The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1901-10-27

there must I stop, in obedience to the im;
D.. 'L dictate, OF natural Justice aud
OF Christian morality
This is the position taken by men who
are recognized to be among the dlstiu
euished moralists Of the day. Father Mat
leo Iiberatore, in his 'principles OF Polit
icnI Economy, y dealing with the evils ac.
companying strikes, writes as follows;
W orse of all Is the Ubiquitous and brutal
terrorism by which they (thc strikers com.
pei their comrades to join them. If some
n'iFMtn ihink 81 better 10 continue work
ing on the same terms as before, what
right have the Others to force them into
the strike by threats, insults and bad
usngeE Are they not free agents in their
AFFAIRS. TO net rs they think best? This
Is an unjust claim, an offence against the
liberty of the subject, a disturbance Of
p,p1lic peace, and deserves the utmost rigor
y higher authority than Father Liberia
him in 1883 10 the E%piscopltc OF Ireland
on the system Of hoycotting which the
tions, though with mistaken views of dis
trlbutive justicc-put in vogue In that coun-
tryi the sovereign pontid declares;
Is IN every, way ahhorrent to natural
Justice aud Christian charity that those
should be pursued by a novel kind Of per
Neeutlou ana lhtcrdict (DOycottlngi VINO
either are content with the rents which
they, nave agreed upon with the landlords
or The estates and prefer to pay them, ~
to do
The argument of Leo plainly is that no
private person, no association Of private
persons, however large and influential its
membership should attempt to prevent oth.
ers from doing what they have a natural
aud legal right TO do. That this argument
which so FOR ibly vlndicates the principle
OF prTson9l liberty nnds It's application in
ttc labor boycott of American strikers, as II
di1 I'M III e land boycott of Irish Land
leasucrS, - easily seen.
To men who are entering upon a strike
u should bc clear that In preventing others
from working they are acting in direct con.
lradiction to the very principle OF personal
liberty. In virtue OF which they Justify
Themselves in ccasing To work. When in
dlNluual Workmen or combinations of work
men refuse to continue TO work, no one
,ldlnlS lut uEut 10 compel lneh 10 Worhf
Tor the simple reason that in the ENJOY
mem ~ their personal liberty they are free
To work or not TO work. But, evidently,
the corullury OF this Is that men who choose
TO work must be allowed to work. Not
many years ago an association of workmen
Initiating a strike had reason to expect
as these were to interpret In n manuer I'M
favorable 10 snch collective action the varl-
Gus so."alled conspiracy statutes strewn
over the pages OF English and American
against the interpretations usually attach
ed To them the friends of labor waged I'M
ceastug war In the name of personal lb-
erty With the result that now. except In
cases Involving a breach Of contract or en-
failing serious damage on public Interests,
labor unions may without risk of mourning
the displcasure of the law initiate a strike
md continue il as long as they may deem
ut. Is IL not strange thar, after labor
unions have won the long fought battle Tor
tbeir own personal liberty, they should
turn around and strive TO wrest personal
liberty from uouunion workers. II Woulu
seem thar labor unions sought TO be a
law TO themselves apart from and above
the law of The land.
/ do not forget that labor unions often
refuse 70 he responsible Tor inc pi9I2nS SN,
cessCs that accompany strikes, attrlhutlng
These eNcesSoS 10 mobS which they can not
control and which see In strikes an oppor-
tuuity Of INDUCING In lawlcss passion. And,
Indeed, acts Of violence do. occur IN con
uc,tion with strikes, which the labor unions
do not approve and for which they. can not
hp held responsible. Is II not, however,
true that much az least Of the interference
with personal liberty Of which we complain
Is tho direct act of the %unionSf Are not
the pickctS nj the unions usually the hrSI
to have recourse 10 threats and violencef
And even where mohs are the guilty party
are not the uuions Indirectly responsible
Should they not have ~fcrcseen the acts OF
violence 10 which the mobs easily resort,
and shonld they not have taken measures
to ohytate such actsf should they not nj
least protest whom such acts nave untor'
tuuatcly taken place.
The duty Of the state IN presence Of
strikes is clear aud imperatlye' " IS 70
! protect personal liberty IN all cases ana
az all COSTS, 1he entire authority OF INC
State should. If necessary, be put IN mo
ton to protect the liberty OF n single cit
izcn. whether that citizen be one VINO re
| fuses To work or one who desires Ia work
The State ascertains the viii Of the citizen
M this regard, aud then extends over II the
/ shield II The law. The law should he uni
form Tor All and universal in It's applica
| ton without regard TO person, position OF
class. ''The duty 81 the public I'm trade
disputes" once said Lord Derby, is "a
make a ring and see fair play, The law
should mercilessiy nut down intimidation
and violence whencesoever theS CONT, ~
action should ALWAYS be directed toward tbs
freedom ~ the Individual he he workman
or employer. unionlst or free lahorer. The
refusal or the failure OF the State 10 re
press and punish violations OF personal lib
erty Is the Introduction or anEchy
1t is something's urged on hehait OF .atflk
eEs that tns vorkman has q sort of pro