The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-08-27
THE ONLY QUESTION.

Argument by epithet is so much the
method of the Debses the Soveregns and
other agitators who have attached them
selves to labor organizations that it would
be very difficult for them to sit down and
calmly consider all the bearings of a case.
Debs talks of the usurpation of power by
judges exclusively for the restraint of
worlsingmen and declares that lit has got
to end" To end it is the purpose of the
st. Louis meeting
Before we go with Debs in this matter.
it will be we'll to calmly consider the Sit
uation in the localities where the latest in
functions have been issued. In West Vir-
ginia the larger part of the miners in GER
tain districts chose to continue at work
Other miners. who had been working in
other mines, some at quite a distance had
voted to join the strike. Not one of those
who sympathize with Mr.. Debs will deny
the right of those who voted to strike
There are, however, quite number OF
right to mine coal after the men in other
mines had struck Still others maintain
that men who do not join some organization
have no right to mine coal or perform other
labor for wages. But let us go back to
the first proposition, namely, that men, if
they choose to do so, have the right to
strike-to quit work. Now. will any man
who makes any use whatever of his power
to reason, show why other men, if they so
elect, have not the same right to mine coal?
Is the right to strike at somebody's order
inalienable. while no man has a right to
work if others determine otherwise? Do
not mind what Debs and Sovereign assert,
but consider the proposition just as if such
personages were not in existence.
In West Virginia a large body of men
decided that another body should not mine
coal The latter said they desired to do
so il they could be protected from threat
ened violence. The court said they should
be protected and issued an injunction re-
straining the strikers from entering the
property of the companies in whose mines
these men desired to work for the purpose
of interfering by menace, threat and in
timidation or by holding meetings on the
grounds of the company. The Pittsburg in
junction restraints certain persons from
assembling, marching or encamping in
proximity Of the mines of the De Armitt
company and the houses of the miners for
the purpose. by intimidation. threatening
menacing by opprobrious words or prevent
ing the miners from doing their work. 1t
also restraints the defendants from induc-
ing or compelling any of the employees of
the said plaintiff, now employed or who
may hereafter be employed, to quit their
work by any threat, show of force or other
intimidation"
If any person maintains that it is right
that the strikers should enter upon pri-
vate property and force men who desire to
work to quit it is not worth while to ar
que with him; but he should see that if
persons have the right to enter upon the
property of another and to drive those who
desire to labor from their occupation, there
can be no valid law against trespass or to
sustain individual right, even in the use of
the owners property and time. Mr.. Debs
maintains that it is right for a number of
men to compel others to cease working,
and that it is an assumption for the courts
to attempt to protect those who desire to
work. In view of these facts the ques-
meet at st. Louis should consider is: Are
trespass, intimidation and threats by min
ers lawful or unlawful acts? If it is de-
cided that they are unlawful acts, the in
junction to prevent them is right If other
wise, physical might makes right and the
laws are void