Amador ledger., 1903-01-23
RESPONSIBILITY FOR ouTRAeEs

cOGUluS anu OGQer SuOGle 1OrnS OF
oppression resorted to by strikers to
injure employers who declined to
accede to their demands. This de-
cision is just, and in line with the
very spirit of law. 1t must eventu-
ally prevail in this country, notwith-
standing that a bitter warfare will
be waged against the principle in
volved. In England, under the COM
mon law, the courts are empowered
to make law, or rather to apply old
and established principles of law to
new conditions as they arise. This
is done in the absence of anv statu-
tary provision. The boycotting, in
timidation, picketting, ostracism,
and other species of intolerance en-
ployed to prevent an employer
from running his business accord
ing to his own notions, and to deter
other workmen, not members of the
union, from taking the places of the
strikers, are of comparative recent
origin, and have not yet found a
place among the list of crimes de-
fined by the codes. Ultimately, this
must come to pass, and such acts of
oppression, even though no actual
violence is committed, must come
under the ban of the penal code.
The decision Of the British court is
the first definite step in this direc-
tion. The boycott is Identical in
spirit with the bigotry that lit the
fires of the inquisition in the dark
ages. 1t is persecution pure and
simple. Its adoption in furtherance
of any cause, no matter how worthy
that cause may be in itself, is crimi-
nal in spirit. No really good cause
requires any such measures to fur
ther its ends. No labor movement
has ever been really advanced by
these tactics. John Mitchell, the
head of the mine workers organiza-
tion, admits this in words. But it
is unfortunate for the unions that
his words are not accepted as the
rule of action in case of strikes. The
testimony before the presidential
commission shows clearly that
physical violence, and intolerant
methods fully as reprehensible as
actual violence, are mainly depended
upon to win the cause of the strikers.
Let them try as they may to avoid
the condemnation which these acts
merit by claiming that the union, as
such, does not sanction such meas
ures the fact remains, however,
that the organization winks at them,
is willing to accept any benefit re-
sulting from coercion and violence,
and makes no attempt to clear itself
from blame by denouncing the law
breakers, and using its influence to
have them punished in the criminal
courts. 1t makes one tired to read |
day after day about the coal barons
being responsible for bringing about |
the famine of fuel, and the prohibit
ory prices now ruling for the pro-
duct of their mines, by refusing to |
accede to the demands of the strikers
in the first place. The real truth is
the operators in this contest are
lighting for the essential principles
OF free government. They are con-
tending not merely for their own
rights as employers, but equally as
much for the Individual freedom of
every citizen. Every man, whose
only capital is his labor, has the
right to dispose of his labor to whom
and for what remuneration he
pleases. No man, nor body of men,
has the right to dictate to him in |
this matter. Without this right our
vaunted liberty is farce. We can
not conceive of greater tyranny
than that which virtually says to a |
man, you must belong to our cult or
you cannot earn livelihood in this |
free land. You must join our band, |
and lay down your implements of
labor when we so decree, regardless
of your individual wishes in the
matter. Are the men who have the
courage, in the face of great finan-
cial loss, to protest against this form
of despotism, to be tabooed as
the enemies of the laboring classes?
In reality they are the advance
agents of the emancipation of labor.
Out of the present turmoil and strife
will dawn brighter day, when the
union and non-union workers will
toll side by side in peace, each sell
ing his labor for the highest and best
price he can command, and the en-
ploYer free te'-hire the one or the
other as he sees -fit.-xss-~-------