The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-05-03

said that when he entered the prison he
had $50 in greenbacks. which was taken
from him in exchange for $500 in Confed-
crate money. the whole of which would
not have bought him a good meal Then
he remarked: THAT was fiat money.
That's what fat money means when the
'fiater' is not good. Let us keep our money
good and We can pay our honest debts.
This is not in my lecture. but 1 will put
it in anyhow for the good of the country"
The Sentinel says: "a number of persons
in the audience were astonished to hear an
utterance from the pulpit that was charged
with such apparent political significance,
and looked upon ii as a radical departure
from the province of a church dignitary
called upon to deliver a lecture for
church benefit" People ought not to let
their political prejudices be shocked be-
cause common honesty is alluded to in the
pulpit as virtue. In the old anti-slavery,
ante-war times many good people. or peo-
pie who claimed to be good. were similarly
shocked whenever a preacher alluded to
the wickedness of slavery. During the civil
war many such people called it mixing poll
tics with religion for preacher to say
word in the pulpit in favor of supporting
the government. 1t Is very delicate and
fragile sort of religion that cannot stand
a little contact with such everyday virtues
as common honesty. loyalty and patriotism.
A London cablegram says that British
labor leaders condemn the recent action of
a New York court I'm issuing restrain
ing order prohibiting labor union from
paying its members while they are on
strike. The decision has caused more or
less adverse criticism in this country. 1t
was made by Judge Freedman, of the New
York Supreme Court A firm of cigar man.
ufacturers appealed to the court to grant
relief from boycott instituted against
1t by some of their former employees on
strike and by the Cigar Makers Union.
The court granted the relief prayed for in
the form of an injunction which not only
restrained the strikers from picketing the
premises of the plaintiff but also enjoined
the Cigar Makers International Union of
America and the local union from paying
the strikers for the work of picketing and
from paying them from the treasury of
either of the unions for refraining from
working for their former employers, and
from paying other persons with the aim of
inducing them to refrain from working for
the plaintiffs. 1t is evident the court was
striking at the boycott. which the COM
mon law and all courts concur in holding
an unlawful conspiracy against private
rights. The court seems to have argued
that as the boycott was illegal everything
done to maintain 1t, even to the payment
of money to on strike. was illegal.
This pushes the doctrine of government
by injunction very far, and yet why should
labor unions complain of injustice because
they are restrained from doing injustice to
others? The payment of money to MAIN
tain a boycott is quite different in princi-
pie from merely paying subsistence money
tic men on strike. No court would think of
restraining a labor union from doing the
latter. 1t is the conspiracy and boycott
feature that furnishes the ground for the
order.