concern with, The City
| Committee is partisan body. ana
| It's jurisdiction is c0rfned TO looking az
| ter the interests of the Democratic party
prior to and on the day Of an election.
| But the City Council Is no part OF the
| Democratic party and in no sense, there
| fore. a body with which the city Demo-
cratic Committee has any concern. The
| City Council is the body constituted by law
| TO represent all the citizens of Richmond
| without regard to party, color, condition,
| or sex. II owes the city committee no
| allegiance. and the City Committee mas
/ no jurisdiction over II, and cannot APP
| proach IT, except as any other BODY OF
reputable citizens may present their
| Views 10 the Council. 1t would be an
act of simple impertInence for the City
| Committee TO approach the City Councl
otherwise upon such question, ana the
Council would very properly treat II as
| an act of impertinence If the attempt was
| made. as il certainly should 90.
But there are most potential reasons
! vbv the CITY Council should not do what
the Democratic city Committee thinks
II should do. 1t is the duty Of every
| member of the City Council to regard
himself as a trustee for the public. His
oath binds him, i'm substance TO so re-
| gard himself 1t IS, therefore, his duty
TO watch the city's interests as studlousiy
and carefully as he would watch ms
own. and 10 involve her in no expense
that he would not impose upon himseIf,
Iif he were acting in his own, instead OF
| in her case. He may give away his own
| money. but ne has no right to give away
| the city's. Now, whenever ne Contemplates
| an Improvement TO his own property he
always seeks 20 get the Improvement made
| by the cheapest method that vii secure
him the desired result. If, then, he
would do this IN his own case, his duty
and his oath bind him to do it in the
IS IL
case. ne perfumes himself and is false to
his trust.
The proposition now pending before the
City Council is that the city's sewers
shall be dug by day labor, instead of by
contract, and that the laborers shall be
paid an arbitrary rate OF $50 per day.
| This makes the citys sewers cost her
| almost double what they would cost If
dug by contract We ask any Council
man who has any regard for his oath
and his duty as a trustee how he can
| reconcile II to his conscience to give away
| this amount of the money Of Richmond's
| tax-payers? Would he dig his own sewer
nv day labor at a dollar and a half a day
to the laborer. if he could get it done for
half that sum by having a contractor to
do il? And if he would not, how can
he dare stand before the people and avow
that he did it in the citys case, when he
would not have done ii in his own?
We have never heard but two reasons
| why this thing should be done. The first
| is that it sets the pace for the employers
| OF labor, and the next is that, as the
| city Is rich, she ought TO be generous TO
| her employees. As for the first reason, e
| Is so absurd as to be contemplate En-
| ployers of labor are not affected by what
the city chooses to pay for it, They go
| into the market, get their work done
| at the lowest price they can. and what
| the city is paying has no more effect upon
| them than a summers cloud. This ar
gument ought not TO rest for one moment
upon the mind of u man who has sense
| Ia wa "a STRAIGHT street 40 70
the second, why should the city Of Rich
| mond pay to the few labOrlng men who
have political pulls that enable them to
get the city's work, more than their fell
low laborers who work alongside Of them
are getting. We say it is an outrage on
the other laborers employed by private
parties that the particular ones, whose
connection with politics enables them TO
get q city job. should be paid 90 per cent.
more than they receive. This is dis
elimination against the worthiest part of
the laboring population. and in favor of
the least worthy part of it,
There is but one safe rule TO be guided
by i'm this life. and that is to adhere TO
| what is just and right in itself. without
| regard to consequences. When the line of
| principle is abandoned We launch our
selves upon a boundiess ocean. without
| rudder or chart. So long as we adhere
/ TO the line of principle. We know just
where we are and what We are doing.
| But as soon as we depart from that line,
we are as liable to 80 TO the extremity
| of wrong as to only invade its borders,
| II we pay laborers 80 a day when 81
| is the market price, we had just as well
| pay them $3.50. or s.. or $40, or whatever
is necessary to loot the treasury Of what
ever il Possesses.
Nor should a bard and fast line be
drawn that no negroes shall be employed
| by the city. our negroes are part Of
our population: they contribute very
largely 70 lis prosperity and there Is much
Of the clty's work that they are especially
adapted to. We will not consent 10 any
such proposition as that they shall not
be employed at all on city work, even
though 1t be wisest and best to employ
! them.
| ------------
PROCEDURE In THE SUPREME COURT