The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1894-12-14

Southern Associated Press forDfd its MEM
| hers. and. Of course, their employees to
furnish news to their rival"
We are to understand. then. that
the charge Is that The Times
bovcotts It's employees in requiring
them TO cease furnishing news to papers
In the Western Associated Press. 80 that
we now know definitely the charge with
which we have to deal
The word boycott" has no hxed and
definite meaning. 1t started from the
disorders OF ireland. a Captain Boycott
went to Ireland, as the agent OF an ab-
sentee landlord. and as his course of pro-
cedure did not suit the Irish, all in his
neghborhood agreed together that they
would hold no communication OF any sort
with him. Hence. whenever a number OF
persons have since agreed together that
they will act in concert. so as to cOerce
some other one to do some act, we have
come popularity to speak of their action
as a boycott. The idea involved In boy
colt Is common action of members rather
than anything else. 1t may be that the
Star thinks our supposed wrongful con-
duct turns upon the fact that Il IS ac-
ton taken in concert with number Of
other papers. But we hardly suppose It
rests It's complaint there. We suppose
It's real complaint is that The Times ac-
ton is unlawful or wrong I'm itself and
that it would be just as bad if The Times
was the only paper that did 1t as 1t IS
when done by a number Of papers acting
in concert.
We must frankly say to the Star that
the question, as thus stated does not
seem to admit of discussion between IN
telrgent men. The Times says to its
employees, You must not aid my compeu-
tors. If the head of a business cam
not exact. this condition of those that
serve it, then business must come to an
end. We shall certainly say nothing in
defence of this right in an employer until
the Star says something that amounts to
a reasonable attack upon it.
We have been thus persistent in trying
to get The Times conduct 10 TINS c'-.
intelligently discussed not so much to re-
lieve The Times of the charge Of boy
cotting" as 20 get correct ideas in the
minds Of the people in respect 10 the mat
ter. The Times has never condemned
labor unions for forbidding their MEM
bers to trade with merchants who handle
"scab-made" goods, or for fning or eXpeli-
ing those who dare violate the edict.'
We think conduct of this sort most IL
liberal and unwise, but the members Of a
labor union, when they join ii, agree to be
bound by certain rules, and If the rules
allow the union to take action Of this
sort. il is a case of the member being
required to live up to an agreement that
he has made, and voluntis non fit injuria.
In such cases no more occurs than de-
mand that men VINO have deliberately
entered into certain contract relations with
each other shall live up 10 those contract
relations.
No one ever thought Of condemning
Richmonds Typographical Union for re-
fusing all dealings or association with
Baughman Brothers, or the locomotive
strikers for refusing TO work for the Lo-
connective Works What people. condemned
the typographical Union for was its eff
fort to intmidate others who were not
members Of 1t, and frishten them off from
dealing with Baughman Bros. I'm the
locomotive case, they CONDEMNED the strik-
ers for seeking to intimidate new men
| employed by the Locomotive Works, and
! drive them away from its service. There
| is the point of the case. No ore mas
word to say against a labor union doing
what it pleases, 50 long as 1t confines
itself TO enforcing its own rules upon it,
own members. It is when it goes out
side of itself and its own members, and
seeks 10 impose it's will upon others who
owe it no allegiance of any sort, that the
common sense Of mankind reyolts.
We believe the Star wishes to deal fairly
with questions as they arise, yet we are
not disposed to say that it should either
make good its charge against The Times
or withdraw it. We are much more con-
cerned to see it get correct ideas respect
ing the general question, and We do hope,
therefore, that it will point out TO us
wherein ii thinks we are wrong in our
general ideas of the Subject.