The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-09-02
PARRY REPLIES BRIEFLY
HE MAY LATER MAKE a MORE En-
TENDED STATEMENT.
Some of the Questions He Considers
Unfair and Wholly Personal
What He Says.

To the letter signed by Z. p. Barry
president of the Central Labor Union, rep
resenting that body, and asking ID. M.
Parry to answer plainly and without
equivocation" the questions embodied in the
letter, Mr.. Parry replied yesterday after
noon in general way to the questions,
with the exception. OF a few. which he de-
clares are unfair and wholly personal. Mr..
Parry will probably answer the questions
more at length within a few days. His
reply yesterday is as follows:
Barring one or two questions in which
there is tone of animosity directed at
me personally, 1 think that Mr.. Barry's
questions are entitled to a fair answer
while / have not yet given these ques-
tions more than casual reading and have
not the time right now to give any Tor
NAL answers to them, yet L will say that
Mr.. Barry's position as expressed in his
questions, and which. by the way, is neces-
sarlly the position of every union leader
Is based on several false premises. Inc
first assumption or premise which he takes
for granted true is this
Those who oppose the right assumed
by the unions to say that no one shall
work in an establishment unless he be-
longs TO the union and that no industry
shall continue in operation unless it con-
sents to deal with the union are neces-
sarily in favor of the destruction of the
unions.
1T ought not to be difficult to under
stand the difference between opposing the
lawless purposes of organization and
opposing the organization merely as an
organization. Yet the leaders of organ
lied labor persistently attempt to cloud
the real issue. The real issue is whether
an organization, labor or otherwise, can
perform acts which its members as indi-
viduals cannot legally do No individual
has the right to prevent another from
disposing of his labor as he sees fit, and
neither has an organization the right
however
take an oath OF allegiance to its organ
iZation and abide by it's government or else
be denied the chance of employment in
those industries which it controls This
is as much usurpation of the inherent
rights of liberty it would be to compel
a man to join certain church or a certain
lodge. / have stated that unionism aims
to establish a condition of affairs similar
to that of feudalism and serfdom of for
mer centuries, when the right of disposing
of ones labor was denied to the Individual
If the labor leaders had their way they
would in time enslave the human race.
Again, in order to enforce their illegal
purposes the members of unions habitually
resort in times of strikes to physical and
mob violence. They gather ia crowds about
the place of their former employment with
the intent of inspiring fear in the minds of
men who might be disposed to work, and all
too frequently they terrorize the women
folks of so-called 'scabs and commit cow
ardly assaults. Even murder is now and
then committed in the sacred name of or
to every newspaper reader in the country.
Indianapolis has been happily almost free
of strikes in the last year, but in the several
small affairs carried on by the machinists
in recent months there were a number, of
serious assaults.
THE union leaders apparently believe that
i'm their case the ends justify the means
But / am prepared to show that not only
are the means most deSpicable i'm many
cases, but that also the ends are alike 10
be condemned as being suicidal to progress
0,a6 a. c1Gt IN 4 hp of fho
or i'm other words, TO the rewards of labor.
But 7 cannot in this short space show why
the arbitrary fixing of wage scales, if gen.
orally done, would be ruinous to the Nation.
L only wish now To bring out the point that
any organization that has lawful purposes
and conducts itself lawfully has a perfect
right to exist, and that if organized labor
would eliminate that which is unlawful in
its creed and would act strictly within 1.-The
law in it's practices there would be no cause
for agitation against it. If unionism must
necessarily be lawless then it is correct to
assume that those who object to lawlessness
on the part of the organization are in favor
of destroying the unions: otherwise 1t is not
true.