The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-08-29
TWO OPPOSITE VIEWS.

The Hon. Abram S. Hewitt's letter re-
garding the anthracite coal strike and
President MitchelTs comments thereon rep
resent two Numerically opposite views re-
garding the ethics of strikes. 1t is not sur
prising that Mr.. Mitchens comments on
the letter should have followed swift after
its publication, and that he should have
tried to break its force, for it went to the
heart of the question and presented in a
strong light argument against labor
unions which, in the opinion of most peo-
pie. is unanswerable. Mr.. Mitchell did not
attempt to answer it, probably for the rea-
that it cannot be done. He simply
tried to break the force OF Mr.. Hewitts
statement by appealing for sympathy for
the strikers He said nothing that Mr.
Hewitt might say could divert attention
from the real issue which was the miners
struggle for living wages. but many people
think that Mr.. Hewitt made truer state
ment of the real issue than this He said
the claims of the miners union ARE in con-
travention of the principles of free gov
ernments and of the rights of men to earn
their living in any lawful way, without
interference from organized labor or or
ganized capital" He said further that if
the demands of the strikers are conceded
eft will not be possible for any man not
holding a union card to secure employ
ment in the coal fields, and that this would
amount TO a denial of the right of every
man to sell his labor in a free market. 1t
would be far better he said, Ito abandon
the business of mining anthracite coal than
10 concede the demand of any man or set
of men to deny the rights of employment
and of labor, upon which the whole struc-
ture of free government is founded, and TO
which this country owes phenomenal prog
ress." Ii Mr.. Hewitt is right in his view
as to the fundamental question involved.
he is right in his conclusions. He certainly
exposed the weak point of labor unions and
put upon labor leaders the burden of de-
Tending a policy that ignores the personal
rights of all but union men and would de-
stroy one of the fundamental principles
OF free government. viz, the right of every
person TO work who wants TO work regard
less OF dictation OF any organization. That
one indefensible feature in the conduct of all
strikes For all that labor unions or
strikes aim at and for all they can accom-
plish without denying or interfering with
the rights of others. they are commenda-
Bile, but the moment they attempt to pre-
vent non-union men from working they be-
come enemies of personal liberty and free
government. II is useless 10 deny this or
10 attempt to befOg or gloss over the real
issue. 1t cannot be done successfully.
What would become of the personal rights
or free government if the Masons. for in
stance. should deny the right of any but
members OF that order to engage in bust
ness or work for wages. and if every other
society should boycott all but its own men,
I bers? The principle cannot be defended.
and il is not surprising that Mr.. Mitchell
/ did not try TO defend IT, To Mr.. Hewitt's
| plain and strong statement of the case he
replied: The miners are on strike for Iiv-
ing wages. and nothing Mr. Hewitt can
| say will prove sufficient TO divert attention