The labor world. [volume] (Duluth, Minn.) 1896-current, 1902-08-30

In connection with every strike of
< any moment though not we have OBJ
served In connection with lockouts or
blacklisting a certain portion of the
press takes up the cry of public
rights" What, it is asked, becomes of
{ the third party to a labor-capital
Gcontroversy, the great, helpless public
1.-THE workmen have the right to strike
s::for any reason whatever, good or bad,
I wise or unwisete. ia mmen W tmhv
wise or foolish; and they claim the
right to boycott those who have Offend
ed them. Employers have the right to
discharge men at will, and thus pre-
Z cipitate difficulty. Have the bystand-
: ers, the consumers, no rights that the
classes named are bound to respect?
Thus runs the argument, and it is
plausible. As a rule, those who make
git wind up by advocating some form
rot compulsory arbitration, or state reg
sssulation Of wages, hours and conditions
Of labor. We are not going to discuss
the general question of compulsory ar
bitration, as our position has been
made: sufficiently clear in previous ar
ticles; but it may be pointed out in
passing that those who advocate that
remedy in the interests of the third
party are really proposing a radical
ia revolutionary change in the law
sand policy Of the country.
:, They have right to their opinions;
but they must not confuse issues aris-
ing under existing laws with implica-
tons and deductions from principles
that. are peculiar to the philosophy Of
ndndustrial relations, principles that
have not been accepted or recognized.
+ When they talk about public rights,
they must confine themselves to rights
under the present politico-economic
system, not under a conceivable sys-
: tenn which has not been adopted.
4 From this logical and proper, stand
spoint, it is plain that the third party
sshas no, standing in the forum Of law,
Requity and reason, in any case where
s.neither capital nor labor oVersteps it's
constitutional bounds A great strike
ss1entails Inconvenience and hardship;
fsbut what of 1t? Is the public entitled
Eto insist that a man shall work on
Sferms that are unsatisfactory to him,
asimply- because it needs his product.
p Men work or engage in business to
earn a livelihood not from motives Of
GAltruism. They may stop when they
E5leaset just as the farmer may refuse
Efo raise crops, without regard to the
5heeds of:the consumers.
& The public" does not provide for the
wage-workers; it leaves them. to pur-
a:sue their interests as best they may,
and all they owe the public, legally
lspeaking, is respect for the law.
u But. of course, in addition to legal
Responsibilities and limitations, there
Ware the less definite moral responsible
ties. Not everything that is lawful is
Eexpedient and reasonable; ''the ex-
'Streme of law is the extreme Of injus
5tice;"-it has we'll been said: --~---4~ ---
Now, it is certainly pertinent and ON
portant TO ask whether organized labor
has shown itself reckless Of these moral
t>obligations to the public, whether 1t has
Insisted in any considerable number of
cases, on the letter Of the law regard
Hess of all considerations of propriety
Iand reason in a comprehensive sense of
these terms.
We have had many strikes of late,
some OF them Of a serious character
from the public standpoint.
Which side was it which def1antly and
scornfully disregarded public opinion,
kand talked about managing it's own
Hbusiness in it's own way?"
:. Which side declared that it was i'm
pertinent and impudent and outrage
odSe TOR the third party".to make. it's
influence felt for peace and adjust
ment?
Which side said that the law was
all-sufficient and that other consider
atoms were mere foolish sentiment and
harmful weakness?