Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-08-25
THE rIMEs's POSITION.

The Richmond Times says that the us
patch offers an outrageous Insult 10 oui
workinrmen" IN continuing TO assert tha'
soma of them have been coerced INTO
signing pledges and entering into the hght
against Bryan and sewall.
Now. IL strikes US that the Indignation
Of the Times should be visited not upon
the Dispatch. but upon the coercionists'
The outrage" as we see IL, consists not
in exposing that outrage but in the perpe-
tration of II. The workingmen On Which
category we include subordinate officers
,,erks. and accountants. as well as skilled
mechanics and laborers) are forced 10
keep outlet or take the risk OF mourning
the displeasure Of their employers. Du'
we are quite sure they are not aVerse 10
the public's knowing the plight they are
an. At any rate. the Richmond star
(which the Times was fond of quoting
eome time ago.. which has exceptional
communities for ascertaining the senti-
ments and feelings Of the workingmeh'
has time and again and with great en-
pbssis declared that pressure has peeh
nsed by some corporate here to IN
fuenoe their employees.
Ana that this is a fact we entertain no
sort of doubt We believe that in the 100
list are the names of Democrats which
would never have been seen there Du'
that the signers were made to understand
very clearly That harm would come 10
Them n they did not take the side of their
employer.
The Times also says that our working
men are neither slaves nor cravens'
and IN this we agree with il. and we
moreover predict that in the end the CO.
ercionists viii find that this Is true. But
for the present let not the Times be angry
because the public press here in Richmond
and elsewhere in the state is exposing the
coerciopists. nor attempt to pose as the
representative Of indignant workingmen'
hut rather let It turn its fire upon those
who have introduced this Yankee trick
into Virginia politics.
But. says the Times the Dispatch itself
is "palpably coerced" and has been driven
nv the party lash" into an abandon
nent OF what it claims 10 be its princi-
pies"
Not so. The Dispatch needed not 70 be
"driyen." The Dispatch never said that
4, would bolt. On the contrary. 1t at all
times said that II would submit 20 the
Aarbitrament OF our national convention"
we not only said so. but have done so.
But how stands II with the finest First
Il gave its readers 70 understand that y
had no idea OF supporting free-silNer
nominees. A year or two back. with great
yehemence, Il made known It's views on
this point. Then for long time us posi-
tion seemed uncertain. Then II burst out
I'm ardent advocacy OF the gold men OF
Richmond and Henrico taking part in our
primaries 10 elect delegates TO the Staun-
ton convention.
We venture TO say that hundreds OF god
men were thus induced 10 participate IN
our primaries. the Times and all Of them
well knowing that the issue was gold or
silver.
Gel 90 we remember with what en-
thusiasm the Times urged forward iss fol-
lowers. How eloquently II talked about
taking pot-suck'' with the party. And
al this In the face OF the fact that who
i. ever participated In tho Richmond pri~
mary was required TO pledge himself 10
support our nominees M the election on
November 90.
And 30 we Richpond ana Henrlso