Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1909-08-16
THE RIGHTS OF PROPERTY.

The Geographic report of the troubles
arising from tho strike at Mckees
Rocks, Pennsylvania, where 5000 enl-
ployes OF the Pressed Steel Car COM
paIly have quit work, contains one
paragraph significant Of the conpeny's
attitude, that to our mind illustrates
how thing may be theoretically on
logically correct and yet wrong In
practice.
Sheriff Gumbert with eight armed
deputies spent several hours evicting
strikers from their homes one after
noon without any assistance from the
company Later the sheriff sent to the
company cor help, as his men We're
firing The company replied that they
would not help; that tflis was what the
sheriff was paid for. Gnnubert imme-
dlately called off his men and left
Schoenyille
legally and logically the company
was right In It's contention, The rec.
ognized principles Of American law for
bid payment to any officer for doing;
H his duty. 1t is, in some states. a. stltu-
EDllGllstt RRlS
alSin5to bribery and may readily be used
for selfish ends. And yet. after all,
was the company Justified?
The sheriff was protecting the com-l
hi rInys interests by evicting tenants
who had violated the Jules OF the COM
pany Perhaps they had also violated
the public law, but the gist of their
offending must have been their refusal
to work for the company white still
occupying the cottages provided for
employees.
55 In this case the sheriff, while en-
forcing public law, seems also to lnlvet
been engaged in giving effect to the
terms Of a private contract But even
ifgthis were not so, the cold demand
sgof the company for the eviction from
their colt ages of laboiers as lawbrcals-
@ers, assumes that private contracts and
4 property are sacred, that peace Is sa-
cred, that rioting is to be restrained,
u etc, no matter what suffering and loss
may thereby be inflicted upon the la
borer to his family. Also that no mat
x ter how much 1t might cost tho public
for the pay of deputies to protect the
!. property OF the company, the latter.
would contribute no aid whatever to
the officers of the law in trying to de-
fend the company's position.
1T is Just here that the attitude of the
company, while 1t may be legal enough,
H seems to be at fault. h
d logic as of convenience; and there is a
A great deal of the spirit and effect Sof
compromise about 1t. To talk of abb
stract or absolute rights in property is
not SO powerful an argument as it once
4 WAS. On the very day when the COM
{ pesny took the stand that 1t would not
assist the sheriff, whose duty 1t was
to protect their property, Prof. L. H.
I Bailey at the Seattle Exposition was
arguing that the landowner Is really
but tanant---an agent under obligsl-
ton to conserve the resources OF the
Z soil for the benefit of the tenants who
flre to succeed him.
The absolute ownership OF their prop
rs e1ty, as Viewed by the company, turned
out to be a very dependent ownership
dependent, that is, upon the ability or
the sheriff to enforce their title. And
the ability OF the sheriff was limited
It was shown by an analysis In the
last issue of the Outlook that In this
particular instance the theory of the
company that 1t is entitled to absolute
protection at all events, is an assump-
ton that may not, at bottom, have n
sufficient foundation.
~ BY means Of a certain pooling ar
rangement, the company had set aside
in each department q certain sum fo.,
so much product, out Of which the
labor in the making of that product
was paid. For example, for the press
work on each car II certain sum was
divided in wages among the men do
ing that press work Thus the COM
pany could know beforehand Just what
the labor cost on each car would be.
The men, on the other hand could not
week, what their wages We're to be.
Besides. for fair dealing they had to
trust absolutely to the company
bookkeeping department: and over this
department they. of course, had no
control. They had to bear the loss due
10 the mistakes OF foremen, TO break
ages of machinery, to possible short
age in material. and to the waste
caused by incompetent or inexperienc-
ed workers. The company has asserted
that minimum ses.-v i4 virtually
guaranteed. How-34ef mat may be, un-
der the eulse Of this change in system
there was really established severe
cut in wages.
1t is this contract, legal enough but
perhaps unfair, thar the courts are ask
ed to enforce and that the sheriff is
expected TO evict men for violating.
The contract has, it seems. endanger-
ed the public peace. and the public has
the right to inquire whether or not the
contract is entirely consistent with the
interests of the public as we'll as with
those OF the company. May the com
pany make with its employees any suct
contract as it pleases? OR must it re.
frain from using its power in such /
way as leads to strikes?
The men, unorganized, undirected
without resources. asked for a chanc,