The advocate and Topeka tribune. [volume], October 19, 1892, Page 3, Image 3

About The advocate and Topeka tribune. [volume] (Topeka, Kan.) 1892-1894

Image provided by: Kansas State Historical Society; Topeka, KS

                
TJEU3 -AJDVOOAtTI .
3
ports of silver (or eight yeara ending with
1875, show an average annual excess of
Imports of 1,147,500 or $5,837,500.
The British commission set down
400,000 to account of waste and
loss of coins, 350,000 to the ac
count of plate, and 250,000 to the ac
count of consumption In the arts. The
consumption per capita on the continent
of Europe would be less In the arts, but
probably more In plate, than In Great
Britain. The British commission say
that the use of plate Is mainly confined
to the "higher classes" In Eogland, where
as in France and Germany the "lower
classes" and "peasantry" indulge in It In
minor forms.
The Paris correspondent of the Lon
don Economist (December 16, 1876) says
of the consumption of silver in that city,
that "the demands are solely for manu
facturing purposes, for which a value of
a million of francs ($200,000) is required
weekly." Paris, undoubtedly, manufac
tures for other consumers than the
French, but the annual consumption of
sliver of the value of $10,000,000 for
manufacturing purposes In that single
city is, In any aspect, a noteworthy fact.
The consumption In the coinage on the
continent of Europe through abrasion
and less could be immense If It were not
for the expulsion of the metals by paper
In several large countries, but, even
under existing circumstances, must be
several times larger than it Is in Great
Britain.
The substitution of gold for silver in
Europe has been in progress ever since
the discovery of gold In California, and
consequently the amount of silver re
maining even in the specie paying coun
tries of Europe cannot be formidable.
The only thing which could occur here
after to disturb materially the relation of
the two metals would be the resumption
of specie payments by Italy, Austria and
Russia. How the relation would be ef
fected depends upon the metallic stand
ards which those nations might select
hereafter. If they should resume upon
their present metallic standards, resump
tion In Italy, which Is a double standard
country, would simply tend to restore
the old relation of 15 to 1, while re
sumption in Russia and Austria, which
are silver standard countries, would not
only carry silver up to an equivalency of
10 to 1, but might carry It still higher.
Ifallthese countries should resume or
seriously attempt to resume specie pay
ments, and on a gold standard, It would
enormously Increase the demand for and
relative value of gold; but such a re
sumption In those countries Is Impossible,
and , any attempt In that direction Im
probable. Their resumption on any me
tallic standard, within any near period, Is
wholly improbable.
If silver were remonetized In the
United States, the amount which would
be absorbed here, in the event of the re
sumption of specie payments, would ex
ceed any visible supply which Europe
has to dispose of, and would restore the
relative value of sliver to what It was be
fore the recent movement of Germany.
And In all contingencies, the permanent
value of silver rests securely upon the
magnitude of the silver stock, upon its
dlJXuBlon over so large a part of the
globe, and upon the silver absorbing
power of the world, and especially of
Asia, whose vast populations, whatever
may be done with silver elsewhere, must
continue to use it as their money for an
indefinite period. The exchangeable
values of gold and silver, respectively,
whether as commodities or money, de
pend upon the demand and the supply,
and the demand depends upon the num
bers and wealth of those who make the
demand, and not upon their Intelligence,
civilization, or refinement
(To be continued.)
A Square Look at the Labor Question
To the Editor of Tna Ajvocatk,
That ever-present labor question is at
tracting much careful attention again.
Although we may differ ever so much on
this great Issue, all will admit that some
thing has to be done. The present stormy
times cannot last always. But It won't
Improve the situation any by " viewing
with alarm," and throwing up our hands
In holy horror every time a new convul
sion occurs. To-day we find ourselyes
confronted by not a theory, but a stern
and terrible reality, and the great burn
ing Issue is, " What are we going to do
about It? " Now, don't be alarmed. I
am not going to torture you with any
dire predictions of war, anarchy, or
"French revolutions," but for once let
us stop calling each other "mudsills"
and "fanatics," and reason together a
little while. The reformers believe In or
ganized labor. The conservatives do not
One objection to organized labor Is that
the unions sometimes refuse to work
themselves, and object to any one else
taking their places.
At first thought, this certainly does ap
pear all wrong. Surely It does appear
very exacting and unreasonable for men
to refuse to work themselves, and then
object to any one taking their places.
That is the conservative side of the ques
tion; now let me give the worklngmen'a
side. The laboring men have assumed
this right simply as a means of self de
fense. The worklngmen are not the only
ones who have unions. The capitalists
of this country are organized Into an
"employers' union" to blacklist every
worklngman who happens to incur their
displeasure. If you doubt my statement,
just read some of the sworn testimony of
the leading railroad capitalists and see
what they say about it. If this don't con
vince you, then read the Kansas republi
can platform; surely you wjjl not
question such authority as that. When
ever a member of the "employers' union"
has any serious difficulty with one of his
men, he discharges and "blacklists"
him. Then, according to the rules of
their union, no member of it is allowed to
give this man a day's work. If any of
them does give him work, every member
of the union Is pledged to unite In boy
cotting the "offending member" until
he either discharges the man, or until
his business is ruined. When a man de
pends on the patronage of tens of thou
sands of people every year, a boycott Is a
very effectual means of ruining him.
Hundreds of business men and corpora
tions have been compelled to discharge
their best men by this despotic policy. If
it is such an awful thing for union men
to object to scabs taking their places, is
it right for a band of capitalists to crush
every man who dares to give employ
ment to one whom this tyrannical union
has labored so hard to make an outcast?
Isn't it a rather narrow-minded policy
that howls "anarchy!" every time the
laborers unite against the blacklisting
system, and then sends the offending
capitalists to congress? Such a position
Is inconsistent and ridiculous, even from
a conservative standpoint, which seems
to regard labor merely as an article of
commerce, and deserving of no more
consideration than plgiron, or dried cod
fish. Another point of difference between
conservatives and worklngmen is the
Plnkerton system. Generally speaking,
the conservatives favor the Plnkertons;
the worklngmen do not Of course you
are all thinking of the Homestead trou
bles when I speak of the Pinkertons. The
Homestead horror surely furnishes a
good example of the Plnkerton system.
Their detective system, when properly
managed, may be legitimate enough; but
those who were at Homestead were not
detectives, they were "private mllltla,"
and their business was that of killing
people, for which they were paid a fixed
salary. Not a very honorable business to
be sure, and no upright man would en
gage in such work. It was simply
measuring pieces of silver against ounces
of blood. They were, not like soldiers
fighting for some great principle, or in
defense of their homes. Their cause was
devoid of all principle, and they were
fighting against those who were defend
ing their homes. They were simply
hired by a corporation to shoot men
whom they had never met before in
their lives, and against whom they could
not possibly bear any 111 will But be
hold the ridiculous efforts' of snobbery to
whitewash and apologize for their crimes.
As soon as the news of the conflict
reached Washington, congress hurried
off a committee to Homestead to find out
the " facts of the case," and see what the
McKlnley bill had to do with It They
found that the fight had been a very des
perate affair. There were no "eye wit
nesses" there. Everybody present at
that battle was strictly "in it" It was
too lively a place for bystanders. The
first thing to find out was, "Who fired
the first shot?" All the workingmen say
that It was the Plnkertons who fired first
But their testimony had no weight with
this wonderful committee. They simply
called up a few Plnkertons and had them
swear that the worklngmen fired the first
shot The committee then very solemnly
announced to the world that they found
on the most "unquestionable" authority
that the workingmen were the aggres
sors! Men charged with murder had
their evidence taken as "unquestionable;"
but when any worklngman attempted
to give his testimony before that
committee, he was silenced with
cries of "Shut up, you anarchist!"
A wonderfully fair-minded and care
ful Investigation wasn't it? If every
body charged with murder could
have their evidence taken as "unques
tionable," there would be no need of
passing any more laws against capital
punishment Isn't it nice to have some
thing "official" on this subject, though?
It's so reliable, "don'tcherknow." Even
if the worklngmen did fire first, what
great difference would it make? Accord
ing to their own testimony, the Plnker
tons had their guns leveled on the
people and ready to fire the moment they
left the boat If a man leveled a gun on
you, would you wait for him to fire a few
times before you made any reply? The
Plnkerton system Is bad enough any
where, but it was particularly damnable
at Homestead. It was not a strike at
Carnegie's works; it was a lock out. A
few months previous to July, 1892, Car
negie solemnly promised in the future
never to hire any one except union men.
No man was to be discharged except for
a failure to perform his work properly,
and in every case his place was to be
filled with a union man. Previous to this
Carnegie had objected to organized labor.
But It was supposed to be all settled
now, and many of his men now felt safe
In Investing their earnings In homes.
Before this, they had no assurance of
steady employment; but now they had
Carnegie's promise that they would never
be molested on account of their belong
ing to the union. But In June, Carnegie
repudiated his pledge, and announced,
in addition to a reduction in wages, that
no union man would be employed in his
works. It was this base betrayal of his
pledge that the worklngmen opposed. If
they could not agree on wages, their dif
ferences could have been arbitral; but
a broken promise Is something that can't
be arbitrated. Carnegie did not wait for
his men to quit la the latter part of June;
he closed his works and turned his work
ing men out of the foundries. Now the
conservative are saying the men broke
their promise because they did not keep
on working till next January 1. As soon
as this occurred, the town became in
fested with desperate characters of every
description who insisted on destroying
the works, but th workingmen objected
to violent measures, and appointed
guards to protect the property. Accord
ing to Carnegie's managers, these guards
saved the property from ruin. Such was
the situation when the Plnkertons came
to "protect" the works by shooting the
men who had saved them from ruin. It
Is claimed that corporations are justified
in using Plnkertons to defend their prop
erty. But what are our laws for, any
way? The conservatives seem to think
that our laws are intended for those who
can't afford Plnkertons. If a corporation
is justified In killing anybody who tres
passes on their property, why isnt a
farmer given the same privilege? I hap
pen to know a case of this kind. In
northern Arkansas, an aged farmer was
engaged in raising watermelons. They
were hia only crop. He thought he
would try the Plnkerton idea a little, to
he took his gun and shot a young man
who was destroying his crop. These
melons were his only means of support;
but he was just a farmer, you see, so he
was sentnot to congress, as a railroad
magnate would have been, but to the
penitentiary for life. He made a fearful
mistake In doing the shooting himself
instead of hiring somebody else to do it
Our government guaranteed protection
to every man's property free of charge
and nobody will pay a big price fc
Plnkertons unless he intends to attempt
something unlawful. The idea of allow
ing private individuals to keep armed
men to do their bidding Is out of date in
most countries. The United States and
Afghanistan are about the only ones who
tolerate the system any more. England
abolished her Plnkertons centuries ago;
so did France, Austria and Prussia.
Turkey abolished her Plnkertons a hun
dred years ago, but we send missionaries
to Turkey. Plnkertonism must be an
evidence of our superior "Christian"
civilization. When a Pinkerton Is sta
tioned In every house, and an lams Is.
hanging on every street corner, then I
suppose Christ will come again, and we'll
try that much-talk ed-of mlllenlum. An
endorsement of Pinkertonlsm Is an en
dorsement of lynch law. In both cases,
private Individuals assert the right to
take the law In their own hands. Isn't
it ridiculous to talk about freedom In a
land where private individuals are al
lowed to maintain mobs to defy law? "O,
Liberty, thou hadst better soak thy head,
and go off and die." If we can't run our
government without the aid of lawless
mobs, then this republic might just as
well send in Its regrets; a monarchy
would be preferable to such high-heeled
anarchy and brutal feudalism. The labor
question cannot be settled until the capi
talist, as well as the laborer, Is compelled
to respect the law.
Fbank Williams.
Why does the republican national
committee deem it necessary to devote so
much attention to Pennsylvania? There
Is surely no danger of that state, the best
protected in the union, Is there?
V
Judge Humphrey very properly dis
missed the prosecution against Brleden
thai on the ground of no case. This
leaves Johnson either In the light of an
officer who does not know his duties, or
a politician who sacrificed duty to ob
tain, if possible, a little partisan advan
tage. Lawrence Record.