The San Francisco call., 1896-09-27
EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES.

In swinging away from the gold
standard, which it advocated awhile
ago, to silver monometallism, the San
Franeisc) Examiner loses its head
and goes to dangerous extremes.
The individual who seeks TO disturb the
natural relation between employer and
employe by sowing seeds of distrust and
hatred is not a good citizen. The EraD,-
ilaer convicts itself out OF its own mouth
every day OF intent TO drive the wedge of
suspicion in between capital and labor
that W eek and ruin may come upon
them. Yesterdays Examiner said editori-
ally that candidate Bryan put "the case of
the laborer in a nutshell" when he said in
his Bridgeport Conn speech that EN-
ployers don't pay wages because thew like
to; they pay wages because they have to-"
The evil of Bryan's effort to lead
labor to look upon its Employer as a high
wayman penetrated the shuttlecock- like
mind OF the Examiner long enough to
make it admit that Bryan used ''reYolu-
tionary language" but it was only for a
moment. 1t Immediately relapsed into its
former state of opposition of whatever is
calculated to promote peace and harmony
between the several factors of the peoples
social and industrial life. 1t is unfor
tunate that such declaration as was
Bryan's at Bridgeport should find
defender in the E1dminer, for 1t has
more or less influence in the community.
and such a doctrine works only for evil.
There was no occasion, there never will be
occasion in the United States when the
relation between employer and employee
would warrant such declaration.
The life and the strength OF our political.
social and industrial existence is the cheer
full recognition by every one of the interde-
pendence of TIE people in all their rela
tions. To charge that those who emulov
men and women pay them wages only be-
cause they have to is to proclaim to the
world that American employers of labor
are robbers at heart, and were it possible
for them to deprive labor of all compen-
sation they would gladly do it. The Err
dnliner, though as changesble as March
winds, would not reduce its employees to
such state OF slavery. The presumption
is that it is pleased to compensate labor
well performed; but, on the other hand. it
says Bryan puts the case of labor in
nutshell when he says Employers don't
pay wages because they like to-"
The truth of the matter is, as a rule.
the American employer of men not only
takes a keen delight in meeting his pay
roll promptly, but nothing pleases him
better than to see his employees increase
their property accumulations from year to
year. Mr.. Bryan and the Examiner libel
both employer and employe. They libel
the first named because they put the
brand of would-be slave-drivers upon
them, and they libel wage-earners because
they charge them with forcing wages to be
paid to them. The American wage-earner
is not plunoerer of the wage.payer He
contracts his service and receives the pay
agreed upon; and, moreover, the percent
age OF loss that wage-earners sustain by
reason of the failure of employers is so in.
significant by comparison that they may
be said to lose nothing at all.
1t is the unwritten law of every line of
employment in this country that wages
due have precedence over every other
claim, and not only so, but employers of
men, generally speaking, will make greater