Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-06-27
A Card from Mr.. Mullen.

To the Editor OF the Dispatch
Your report Of the strikers meeting at
CorcOran Hall Saturday evening mis-
quotes me in several particulars, and l
feel sure your sense OF justice VIII reau-
lily grant me room for correction. Your
statement that my attack upon the min
listers was vituperative does me great IN
Justice What l said about ministers was
this: That of all men in the word. MIN
listers of the Gospel should be the last
to make statements that they do not
know TO be true. That the course or
some ministers in siding with rich trusts
in their oppression of the poor was doing
more to drive working people from the
Church and Christianity than all the
lngersolls i'm the world. / do not see any
"vituperation" in this language, and feel
sure that the larger portion of our min
listers will give a hearty amen TO every
word | said concerning them. L was
very much gratified when | saw that
ministers were interesting themselves IN
the matter, for / knew that they could
create much sympathy and support for
the girls in their trouble.
When you say / made some very I'M
complimentary remarks about Mr.. Whit
lock. you make a statement that Is
wholly incorrect. / distinctly said that,
personally, / had not a word TO say
against Mr.. Whitlock; that Mr.. Whltloek
represented a trust that was doing all IN
its power TO crush out the worker as wen
is smaller competitors. L cited the fact
that some years ago Mr.. WhitlOck was
keeping a small cgarstore on lower Main
street, and living in house on MAYO
street that would now rent for probably
SO a month: that he was now living on
west Grace street in a mansion, and was
classed with the millionares; that the
laborers who had created this wealth had
no homes Of their own. and many OF
them were never twenty days ahead OF
starvation. Is this statement of fact I'M
complimentary? | have no fight with MT.
Whitlock or any one else that accumu-
lates fortunes. l would not take a cent
from any Of them if IL were in my power
TO do so. | am not a Communist. /
only maintain that the creators OF wealth
ought to receive a just and fair compen-
sation for their services.
1t is also not true that l urged the
girls to form "a union / did not use
the word union. / told them that they
ought to have an organization, into
which they could make small weekly
deposit. so that when sickness or acct
dent fell upon them, their Doctors blil,
their medicine bill. and small weekly
stipend could be paid out of the funds.
Is this good or bad advice? / said that
thus organized, they could meet Mr.
Whitlock the LIST Of every January and
agree with him on q scale of wages, fac
tory rules, and regulations, thus assur-
ing him and themselves of no trouble for
the year. / said that all labor organiza-
tons stood ready 10 do this, and in this
respect were cOnservators Of the peace.
This is very different from advising them
"to present Mr. Whitlock with a set OF
rUles." as you quote me.
| said not a word about the girls car
rying away cheroots, nor have i ever
heard it charged that they did
such thing. Nor did | ut
ter one word about Mr.. WhitlOck
paying them for cheroots carried out of
the factory. I said this: That if Mr.
Whitlock said (and ! had been Informed
that he did say iO that 1t would cost
him $40 a day to pay for the gratuitous
work the girls were required TO do. that
it was in itself an admission that the
girls were being required 20 do that
much work for which they were not paid
The only reason ! had for making any
reference 10 the Rev. Mr.. Jones at all
was, that I had been told by those who
had attended the Leigh-Street church
meeting that he had advised the girls
not TO have anything TO do with trade
unionists: that they melted people TO
strike and then left them 20 take care
Of themselves as best they could. This
/ regarded as a grave reflection upon a
worthy portion (and a large one) OF our
citizens. among whom were some excel
lent members Of Mr.. Jones's own church.
Respectfully, w. II. MULLEN.