Volume 1 January 29, 1887
Prelates In Politics
Growing Indignation Against Corrigan's Political Proceedings
St. Stephen's in Revolt—An Enormous Gathering of Irishmen to Hear Michael Davitt Cheers Dr. McGlynn and Hisses Cardinal Simeoni—Further Outrages on St. Stephen's—Police Interfere—Other Priests Removed—A Chorus of Catholic Protest From All Parts of the Country—The Archbishop Boldly Avows His Political Motives
The excitement over Archbishop Corrigan's removal of Rev. Dr, McGlynn from the pastorate of St. Stephen's church, so far from dying out, as was confidently predicted, has grown to enormous proportions during the past week, and it has been aggravated and embittered by new outrages on the people of St. Stephen's. Not only has that suffering the congregation been driven by policemen from The church built with its own money, but two store of its priests have been removed and assigned to other parishes.
The rising: tide of indignation could no longer be ignored in the archiepiscopal palace, and the archbishop attempted to quiet it by a statement through the newspapers, in which he gave garbled extracts from Dr. McGlynn's letters while publishing; his own in full. This publication caused Dr. McGlynn for the first time to break the silence he has maintained ever since bis suspension, and he made public a brief reply showing that be had strictly obeyed the order sent from Rome by Cardinal Simeoni, commanding him to make no more speeches in behalf of the Irish land league or for the cause of Irish liberation. This, however, but added fuel to the flame, and showed how persistent have been the interferences of the cardinal prefect of propaganda in political matters in this country. It found an immediate echo in the cheers for Dr. McGlynn and the hisses for Cardinal Simeoni at the enormous meeting of Irishmen at Madison square on Sunday evening.
An Explicit Declaration that Dr. McGlynn was Suspended Because of His Political Opinions—Dispatches from Rome and Evidently Garbled Letters
On the evening of Jan. 21 the reporters of the New York press were summoned to the palace of Archbishop Corrigan, and the following statement handed them, which duly appeared in the daily papers of Jan. 22:
New York, Jan. 21, 1887.
The press of this city has shown so much courtesy toward me in the painful issue that has engaged much general attention for the past few weeks, that I determined this morning, in view also of other reasons which will appear further on in this communication, to make a simple, straightforward statement of the facts in the case, suck as I know them, without personal feeling and without comment, and this communication is intended to be final.
First—In August, 1882, the cardinal prefect of propaganda called attention to the fact that certain speeches reported in the Irish World, and attributed to the Rev. Edward McGlynn, “contained propositions openly opposed to the teachings of the Catholic church,” and requested that the clergy of the diocese in general be desired to abstain from political conflicts. This letter was addressed to me, but as until the death of his eminence Cardinal McCloskey I had no jurisdiction over the regular clergy of this diocese, I referred the matter to his eminence, who went for Dr. McGlynn and had a private interview with him. The cardinal then directed me to say in his name, and as a result of this inter view, that the doctor “recognized his errors, professed due sorrow for them, promised to abstain thenceforth from all similar political meetings whatsoever, and finally requested that the cardinal prefect be duly informed of these resolutions.” A faithful report of the interview was drawn up and read word for word to Cardinal McCloskey, approved by him, and made to propaganda.
Second—In September, 1882, before this report had time to reach Rome, a second letter came from Cardinal Simeoni, in the name of the sovereign pontiff, ordering Dr. McGlynn to be suspended a dirinis unless the cardinal archbishop thought best to adopt sonic milder measures. In any event the doctor was to be brought back to wiser counsels and made to desist from his recent course of conduct. This letter was handed to Dr. McGlynn to read and ponder over, so that he might shape his course accordingly.
Third—In October, 1882, a third letter came from propaganda containing an expression of joy and consolation that Dr. McGlynn had recognized his errors, and gently insinuating that where a scandal has been public the church desires that a public reparation shall also be made.
Fourth—In May, 1883, an additional letter called attention to the fact that Dr. McGlynn had not kept his promises made to bis archbishop, and hence the cardinal was requested to forbid mm from pursuing such a kind of life and making inflammatory speeches. A copy of this letter was communicated to the doctor. At the same time the cardinal archbishop added, May 26, 1883, by way of suggestion, that Dr. McGlynn, if he chose, might take his summer vacation in the form of a trip to Rome, and that have an opportunity of making in person a more satisfactory explanation to the cardinal prefect of propaganda. On June 1, 1883, the doctor replied, declining the proffered trip to Rome, and adding: “I shall henceforth refuse to take any part in any such meeting. Even though it be for charitable objects. Furthermore, on July 1, 1883, he caused to be printed it: the “New York Tablet a statement that “he condemned and repudiated any report or interpretation of any words of his contrary to the doctrines of the Catholic church. In October, 1883, I was sent to Rome to represent Cardinal McCloskey at the conference of American archbishops. During this visit Cardinal Simeoni, alluding to Dr. McGlynn's case, stated that his retraction was not satisfactory. In October, l883, Cardinal McCloskey passed to his reward, and the administration of the diocese was intrusted to me.
Fifth—Having resumed the practice of speaking in political gatherings, Dr. McGlynn was gently reminded, Aug. 23, 1886, of the impropriety of such conduct. I do not know if Mr. George's name had been mentioned at that time as a candidate for the mayoralty. At all events, my letter simply deprecated interference in politics in general, without thought or mention of any special party whatsoever. To this admonition Dr. McGlynn made no reply.
Sixth—On Sept. 29, he sent. Mr. George to see me. As Dr. McGlynn spoke of Mr. George “as his very dear and valued friend,” I thought, the occasion warranted my informing Mr. George of the great risk the doctor “ran in taking a prominent part in politics, hoping thereby that Mr. George would dissuade a friend from exposing himself to clearly foreseen consequences.
That same evening the following note was written:
42 Madison avenue. New York, Sept. 29, 1886 Reverend Dear Doctor—I have read with great regret a printed circular in which you and several others call a political mass meeting, to be held in this city on next Friday.
You certainly have not forgotten the mandate of the holy father, the letters of the cardinal prefect of propaganda in '82 and '83, nor the renewed promises made by you to his eminence, the late cardinal archbishop.
As your bishop, I now forbid you in the most positive manner to attend the proposed meeting in Chickering hall on Friday night, or to take part in future in any political meeting whatever without permission of the sacred congregation of propaganda fide.
I am very sorry to be obliged to take this step, but, deeming it a matter of strict duty, I see no alternative. I am, reverend dear doctor, faithfully yours,
Rev. Dr. McGlynn. M. A. Corrigan, Abp.
To this note Dr. McGlynn replied by saying be would address the mass meeting, notwithstanding the prohibition,. and he was accordingly suspended for two weeks. in a letter of Oct. 2, of which the following is an extract:
So flagrant an act of disobedience cannot be passed over. Before accepting the invitation to address the meeting you knew full well the distinct wishes of the S. C. of Propaganda. You were not ignorant of my own mind on the subject, as you expressly alluded to in your note to me introducing Mr. George. The objection, consequently, to your course of action has nothing whatever to do with this or that political party, but is founded on the instructions of the holy see and the nature of episcopal authority on one hand, and of sacerdotal obedience on the other. In view, then, of these facts, and much to my regret, I am constrained to have recourse to ecclesiastical censure. I hereby suspend you from all sacerdotal functions for the space of two weeks from date.
Seventh—Next came the sad sight of a Catholic priest riding in an open barouche from poll to poll on election day. Some three weeks after the political campaign was over a pastoral letter was issued enunciating the plain teachings of the sovereign pontiff. A few days later. Nov. 26, the doctrine of Pope Leo XIII was assailed by Dr. McGlynn, although. be says, without adverting to it, and the statement of the holy fat her. that a solution of the conflict between rich and poor was to be found in the touchings of the Gospel, was met by another declaration that the true and only adequate remedy for social evils lay in the abolition of private ownership of land and in the restitution to all men of those rights in the soil that are now unjustly monopolized by a few. Dr. McGlynn was invited to correct this misstatement, as he claimed, of his words. Had he done so, no censure would remain. He declined to comply, although after a week's silence he made a quasi retraction in the Tribune of Dec. 2. But he never withdrew the main statement that private ownership of land is unjust: IN CONSEQUENCE OF THIS STATEMENT ON NOV. 26 HE WAS AGAIN SUSPENDED FOR THE BALANCE OF THE YEAR, and the Rev. Dr. Curran placed in temporary charge of St. Stephen's church.
Eighth—On Dec. 4 the following cablegram came from propaganda:
Alumnus McGlynn immediate Roman proficiscatur. Prefectus. (Let Graduate McGlynn proceed at once to Rome.)
The cablegram was as great a surprise to me as to the doctor. I never asked or even hinted in any way that he should go to Rome. My former experience of June, l883, would have precluded such a suggestion. When the telegram was delivered Dr. McGlynn simply replied: “There is no answer,” and as far as known paid no further heed to the matter. To this date no answer seems to have been sent to Rome asking an extension of time, or professing any willingness to comply when able with the order of last December. After waiting in vain for two weeks for the slightest symptom of any disposition on his part to obey the holy see (for by the constitutions of Gregory XVI and Pius IX, the propaganda has supreme delegated power front the pope except in the very greatest matters). I wrote to Dr. McGlynn requesting some reply, when after waiting four days longer, he wrote on Dec. 20, 1886, that he could not go to Rome, and at the same time reaffirmed his doctrinal positions follows:
My doctrine about the land has been made clear in speeches, in reported interviews, and in published articles, and I repeat it here. I have taught, and I shall continue to teach, in speeches and writings as long as I live, that land is the rightful property of the people in common, and that private ownership of land is against natural justice, no matter by what civil or ecclesiastical laws it may be sanctioned, and I would bring about instantly if I could such change of laws all the world over as would confiscate private property in land without one penny of compensation to the miscalled owners.
The italics are mine.
Ninth—The next correspondence is dated December 29:
New York, Dec. 29, 1886.
Rev. Dear Doctor—Your letter of the 20th inst. brought [text missing] and that you had taught and would continue to teach the injustice of private ownership of land, no matter by what laws of church or state it may be sanctioned. In view of such declarations, to permit you to exercise the holy ministry would be manifestly wrong unless you withdraw them, as I hope and trust you will. The censure now in force will be ipso facto prolonged until the receipt of the letter of instructions from Cardinal Simeoni, now on its way to this city. I regret that, under existing circumstances, I do not feel able to act differently from the course just indicated… The remedy is in your hands. I am, Rev. Dear Doctor, very truly yours,
M. A. Corrigan.
Tenth—Early in January a kind and conciliatory letter came to me from Cardinal Simeoni for Dr. McGlynn. He was invited to call and receive it, but refused. “I will not come to see you.” It was forwarded by mail. and four days later a note came in reply from the doctor as follows:
I have received Cardinal Simeoni's letter, with your request. that I would inform you of my plans.
I will not go to Rome.
The grave reasons which I gave you in the letter of Dec. 30 still hold good, and will continue to do so for a long time.
432 Madison avenue, N.Y., Jan. 14, 1887.
Rev. Dear Doctor—On the receipt of your letter of Dec. 30, I had an exact copy of it forwarded to the propaganda in order to state your reasons for not going to Rome in the very words in which you yourself had expressed them and so to avoid any misrepresentation. Tonight I wrote again to the cardinal prefect, embodying the substance of your note of the 11th inst., in which you say “these reasons still hold good and will continue to do so for a long time.” As weeks may elapse before we hear from the holy see, I have thought it best to make some arrangements meanwhile for the parish, and I intend, D. V., tomorrow to write to Father Donnelly of St. Michael's to place him in temporary charge of St. Stephen's. For grave reasons I deem it best also to transfer you from St. Stephen's and appoint you to some other rectorship as soon as your relations with the holy see will permit, and I respectfully ask, in accordance with the statutes of the diocese (No.70), if you have any objections to offer. Finally, it I can be of any service to you, you know where to find me. I am, Rev. Dear Doctor, yours very truly,
M. A. Corrigan.
Rev. Dr. McGlynn.
To this letter no answer was received. On Jan. 16 I received the following cablegram from Cardinal Simeoni:
Give orders to have Dr. McGlynn again invited to proceed to Rome, and also to condemn in writing the doctrines to which he has given utterance in public meetings, or which have been attributed to him in the press. Should he disobey, use your own authority in dealing with him.
The original of this third summons was sent, by mail on Jan. 16. to Dr. McGlynn at St. Stephen's, and a copy mailed also to his address in Harlem. No answer.
Jan. 17 another telegram came, like its predecessor, quite unexpectedly. In it the sovereign pontiff orders the doctor to Rome instantly. This also was forwarded immediately by messenger, with request of an answer, but none has been received.
Jan. 18 the committee of St. Stephen's church asked for an interview. The following; reply was sent:
455 Madison avenue. X. Y., Jan. 19,1887.
Mr. John K. Feeney.
Sir— In consequence of a prior engagement which detained me until a late hour last night, I have been unable to attend sooner to your registered letter of yesterday, which came to hand as I was leaving the house. I new avail myself of the first free moment to remind you and your associates that in the Catholic church bishops give an account of their official actions to their superiors when occasion requires, and not to those under their charge. I am not aware that in transferring a subaltern officer from one post to another a general in the army consults his soldiers.
Still, making allowance for excited feelings, and for the attachment entertained for one who has so long held toward you the sacred relations of pastor, I am willing, as a matter of favor, to state the reason of my actions in this particular case, if Dr. McGlynn expresses in writing a desire to that effect. Otherwise, through the same regard for him which has induced me to keep silence for more that a mouth, since his refusal to obey the holy see—a refusal more than once expressed to me in writing—I prefer to say nothing in the premises.
I will add that no later than Monday of this week the holy father gave a direct command to the doctor to repair instantly to Rome. If you really wish well to Dr. McGlynn, you will aid me in using every lawful means to induce him to obey the authority of the holy see. I am, sir, respectfully yours.
M. A. Corrigan, Archbishop of New York.
The latest phase of this unhappy conflict occurred this morning, when Archbishop Jacobini, secretary to the pope, cabled as follows:
For prudential reasons the propaganda has hitherto postponed action in the case of Dr. McGlynn. The sovereign pontiff has now taken the matter into own hands.
The case now rests between Dr. McGlynn and the holy father.
M. A. Corrigan.
Dr. McGlynn's Reply
The New York papers of Jun. 23 contained the following, dictated by Dr. McGlynn:
Pending a fuller statement, which I shall feel called upon to make as soon as physically able, I desire now to say that in the paper of Archbishop Corrigan published this morning certain letters and parts of letters essential to the understanding of the case are omitted I did promise in 1882 to make no more Irish land league speeches, and when again censured in 1883 for favoring the Irish revolution in a speech in behalf of the starving people of the west of Ireland, made at the request of the United Irish county associations, I did promise to make no more speeches on the Irish question even for charity, but I did not bind myself by promise to abstain for all time to come from public speaking on political and social subjects. With one exception—that of my speech at the Chickering hall meeting, the reasons for which I explained at the tune to the archbishop—I have yielded obedience in all things, even when I could not feel that the obedience was rightfully demanded. Nor has my conduct either toward the archbishop himself or toward the Roman authorities been of the defiant character which the suppression of parks of my letters gives to it. I gave to the archbishop in that part of the letter of Dec. 20 which he has not published good and sufficient reasons why I could not go to Rome
I have never retracted, nor without doing violence to my conscience could I retract, my firm conviction that God made the land for the equal use of all his children, and that, laws which deny their birthright to the great majority of men are unjust and injurious, and ought to beabolished.
I am theologian enough to know that the Catholic church gas never condemned this doctrine as contrary to Catholic truth.
If the pope, teaching the universal church as the chief bishop thereof, or, as the term is, ex cathedra, thus defining what has been handed down from Christ and his apostles in the deposit of faith, should declare that this doctrine is contrary to Catholic faith, I should then, as a Catholic, repudiate it. But I am also theologian enough to know what the church teaches as to the limitations of this power of definition, and therefore to know that the doctrine of the equality of human rights in land can no more be condemned by the church than any other truth.
The Davitt Demonstration
It Turns Into a Mighty Protest in Favor of Dr. McGlynn
Fully ten thousand people gathered in Madison Square garden on last Sunday evening, to listen to the farewell address of Michael Davitt, who sailed for home last Tuesday. Thousands gathered about the building unable to gain admittance, and in many cases men holding tickets of admission were thrust back with the utmost brutality by the notorious Capt. Williams and the uniformed ruffians under his command.
Gilmores band gave a concert before and after the lecture,and the audience was probably one of t he largest over gathered under a single roof in this country. Mr. Davitt was introduced by Patrick Ford, and he made a speech on the wrongs of Ireland, and described minutely the parliamentary struggle for home rule and outlined the proceedings that it is expected the first parliament in Dublin will take. He was listened to by the vast audience with interest and frequently applauded, but it was not until he began to approach the subject in which all present were immediately and keenly interested that an excitement was displayed sufficient to account for so phenomenal an outpouring of the people.
After he had concluded his appeal for the Irish cause Mr. Davitt said: And now I come to a matter of interest not a lone to my own friends, but to the while Irish people of the state of New York. [The audience here showed signs of intense excitement, and without waiting for the mention of his name began cheering for Father McGlynn.] I could not well pass over in silence the case of my friend, Father McGlynn. [More cheering.] But in what I am about to say I will endeavor carefully to avoid the mistakes ofothers and refrain from a line of criticism that injures a cause which it means to defend. There are both personal and political reasons why I am justified in making allusion to the grave question here to night. In Dr. McGlynn’s statement in the papers this morning I read the following— [somebody here cried, “You are out of order,” and there were cries of “Put him out.”] Put out nobody who disturbs. We are not evictors here. [Applause.] I read the following:
I did promise in 1882 to make no more Irish land league speeches, and when again censured in 1883 for favoring the Irish revolution in a speech in behalf of the starving people of the west of Ireland, made at the request of the United Irish county associations, I did promise to abstain no more speeches on the Irish question even for charity, but I did not bind myself by promise to abstain for all time to come from public speaking on political and social subjects.
Now, it appears from this that Dr. McGlynn's offense began at the last meeting which I addressed here in this city in 1882, and that Cardinal Simeoni censured him for favoring; the Irish revolution [hisses] in his speeches then and subsequently delivered in this city in behalf of Ireland. [A voice, “They can do their best.”] Here lies the head and front of Dr. McGlynn’s offending. [Applause.] Now mark, ladies and gentlemen, this startling coincidence. In 1882 the Irish cause was in a death struggle with disaster and coercion. Misfortune dogged the steps of our movement in the face of our enemies, who had drawn upon us on every side in the hope of inflicting upon the land league an overwhelming defeat. Every resource of unscrupulous power was employed to disorganize our people, disrupt our ranks and destroy our hope, and it was in that dark hour that, menaced on every hand with destruction, Cardinal Simeoni, at the behest of English agents in Rome [groans and hisses and a voice—“Errington!” more groans], joined his feeble attacks to those of Ireland’s enemies. [More groans.] It transpires now that he was not satisfied with his vain and fruitless efforts to coerce the bishops and priests of Ireland into doing England’s dirty political work [Groans and hisses], but he also aimed his little thunderbolt at our friends here in America, because England instructed him that it was heroin America that we got our sinews of war for this glorious revolution. [Enthusiastic applause.]
In that very year, that year of all but complete disaster for Ireland, Cardinal Simeoni [groans and hisses] singled out for censure and punishment one of the truest, one of the most pure-hearted men that God has ever called to the ministry of religion [loud cheers for Father McGlynn]; one of the largest-hearted, and one of the. most noble-minded men that ever donned the vestments of a Catholic priest [applause]: one of the most faithful and fearless champions that Ireland has ever given to the cause of human liberty and progress. And for what: For supporting this movement, in Ireland which means to grasp robber landlordism by the throat, this movement of ours in Ireland which resolves to put an end to crime and outrage; for supporting what Cardinal Simeoni [groans and hisses] is pleased to call and what I am proud ti» acknowledge as the Irish revolution. [Immense cheering and waving of hats, and a voice: “Hit him again” Great laughter.] Let there be no mistake, gentlemen, about the origin of the hostility to our beloved friend. Had he been engaged in praising England, or denouncing the land league in 1882, he might today be the archbishop of New York. [Here the entire audience cheered so loudly and so long that the tremendous sound fairly shook the building.] There is nothing gained, but there is very often a great deal lost, by thoughtless and injudicious cries or remarks. It is too grave a subject for men to speak upon without mature thought; so please allow me to conclude without interruption, and I will probably say enough about the Italian cardinal. [Great laughter and more applause.]
Because Father McGlynn has done what the patriotic bishops and priests of Ireland have done in defiance of the same Cardinal Simeoni's [prolonged hissing and groaning] puny injunction, he merits the censure and is awarded the punishment which the prefect of the propaganda would have meted out to the Father McGlynn’s of Ireland had he not been taught by the Catholics of Ireland that we brook no ignorant pro-English Roman interference in our national or secular affairs. [Tremendous cheering again and again renewed. In O’Connell’s immortal words of warning: “As much religion as you like from Rome, but no politics” in Ireland. [Loud and continued cheering-.] We have always kept, and always will keep the intrigues of English agents at Homo from either influencing our political creeds or acts or of causing us to father upon the Catholic church the political fads or fallacies of puny ecclesiastical dignitaries at Rome. [Applause.] No one for a moment behooves that Dr. McGlynn is in any way against the church of which he has been so zealous a minister during twenty years.
The idea entertained upon this question by those who cannot look upon it from a Catholic point of view, that Father McGlynn will leave the church .ind take to the public stump, is too silly to be noticed for a moment by a reply. [Great cheering.] He is still and always will remain as true and as devoted to the faith and the church as when he first donned his sacerdotal vestments. [Applause] But he claims, and I maintain he justly claims, the right of thinking for himself in political and social matters and of advocating remedies which in his heart and in his soul he believes to be absolutely essential to the lessening of human suffering in society. [Applause] He has been called upon by Cardinal Simeoni to retract all he has spoken and written in public since 1885. Cardinal Simeoni [hisses] it was that gave the order that called upon the bishops and priests of Ireland not to subscribe to the Parnell testimonial. [Groaning and hissing.] The reply they made was to make that testimonial nearly £10,000, instead of the £12,000 it would only have been had not Cardinal Simeoni stumbled across the Irish national question. [A voice, “He is stumbling now, too.” Laughter. Another voice, “But he will got left, sure.” Renewed laughter.]
Father McGlynn's chief offense is in having supported the Irish revolution. What are the doctrines of the Irish revolution which have scared to such an extent the worthy prefect of the propaganda: I will quote what they are from the columns of a paper which bore a very suggestive title, The Irish Felon. [A voice: “Three cheers for John Mitchel!” Immense cheering.] In The Felon of June 24, 1848, Fenton Lawlor laid down not only the doctrine of “The land for the people,” but indicated the means by which a movement on these lines would ultimately achieve Irish national independence. It is for supporting these doctrines of the land league for the last seven years that Father McGlynn has been censured and is threatened with punishment. In this declaration of Irish social independence made by Fenton Lawlor he says:
The entire ownership of Ireland moral and material, up to the sun and down to the center of the earth, is vested of right in the people of Ireland. (Immense cheering and waving of hats.) They and none but they are the land owners and the law makers. The soil of the country be longs of right to the entire people ofthat country, not to any one class, but to the nation—one condition being essential that the tenant shall bear true and undivided allegiance to the nation whose kind he holds and owes no allegiance whatever to any other prince, power orpeople or any obligation of obedience or respect to their will, their orders, or their laws. I hold further and firmly believe that the enjoyment by the people of this right of first ownership of the soil is essential to the vigor and vitality of all other rights, and from these rights, as well as the rights of the people to self-government, I do not mean to exclude any one person, for the one is the natural complement of the other, necessary to its theoretical completeness and practical application, and in that way we must take our stand and throw down our gaze of battle to England. (Applause) No one has a higher respect for the rights of property than I have, but I do not class among them the rubber rights, by which the lands of this country are held in the grasp of Irish landlordism. Therefore, against these robber rights of Irish landlordism I am determined to make war to their destruction or to my own.
These, ladies and gentlemen, are the principles, these the convictions and this the resolution which presided over the birth of the land league movement, and it is for having subscribed to these doctrines of land reform in Ireland, founded as they are upon justice and reason and truth, that Father McGlynn has incurred the censure of Cardinal Simeoni. [Groans and hisses, and a voice: “We will stand by the Soggarth Aroon!” Immense cheering.] Dr. McGlynn does not desire in any way to force the acceptance of this doctrine upon any man, woman or child, either in his own congregation or on the broad domain of this American continent; and until this doctrine is defined by the supreme head of the Catholic church as contrary to Catholic faith, Father McGlynn tolls me he will not retract those doctrine. [Prolonged applause.]
For my own part, my position in this painful controversy is exactly the same as it has been since I first uttered a word upon it. I sincerely hope and pray that Dr. McGlynn will go to Rome [cries of “No! No!” and some applause], there to defend the justice and the expediency of this doctrine. [A voice “And Henry George with him.” Great cheering.] And, while I would not for a moment question the courage or the unrightness of Dr. McGlynn—because I know him too well for that—I must say that those who advise him not to go to Rome, no matter how good their intentions may be, no matter how good their object, are consciously or unconsciously giving cowardly advice. [Applause in which Mgr. Ducey joined, and a voice—“And we will give him the money to go.” Renewed applause] Having been in Rome a considerable time, and knowing something about England’s intrigues there [a voice—“Oh! bloody England!” laughter], I am satisfied that Pope Leo XIII. will give a fair and impartial hearing to Dr. McGlynn’s case; and if he could see that man, if he could read his pure heart, his great soul, and learn ho w his friends and admirers feel upon this question, not alone in New York, but all over the United States; if he could learn what he has done here in New York to succor :he poor and beat down the attacks, of atheism and infidelity upon religion, what he bus done to show that the Catholic church is the religion of the poor and the champion of the the oppressed, I am certain that the sovereign pontiff would do for him what he did for Archbishop Walsh [cheers] and Bishop Nulty [renewed cheers] in defiance of all the intrigues of English agents in the Eternal City. [Loud and continued cheering and waving of hats.]
Mr. Davitt then spoke of the two arch enemies to Ireland—Sir George Errington and the Duke of Southerland. “Errington,” he said, “came here on a secret mission—a friend of Cardinal Simeoni and a diplomatic agent of the English government. He intrigued against us in Rome until we met him on his own ground, until we drove him and his gang bag and luggage from the sacred city. I heard in Rome eighteen months ago that when Leo heard that he made false representations against Irish priests he forbade him to come within the precincts of the Vatican.” The Duke of Southerland was denounced in no measured terms for his wholesale evictions of his tenants in Scotland and for his wholesale purchase of land in America. Thirty millions of acres of American soil. Mr. Davitt said, was in British hands. A voice cried, “But Henry George has got his eve on them.” “Cardinal Simeoni.” Mr. Davitt concluded, “is doubtless an Italian landlord. Don't allow foreigners to plant on this continent the poisonous upas tree.”
I ask you in conclusion to give that sympathy and support to Dr. McGlynn which he now merits from all the friends of Ireland and of the cause of justice throughout the United States. [Loud and long-continued cheering and waving of hats, again and again renewed.]
During this storm of applause Mr. Davitt took his sent, and as it died away the band struck up “The Irish Patrol,” after which Miss Jennie M. Campbell sang “O'Donnell Aboo” and “Come Back to Erin.” At this point there were cries for Henry George (who was not on the platform), when some one espied T. Y. Powderly and calls were raised for a speech. After asking to be excused he came forward and declared that he indorsed every weird Mr. Davitt had said, and he declared that, Michael Davitt and his bride would carry home with them the best wishes of American workingmen.
St. Stephen's Resists
The Congregation Determined Not to Give Up Its Pastor
The burning indignation that the suspension of Dr. McGlynn aroused among his parishioners has during the past week been increased by the course of the present incumbent. This reverend gentleman, supplementing his impotent priestly authority by that of the police, has denied the people who built St. Stephen's the right to meet in their own building. This is the principal development, but the week has been an interesting one all around.
On Sunday Father Donnelly officiated at but one mass—at 5 o'clock—when, to the astonishment of all the people, the church was guarded inside by detectives and outside by a detachment of some fifty uniformed policemen. High mass at 11 o'clock found the church packed. The music was somewhat better than on the previous Sunday, for some singers had been imported from St. Michael's, but the collectors, who had come from his old church to help Father Donnelly take up a collection, were relieved from that unpleasant duty, as the baskets could not be found. Had the collection been taken as usual it would probably have been for the most part promises to pay, for the people had distributed among them little cards for various amounts, which read about as follows: “When Dr. McGlynn is restored to the pastorate of this church this card will be redeemed with cents.” the blank to be filled in by the giver. Aside from the indignation which the presence of the police produced the day was quiet.
On Monday the Times published an apparently inspired article, in which the “recent accounts” of how Father Donnelly took possession were denounced. the Standard's account was contradicted in almost every particular, especially that part relating how Father Donnelly settled himself in Dr. McGlynn's room. The Times article said that Father Donnelly had asked Dr. Curran for a room, and Dr. Curran told him that no room but Dr. McGlynn's was vacant, and he had better take that. In reply to this statement Dr. Curran wrote to the Tuesday morning papers a short letter in which he gave in substance just the tame account as was given in the Standard. Several events beside this marked Monday as an important day. Early in the afternoon Father Donnelly appeared with Police Capt. Ryan and a locksmith. He had never been able to find the keys of church or rectory, and anticipating another mass meeting in the evening he had determined to have the locksmith secure the doors. Entering the church he found the female guard that has taken care of Dr. McGlynn's confessional box on duty. The box has been decorated with wreaths, and a picture of Father McGlynn, and his name has been again placed on it.
Father Donnelly ordered the women to leave the church as he wished to close it. They refused, and when he resisted they again refused. The. priest then loft the room, and Maggie Cregan, Dr. McGlynn's servant, also stepped out for a moment. While she was away Father Donnelly re-entered and tore down the picture and name of Dr. McGlynn. “When Maggie came back he and Capt. Ryan stood in the midst of the angry women. They had stopped the priest in his work, but it was of no use: the officers whom Capt. Ryan had brought with him obeyed his orders and cleared the church. The doors were then fastened with a padlock and Father Donnelly look the key. The scene was now transferred to the rectory. Dr. McGlynn's room has since his departure remained closed and guarded by Mary Halligan, his housekeeper. That morning Mary had gone out, and on her return she found that Dr. McGlynn's room had been entered and his papers disarranged. She at once sent for Mr. Bach, the church locksmith. He came in the afternoon, after Father Donnelly had locked up the church. And proceeded, under Mary's direction, to put a new lock on the door of Dr. McGlynn's room. Father Donnelly heard the noise, and coming to the door asked what was being done. Mary said she was putting a new lock on the door. The priest ordered the man to stop. This was too much for Mary, and she gave him a vigorous lecture. He decamped, and the door was fastened.
Evening came and the street was filled with an excited crowd. They had assembled with the understanding that a church meeting was to be held in the basement. As stated in the first part of this article, Father Donnelly had prepared for this by closing the church. The church was guarded. too, by a large force of policemen. The crowd grew larger and more excited as time passed. At last Dr. Carey, who has taken such a leading part in the movement, went up to Capt. Ryan and asked if the meeting could be held. Capt. Ryan told him Father Donnelly would not allow it. Dr. Carey thereupon mounted the steps and told the congregation that no meeting would be held, and that they had better disperse quietly. After some cheering the crowd began to break up, and by half-past right-the street was clear. This keeping the members of the church out of their own building with the aid of the police has excited the already angry people to the highest pitch.
Tuesday morning public mass was not said till 8 o'clock, and probably would not have been said then but for the action of some of the parishioners who broke tin locks which Father Donnelly had put on the door. Dr. McGlynn's confessional box was redecorated and guarded against all efforts to tear down the flowers and picture placed upon it. Father Donnelly entered in the evening and stated openly to Maggie Cregan that he would probably not remain in the pastorate of the church much longer, and the general impression of those who knew most of the affair was that his stay would be limited to a very few days. His course since tie look charge, especially his closing the church. and making use of the police force, has done little to raise him in the estimation of the community either as a man or as a priest.
The McGlynn fund is already in the thousands, and is growing rapidly. The trustees appointed to take charge of the money contributed for it are: Patrick Corr, John Quinn, John J. McHugh, Michael Martin, George Maughan and Dr. Henry Carey.
On Wednesday the archbishop removed two of Dr. McGlynn's old assistants, Father Curran and Father Barry. A meeting; of the council was hastily summoned in the morning. It met at the palace at 1 and remained in session until 5 in the afternoon. There were present the archbishop, his private secretary, Monsignor Preston, Dr. McGean and Father Donnelly. It is understood that the case of Dr. McGlynn was the subject of discussion, and that it was agreed by the council to stamp out the spirit of independence which has been manifested in St. Stephen's parish. Accordingly, a letter was prepared for the archbishop's signature and delivered to Father Donnelly, notifying the latter of the transfer of Father Curran to St. Patrick's and of Father Barry to St. Monica's church. Father Colton, who was removed from St. Stephen's to the church in Portchester in October last, is recalled to take the place of Father Curran, an«l Father McGrath, of St. Patricks, is to go into that of Father Barry. Father Curran has been attached to St. Stephen's church tor fifteen years. He is loved by the parishioners, by whom his removal and that of Father Barry is felt as a further assault on Dr. McGlynn, with whom they were in hearty sympathy while he was pastor. For that they were removed. The removal may have been precipitated by Father Curran's temerity in giving the true accounts of how Father Donnelly took possession of St. Stephen's rectory.
It is whispered that Father Colton is to be made temporary pastor in place of Donnelly, on the supposition that his popularity in the parish will demoralize the revolt against the archbishop, arid eventfully silence the parishioners' demand for Dr. McGlynn's return.
The parish committee have issued an address complaining of the exclusion of parishioners from the basement of the church by the police and stating that it was their purpose to engage a public hall,but upon learning that the contemplated meeting; of parishioners would be packed with unfriendly strangers, decided to publish an address instead. The address exhorts the parishioners to maintain the dignified stand resolved upon at the first meeting.
“First Martyr Of The New Crusade”
Judge Maguire of San Francisco on the Issue
Judge James G. McGuire of the San Francisco superior court, a prominent Catholic, of Irish parentage and a man of unblemished character and great influence, made an eloquent speech to the San Francisco land and labor club on the receipt of a telegram announcing; the deposit ion of Dr. McGlynn. We make some extracts from Judge Maguire's indignant speech as reported in the San Francisco Star:
The new crusade for justice and liberty has begun in earnest. The fiat of persecution has gone fourth against its leaders. Every engine of oppression within the reach of wealth and privilege is being; strained to crush them. Even the temples of God are being turned into bastiles for the imprisonment of truth and the persecution of its teachers. Men who minister at sacred altars are soiling their robes in the effort to protect the monster of landlordism from the angry gaze of its myriad victims.
But the veil has been drawn, and the “vile image of fraud,” which so long; has awed while it plundered labor, has been judged by thousands of brave men, who, “spite of all the powers of darkness.” will speak for justice and warn their brothers against yielding further tribute to the “unnatural step-lords"” who stand between heaven's bounty and the people.
Among the bravest of all the heroes who have lifted their voices in behalf of the oppressed and plundered toilers is Father Edward McGlynn, the honored pastor of St. Stephen's church. Now York. He knew the bitter history of his people in Ireland, he had seen for years the misery of the poor in New York. His conscience bade him study the relations of men to the land; his intelligence soon discerned that God made the land for the equal use of all; that no man could ever have any moral right to collect tribute from another for the use of the natural soil, and that the collection of such tribute is robbery pure and simple. His manly courage bade him state his conclusions to his fellow men, and prompted him to aid by voice and pen a movement to restore these natural rights to the landless poor. This he did in language and logic that will live in the memory of a grateful and regenerated people long ages after its object shall be accomplished, and long after “the dim vault's rayless gloom” shall have enshrouded its author.
He is a great minded large-hearted lover of humanity. He is an eloquent preacher—alas! I had better say he wasan eloquent preacher, for Archbishop Corrigan, in a telegram to the Now York Tribune, informed the world, with all the triumphant gloating of a Michael Feeney, that “the clerical advocate” of Henry George's land theories “has been summoned to Rome” and in an interview he prophesied the fulfillment of his hopes by saying that Father McGlynn “will never more be rector of St. Stephen's.” And we are now informed that the archbishop's prophecy has been fulfilled.
Father McGlynn has been stripped of his clerical honors and authority! Driven from St. Stephen's church, to which his life's labor has been so successfully devoted! Silenced! Humiliated! And for what? For during; to defend the principal of natural justice! For daring to defend the toiling poor against the non-producing parasites who take the fruits of their labors! For during to say that, in his judgment as an American citizen, Landlord Scully should not be permitted to collect tribute from three hundred and twenty-four American families for giving1 them the privilege of living upon the natural soil of America, while he idly revels in European luxury upon the fruits of their toil! For daring to warn his fellow-citizens that the curse of landlordism, which blasted Ireland, is already blighting this land, and for daring to advise that its ruinous growth be checked by legal means! For daring to say that one man should not be permitted to own as exclusive private property the natural opportunities of other men! That is the sum of his offending-. This is the crime for which the brave and generous priest is doomed to suffer martyrdom.
We are told that this is a matter between Father McGlynn and his superiors; that we must not defend his course, forsooth, because we may thereby incur hostility in our struggle against the giant wrong of landlordism.
Must we tremble and remain passive while such a man is suffering for our principles? Must we be silent while his heart bleeds in our cause? No, never! the cowardly suggestion is unworthy of the giant cause in which we are engaged. The Catholic religion is not involved in this controversy, but the assumption, by bishops or landlords, of temporal authority to suppress a great political movement for the extension of liberty and the improvement of social conditions cannot be tolerated by any man til to be called an American citizen. Archbishop Corrigan's claim that the taxation ofland to the extent of its rental value is contrary to a dogma of the Catholic church is too ridiculous for argument, especially since every tyro knows that the owners of land in every country where private property in land is recognized hold it subject to such taxation as the government may from time to time impose.
It is not a question of religion, but a question of political expediency, and the archbishop's argument is only a special plea for the institution of landlordism. If it had been written by Leitrim or Lansdowne or Plunkett or Scully, or any other red-banded Irish landlord, I do not see how a line could well be changed.
Why Archbishop Corrigan. himself the son of an Irishman, should thus take the side of the oppressor I do not know. The great majority of Irish priests sympathize with the plundered and down- trodden tenantry of every fault, but there are cold-blooded self-seekers among the Irish priesthood as well as among Irish statesmen; and we are not unmindful of the lament of another bishop, that “bell is not hot enough nor eternity long enough to punish the Fenians.” The secret of the archbishop's sudden and enthusiastic defense of landlordism seems to be a desire to be in accord with the political sentiments and opinions of his superiors in the college of cardinals at Rome.
This is the same ecclesiastical body that refused a bearing to Michael Davitt when he went to plead the cause of the Irish land league a few months ago, and which, at the instigation of a n emissary of the English government, caused the issuance of a mandate to the clergy of Ireland to discourage and suppress the land and national leagues.
Politically nine-tenths of the cardinals are opposed to our American institutions and to the liberties for which the people of Ireland are so devotedly and so heroically contending. They have been trained in a political school which recognizes the divine right of kings. They are consequently opposed to popular government, and look with undisguised horror upon the political elevation of the working classes. The college consists of sixty-four cardinals, nearly all of whom are Italians, the United States and Ireland being represented by one cardinal each.
I speak of the personal and political views of the college because it now seems clear that, like the Irish land league and Knights of Labor, our movement will encounter its powerful opposition, and it is essential to know the opponents of our theory, and, as far as possible, the causes of their opposition.
When this college attempted, as I have said, to suppress the land league and home rule movements, the Irish people promptly repudiated this interference, declaring that political opinions were not matters of religious faith, and did not come within the scope of clerical authority: so that, while the advice of these learned Italian divines would be respectfully heard their political dictation was intolerable Archbishop Corrigan is now attempting to assert the same political authority in the United States, but it is certain that his audacious invasion of political right will be met with the same prompt and firm resistance by the liberty loving Catholics of America.
They cannot blot his spoken words.
From the memory of man,
By all the poison e'er was brewed,
Since time its course began.
Never a truth has been destroyed:
They may curse it and call it a crime;
Poverty and betray, or slander and slay
Its teachers for a time,
But the sunshine aye shall light the sky,
As round and round we run.
And the truth shall e'er come uppermost,
And justice shall be done.
From A Brooklyn Priest
The Body of the Catholic Clergy Sympathize With Dr. McGlynn
The Brooklyn Times prints an interesting interview with “a well known parish priest” of that city. His name is not given for oblivious reasons,” but those acquainted with the Catholic clerics of Brooklyn have little difficulty in attributing it to the most popular and influential of the Catholic clergy of that city. Wemake the following extracts:
“The sympathy of the body of the Catholic clergy in New York and Brooklyn is undoubtedly with Dr. McGlynn. I have talked with a great many of my brother priests of both cities on the matter, and almost without exception, they have taken Dr. McGlynn's side in the controversy, though they would be both to do so publicly for manifest reasons. The sentiment of the body of the Catholic clergy of the two cities is that whatever has been done in Dr.. McGlynn's case has been done by inspiration from this side. Of course the question at issue does not at all touch matters of faith. It is purely a question of discipline. The authorities at Rome know little or nothing of thereal state of affairs at this side of the Atlantic except as they are inspired by the archbishop of the different provinces Archbishop Corrigan is in daily communication with Rome by cable, and the views of the controversy between Dr. McGlynn and his superior that are entertained at Rome pending the personal appearance of Dr. McGlynn in the Eternal City, are the views of the archbishop of New York that are telegraphed and written there.
“I do not mean to imply that Archbishop Corrigan would willfully misrepresent the situation here, but I do say that Dr. McGlynn, with all his experience as a priest in the American metropolis, with all his practical knowledge of the condition of the poor and of the working classes in that city, is a better judge of the political needs of the masses in New York than Archbishop Corrigan is, who has spent the greater part of his career as an ecclesiastic in the state of New Jersey; and I hold that Dr. McGlynn and every other Catholic priest has the right to take an active part in the politics of the country. To say that a man of the acknowledged piety and the blameless life of Dr. McGlynn sympathizes with anything that smacks of communism or anarchy is the veriest nonsense to anyone who knows him—and who does not know everything about him today ? Dr. McGlynn, as a priest, knows the awful burdens which the laboring classes of New York city have to bear through political misrule and the corrupt combination of capital to oppress them. He knows how anomalous that condition of things is which allows one man to accumulate a hundred millions of dollars within twenty- five years and compels another to work for a dollar a day, nay,while thousand, anxious for work, are starving for the lack of it. Hence his support of the candidate of the labor party for mayor. Dr. McGlynn did not believe that anarchy or communism would follow in the wake of the election of Henry George to the mayoralty of New York any more than he believed that Mr. George, as the chief executive of the municipal government across the East river could put his land theories into practical operation in the metropolis. Any possible change in the government of New York city must be a change for the better, so far as the poor are concerned.
“If the bishops of the dioceses in the United States were taken by Rome from among the clergy of these dioceses who thoroughly understand the social and political conditions of their people, there would be none of these disciplinary troubles. What sense is there in sending an Italian priest to Canada or an Irish priest to Guatemala as bishop? Or why should a bishop be transferred from a city in the state of New Jersey to preside over the archdiocese of New York when there are many able and holy priests in the metropolis worthy of election to the prelacy who have spent their lives among the masses of the people? In countries where the canonical law of the church isin practical application the parish priests of a diocese in which the bishopric becomes vacant and three names to Rome by majority vote. One is set down as dignus, or worthy, another as dignior, or more worthy, and a third as dignissimus, or most worthy. Any one of the three may be selected, and it sometimes happens that it is the lowest on the list who is chosen. The pope has the absolute power to go outside the list sent to him from the diocese in which a vacancy occurs, but it is a power rarely exercised and only for the most- exigent reasons. If the canon law applied in America, which is only yet a missionary country and subject to the propaganda at Rome, Dr. McGlynn could not have been turned out of St. Stephen's church as he has been and his salary would have run on despite his suspension until his case was finally decided at Rome.
“It is most unfortunate that the canon law does not apply in the United States, and that the political, social and educational situation in this country is not better understood at Rome. Wealthy Catholic politicians have too much to say on church policy in this country; and unfortunately that is today the trouble in New York city. The masses of the Catholic clergy say, 'Hands off.' As long sis bishops, with whom wealthy politicians are most powerful, practically say who shall be elected to the prelacy in the United States there will be a chance for trouble among the laity.
“I am satisfied that if a majority of the Catholic clergy of the dioceses of New York and Long Island could do it Dr. McGlynn would have been elected archbishop and Archbishop Corrigan would have been allowed to remain in New Jersey. I unhesitatingly say that if the votes of the Catholic clergy in these two dioceses could doit Dr. McGlynn would be restored to St. Stephen's parish tomorrow. No old priest of New York city wanted to succeed Dr. McGlynn in that parish, for they all knew how his congregation idolized him. I am also free to say that if Archbishop Corrigan had not beenbrought from the state of New Jersey to New York city this trouble would never have occurred.
“Mgr. Preston is the bitterest foe that Dr. McGlynn has in the diocese of New York. I do not mean to imply that the monsignor entertains personal animosity toward the ex-rector of St. Stephen's church, but he is utterly opposed to what Dr. McGlynn stands for as an American citizen. Mgr. Preston is an aristocrat and the associate of aristocrats. Even converts to the Catholic church who know Father Preston well have admitted that the monsignor dearly loves the privileges which attach to church dignitaries in Catholic countries, and is inclined to ape the civil ceremonial of such communities in his intercourse with his flock. Dr. McGlynn is poor, is of the poor and loves to associate with the poor.' He is in this respect the antithesis of Mgr. Preston, and the latter is a confidential adviser of Archbishop Corrigan.”
“No Ecclesiastical Meddling”
Catholics of the Fifth Assembly District Adopt Strong Resolutions
At a regular meeting of the united labor party of the Fifth assembly district at Stoelper hall, 250 Hudson street, Jan. 24, it was resolved that heartfelt sympathy be extended to Dr. McGlynn, who, in the exercise of his rights as a citizen, had been subjected to persecution, “'instituted and maintained by the brutal desire of a revengeful spirit;” that the conduct of Archbishop Corrigan was in striking contrast to that of Cardinal Manning of England. who refused to influence the political conduct of any priest or layman within his jurisdiction, and who, in a letter to an elector of London, declared that voters must act according to their conscience, concluding with the words, “I always hold myself to be officially bound to neutrality, and leave my clergy and flock perfectly free;” that in the person of Dr. McGlynn the true standard of a Christian is recognized, and that by his meekness, forbearance and self-denial he has enlisted the sympathy and won the esteem of people of all creeds and of every lover of justice; and that the Catholic portion of the district organization, while at all times ready to obey implicitly the teachings of the Catholic church in matters of faith or religion, reserve to themselves the rights of American Citizens in all that pertains to political affairs, and declare total independence of ecclesiastical meddling.
“My Lord” Preston
Father Dalton of Kansas Censures Him and Tells of Dr. McGlynn's Benevolence
In an interview published in the Kansas Catholic Tribune of Jan. 22. Rev. William J. Dalton of the Church of Annunciation, West Kansas, is reported to have said:
“Monsignor Preston has spoken like one who courts an interview. He has shown a little too much willingness to talk—possibly anxiety would suit better. He has not made any friends for himself by his remarks and insinuations, and has brought considerable ad verse criticism on his official head from priests and people.
“I cannot speak advisedly of the nature of Dr. McGlynn's troubles, but I can speak of Dr. McGlynn as I know him and as thousands of others know him. He Ls among the leading, if not the leading, intellectual light in the Catholic church of America. The average number of persons approaching holy communion in his church every week morning is five hundred! He and his assistants go every day in the confessional. After mass daily his time is taken up with the poor and distressed, who crowd his parlors. The widow and the orphan never apply to him in vain. I met a widow and a small child wandering through the streets of New York, several blocks from Dr. McGlynn's church. They recognized that I was a priest, and asked if I would tell them where Dr. McGlynn lived. The widow said her husband had just died; she had no money, and her rent was due. Although living fully three miles from St. Stephen's church she said: 'I am going to Dr. McGlynn for help, because the people tell me he helps all the poor that go to him.' They were right. Dr. McGlynn helped her—paid her rent for two months.
“Dr. McGlynn erected three orphan asylums in his parish. The children of poor parents as well as orphans are taken into these institutions, and are fed, clothed and taught.”
The “Catholic Herald” Opens a McGlynn Fund
The New York Catholic Herald has opened a subscription testimonial to Dr. McGlynn. It says:
It is hardly necessary to urge a speedy response to this appeal. Don'twait for large amounts to roll in, but come on now with whatever you can afford.
It was the coppers of the poor, not the gold of the rich, that built our church in America, and we wish I his fund to be truly national.
As before stated the amounts received will be publicly acknowledged, and the receipt of the distinguished beneficiary will be obtained for all moneys handed him by us, thus performing the whole work in an open and above board fashion satisfactory to the subscribers.
Every reader of the Catholic Herald can do something. We appeal to them in particular. Father McGlynn is the peerless priest of the Irish race in this country. He is suffering now because he dared uphold with the magic of his eloquence the glorious principle of “The Land for the People.”
We are worse than ingrates if we fail to testify, in a practical way, our lovefor his person and our admiration of his splendid devotion to the rights of the people.
American Citizens Will Protest
A Big Dr. McGlynn Meeting to be held in the Academy Sunday Evening
As many of the citizens of New York as can will crowd into the Academy of Music, in Fourteenth street and Irving place, on Sunday evening, to express their emphatic protest against the aggression of the hierarchy of the Catholic church upon the rights and privileges of American citizenship. The committee of the Central labor union, under whose auspices the meeting is to be held, is arranging for a packed house, and will place 150 chairs on the stage, which will be filled by members of the Central Labor union and prominent citizens. John McMackin. Louis F. Post, Henry George and others will speak. In order to cover the expense of the meeting a general admission fee of ten cents will be charged, and about three hundred of the best seats will be reserved at a cost of a dollar apiece.
Sympathy from Letter Carriers
A large meeting of letter carriers of New York city, at 495 Third avenue, on Wednesday evening, resolved that, casting aside all national, religions and political opinions, all reverence and honor be shown that “friend of the poor and Christ-like priest, Rev. Dr. Edward McGlynn, in whose footsteps their children should be taught to follow; that inasmuch as their beloved friend, following the commandments of the Master and living in obedience to his priestly vow of poverty, has no worldly possessions,” a fund for his maintenance be established; and, finally, that they pledge their moral support to the Rev. Dr. Edward McGlynn, and fully indorse every word he speaks and act he performs.
How the Irish Rebel “Attacked the Church” in New York Thirty Years Ago
The controversy provoked by Archbishop Corrigan's unwarranted assumption of authority to coerce the Catholics of New York into adopting his views on the land question is in many respects not unlike a great controversy provoked more than thirty years ago by an equally unwarranted stretch of authority on the part of one of Archbishop Corrigan's predecessors in the see of New York. Then, as now, it was sought by an archbishop to impose on the Catholics of New York, as the teaching of the church. opinions which had never been embodied in the doctrine of the church, and then, as now, it was a non-Catholic journalist who joined issue with the archbishop. Dr. John Hughes was the archbishop and John Mitchel, the famous Irish rebel, was the journalist.
At the period to which I refer (1854) one of the. questions which agitated the Catholic world was the temporal sovereignty of the pope. For years previously the spirit of republicanism had been taking strong hold on the minds of reformers in several of the European states. Under the energetic propaganda directed by Joseph Mazzini the position was made exceedingly unpleasant for crowned heads and ancient dynasties. In 1848 Pope Pius IX. was driven from his throne in the Vatican and the city of the Caesars again made the capital of the Roman republic. The history of that republic it is not necessary here to follow. It is enough for the purpose of this communication to say that the principles and promoters of republicanism in Rome and elsewhere throughout Europe were denounced by the archbishop of New York and the Catholic press of America — notably by the New York Freeman's Journal, edited by the lately deceased James A. McMaster. Those writers sought to make American Catholics believe that it was an essential part of their religion to hold that the pope was the rightful sovereign of Rome and that the Mazzinians and all who sympathized with them were agents of the prince of darkness. In 1854 John Mitchel, who had a short time previously effected his escape from Van Dieman's Land, where he had been an exile as an Irish “treason-felony” conflict, established in New York a weekly paper called the Citizen* Believing republicanism to be the right form of government for every country, Mitchel heartily supported the cause of the Mazzinians and vehemently assailed the doctrine of papal sovereignty. For this he was fiercely attacked by Archbishop Hughes and the Catholic papers. The archbishop adopted the offensive language of the British press, in which Milchel and his fellow exiles, Smith O'Brien, Meagher, McManus and others were ridiculed as runaway patriots, violators of their parole, cabbage-garden rebels and so forth. Mitchel replied in a series of open letters addressed to the archbishop, and published in his own paper. the Citizen.. In the first of those letters, after having in a few scathing sentences laid the lash upon the backs of his assailants for their unjust and unworthy reflections on the Irish record of himself and his associates, he sot forth as follows the heads of his indictment against papal rule in Rome:
I mean to prove that the pope of Rome has no need to be a prince of the Roman states, that he is a bad prince and his government a mischievous government; that the people of every country have at all times a right to rise against and depose bad prince; that the Catholics in Rome who may rise against and depose the pope, will, for all that, be good Catholics; that the pope, when deposed, will be, though no prince at all, as good a pope as before, or better; that while the Irish Catholic laity are capable of being good republicans, and want to have nothing to do with persecution, the Irish Catholic clergy in America, including your grace, are bad republicans, and that they, including your grace, are not to be trusted any more than clerical corporation of any other church to forbear from the burning of heretics if they had but the power.
This was pretty vigorous to begin with as an “attack on the church,” but it was mild as water compared with what followed. I give a few extracts which I copy verbatim et litelatim, from the letters in the Citizen file:
It is hardly needed to prove that the pope need not be a prince. Once before in the Citizen I cited upon this point some sentences of Dr. Doyle, bishop of Kildare and Leighlin, as eminent, a Catholic divine almost as yourself; but as your grace has not been hitherto in the habit of reading the Citizen, Iwill here repeat: “Thus it was in bad times, in times of turbulence and barbarism, the claims of the hopes to the sovereignty of almost every kingdom in Europe grew up in silence and were admitted and sanctioned by nearly all the ruling powers. It must be quite obvious that those claims had nottheir origin in the gospel nor in the doctrines of the Catholic church, but in the state of society, in the mistaken zealot in the ambition of some popes—a zeal and an ambition excited and directed by an insatiable avarice, pride and thirst of power in their followers and dependents.”
I tell you, bishop, that nothing can no grossly outrage the feelings or tend to damage the civil position of your countrymen, of the Irish in America, as the teachings of the Catholic press, especially your grace's organ (the New York Freeman's Journal) and Dr. Bronson's Review in favor of the intolerant despotisms of Europe. If half the nations of the earth must be held in civil bondage forever; if democratic freedom itself is to be openly denounced in the old world and undermined and sneered at in the new; if American republicans and the Catholic Irish are to be set against each other in deadly strife, and all because the pope rules and rule badly a petty principality in Italy, be assured that the Irish here will begin to curse the pope and his tiara and his inquisitions, congregations, conclaves, colleges, and the rest of the clerical apparatus.
There were in Mitchel's time, as there would appear to be now, some timid people who were nervous about his “imprudence.” He was committing “suicide” they feared—“ruling the cause,” and so forth. In one of his letters to the archbishop he thus refers to the suggestions of those weak-kneed counselors:
They say it is “imprudent,” “impolitic” for me to take you to talk in this fashion. I laugh at the cant. The subject of my letters is deeply interesting to the American people; is no less than vital to the Irish race, whether here or in their own country. Politic or impolitic, therefore, I think proper to examine it, sift it, turn it inside out, and make it so plain that every laborer in the land may understand it if he likes. And it will not do, bishop, to nickname me “orangeman” or “felon,” and so try to kindle the animosity of my countrymen against me by heaping upon me those foul names. Your grace has far more atthe orangeman in you than I have—that is, a narrow, ferocious, sectarian spirit; but if there be any class of persons in the world whom I abhor worse than the orangemen, worse than the knownothings, worse than the very [text missing], it is the inquisitors.
The man who wrote the letters fromwhich I take the above extracts did not commit “political suicide” by saying what he believed to be the truth about ecclesiastical politicians and ecclesiastical rule. Through his whole public life to the day of his death (more than twenty years after his controversy with Archbishop Huges), he had the love. respect and confidence of the Irish people in and out of Ireland, cleric and lay. The week before he died he was elected member of parliament for the Catholic county of Tipperary. This, I think, shows that we Irish Catholics are not so “thin skinned” in regard to matters relating to the political action of our clergy as some would represent us. We have common sense enough to bear to hear the truth even about cardinals and bishops when we know that the man who tells it speaks for a good and honest purpose. But why should the truth offend us, no matter by whom told or for what purpose?
An Irish Catholic.
St. Thomas Aquinas
One of the Ancient Fathers on the Rights of Property
In accordance with the very explicit advice of Pope Leo XIII, I beg space in your columns for an examination of what St. Thomas Aquinas teaches regarding the right of holding or possessing personal property. It may be stated that the supreme pontiff advises bishops and priests to have recourse to the newspapers, in order to disseminate sound principles of Catholic truth, as also to take active part in the discussion of political questions which relate to the moral well being of society. This is peculiarly right in our country, where the public weal, and even the majesty of law—the only majesty we honor—are dependent on the intelligence of the people. With special emphasis, Leo the intellectual, impresses upon bishops the great need and the vast utility of studying the principles of Thomistic philosophy and theology, purely rational as they are.
For our present purpose let us turn to the second article of the lxvi question in the Summa Theologica, 2a, 2ae, and we find the angelic doctor proposing: “Whether it is lawful for any one to possess as his own anything?” In his usual manner he adduces objections to the thesis which he pro poses to maintain. In the present case the thesis is the affirmative of his query, but with a distinction. In this distinction is found what may be termed the principle of scholastic communism. Let me translate, as literally as I find consistent with English. his answer: “As regards external things, they relate to man in a twofold way, one of which is the power of procuring and dispensing; and inasmuch as this is to be considered, it is licit for a man to possess private property.” He proceeds to give three reasons for this conclusion: the reason of personal or individual industrial activity, of common order, and of public or domestic peace.
He then approaches the substance of the question thus : “But as far as concerns man in his relation to external goods, the next consideration is their use; and as regards this, man ought not to possess external goods as his own, but as common, so that he may readily distribute them, in case of need, to others.” In no other place do I find that St. Thomas treats of ownership in land. There is no need that he should give it particular attention, for it properly comes under the general terms of this proposition, in which he discusses all exterior things—res exteriores. As he teaches that the use of the produce of land cannot be private, but must be common, does it not follow, a fortiori, that the source of all production, land, ought to be held in common, that is for common use? Undoubtedly this is a logical necessity. Hence the academic question as to the ownership of land and all other forms of property may be examined in the light of this luminary of the middle ages, at whose brilliant lamp we may see many things clearer than in the blaze of our own century.
In the general principles which underlie the. philosophy of St. Thomas, it is easy to find a very consistent intelligence of his words: “Man ought not to possess exterior things as his own.”
It accords perfectly with his system of politics, in which is unmistakably taught the doctrine of popular sovereignty residing inherently in the community, to be exercised by find for the community, in the manner it may reasonably choose to adopt. As each member of the community is a component part thereof the rights of each are subordinate to the end for which the whole is so constituted.
Reversely, too, the aim of the whole body must be to secure, as much as is possible, individual right and happiness. Subservient to this principle, evidently, is the possession and use of worldly goods. These are intended primarily and supremely for the attainment of the chief end for which society is ordained, and secondarily for the benefit of the individual.
The conclusions deducible logically from this form of scholastic communism are highly interesting, well deserving the scrutiny of political economists whose studies are directed to the amelioration of the fast increasing miseries which afflict modern life.
First of all, the vast amount of wealth in the community, but under control by a small fraction thereof, numerically and morally, must be held as subject to the ends for which the community exists. If, instead of this being recognized, this wealth is turned against the welfare of the community, is directed to the demoralization of the state in its essential functions of judicial and legislative power; if it is used to wrong the great mass of the population: in a word. if it is perverted from its providential original determination, there can be no doubt as to what conclusion Thomistic philosophy would dictate on the principle of distributive justice.
Secondly, the mass of evils, social and economic. which east such a dark shadow over the near future of our civilization, ought to suggest to those who seek the good of their fellow-men the great principle indicated above, and so selfishly set aside by individual greed—the truth that the many are more important than the few, and that the public good is preferable to that of any class.
Pastor St. Peters K. C. church, Poughkeepsie.
What Catholics Are Thinking
New York, Jan. 22.—I am a Catholic, ardent in my reverence for the religion of my forefathers. I am an Irishman, proud of the part the Irish priesthood has played in the national politics of my native land. But I am also an American citizen, and as such, feel that no man has a right to interfere with the personal secular right of another.
What sin has Father McGlynn committed? Is it a sin to champion the cause of the poor and lowly? If so, then I am at a loss to know what I as a Catholic am to do for spiritual comfort while under the authority of Archbishop Corrigan.
Let the Catholic toilers of New York, for whom Dr. McGlynn has done so much, protest in season and out against his cruel and unjust deposition. Let them agitate the matter in mass meetings and demonstrations of all kinds till their proper demands extort something more than contempt from Dr. Corrigan. I know from intercourse with great numbers of them that in the breasts of thousands of Irish and American Catholics of this city smolders the lire of deepest indignation at the shameful and oppressive treatment of Father McGlynn.
James P. Archibald.
Rally Around Dr. McGlynn
Gunnison, Col., Jan. 14.—I am a Catholic, and I believe with the Standard, as do many other Catholics with whom I have talked, that it is a cunning scheme to have Dr. McGlynn go to Rome, there to be tried by men who have no sympathy with the workers of the United States. As the masses of the Irish Catholics rallied to the support of their patriot priests, so should we American Catholics rally to the support of our priest, and in so doing let the politicians a t Rome know that their interference will not be tolerated by us.
Opposed to Ecclesiastical Domination
Pennsboro, W. Va., Jan. 24.— My wife and I are Catholics. We lived in Dr. McGlynn's parish in 1864, and he married us. We heartily sympathize with the beloved father and with his people, and are strongly opposed to the exercise of ecclesiastical authority in American politics.
Garrett J. Ecstace.
From a Sister of Cearity
I want to thank you for the way in which you have stated the true Catholic doctrine and have vindicated the persecuted priest, Dr. McGlynn, “the victim of a long standing jealousy,” as a Christian brother said to me last week. The manner in which the people have rallied to his side will make the rights of other men not so gifted, but noble and generous according to their endowments. receive more attention. Dr. McGlynn is now the sufferer, yet he is a hero as well, and his heroic spirit can endure calmly what would drive another to despondency and degradation.
No Politics from Rome
Bellaire, Ohio.—I was born and raised a Catholic, but I think when the church tries to prevent, its members from voting however they may see fit the sooner the people leave it the better. I hope that Dr. McGlynn will not go to Rome.
D. A. Colbert.
What He is Persecuted For
Elizabeth, N. J., Jan. 20.—However much he may try to disguise the fact. it is clear that Archbishop Corrigan and his selfish associates at Rome are not persecuting Dr.McGlynn for antagonism to the Catholic church. No one questions the Catholicism of Dr. McGlynn. He is persecuted for his political opinions. In participating in the recent campaign he took only legitimate and honorable means to further the interests of the poor among whom he labored. and to whom he gave so generously of his substance.
O. M. W.
If the Tammany police cannot thrust a Tammany pastor on the congregation of St. Stephen's, perhaps it will be well to call cut the militia.
Holyoke, Mass., Jan. 24.—What business Archbishop Corrigan has, or by what right he forbids the eloquent Dr. McGlynn from advocating the cause of the starving Irish peasants or the underpaid laborers of our own country, it is difficult to find out. One thing is certain; the free citizens of these United States cannot, and will not, allow any man, much less a foreign power, to override their liberties on any pretense whatever. As well may the church undertake to run the government at Washington as to dictate to free men of a free country what they shall or shall not do.
W. H. S.
The Wood Chopper and “My Lord”
Hope P. O., Col., Jan. 17.—Mgr. Preston says: “Does he (Dr. McGlynn) hold that the doctrine of the community of land is a true doctrine? . . . The church does not believe in that doctrine. To establish it would be to do away with all ownership of property.. The nations of the world will never consent to it. The church will have none of it.”
Is Mgr. Preston a prophet? Is he infallible? Has the church ever said she “will have none of it.” There are religious communities that held property in common, and would it be wrong to carry religion into general use? If it is right for religious orders to hold property. the product of labor in common. It cannot be wrong for lay men to treat natural gifts in like manner, for the second is no more communistic than the first. Would it be right for the Christians, who at first held all things in common to do so now? Does monseigneur really believe himself a prophet when he says the “nation will never consent?” Will not the people of the nations have something to say admit that, as they already had about the divine right, of kings and chattel slavery.
Iam only a wood chopper. and feel that it is presumption on the part of one who earns his bread by manual labor to ask so many simple questions of a signeur. but there seem to be times when the lower strata of mankind go “clean daft” or how else could so many questions agitate them when the ipse dixit goes forth from monseigneur and his peers. Surely Satan must be unchained.
True Religion and True Progress
Middletown, Conn., Jan. 22—I wish to protest against the treatment of the Rev. Father McGlynn, because I believe that the principles expounded by him would, if carried into practice, give to all the people the full enjoyment of the blessings bestowed by our beneficent Creator, and enable our children to live under a better government and enjoy more of the good things of this world. As it is, we had that after a life of unceasing toll, we. the poor, have continually grown poorer, while the rich have grown richer, and we are doomed to go down to our graves bequeathing to our children a worse lot in life than that in which we have struggled—all our youthful aims and aspirations wrecked upon the reefs of impossibility and disappointment. This is the secret of the increase of lukewarmness and infidelity of those trained to walk in the footsteps of the Nazarene. And it is against this menace to religion and progress that the Rev. Father McGlynn has taken a stand. He is as dear to me and mine as he is to the most ardent among his parishioners.
C. W. Hoadley.
A Crime to Help the Poor
Brooklyn P. O., Md., Jun. 20.—The controversy over the suspension of Rev. Dr. McGlynn deserves the dose attention of every Catholic who wishes to see right prevail over an undue and unwarranted exercise of ecclesiastical authority. There are, no doubt, those who believe that a bishop is always right, no matter what position he may assume, and that any one who has the moral courage to say or thinkotherwise is guilty of heresy. As well might they contend that these who oppose or criticize the removal of office holders by President, Cleveland are guilty of treason to the constitution and antagonistic to the laws of the United States. This is not a question between Dr. McGlynn and Archbishop Corrigan; it is a question of whether a prelate of the Catholic church can, when he chooses to do so, exercise his authority to degrade a priest, for no other crime than that of speaking out on behalf of the poor and denouncing corruption. I am a Catholic. and am always willing to obey the laws of the church in matters theological, but in politics I hold the right to judge and act for myself and I think the same rule will apply to priests as well as laymen. God speed the work of enlightening the masses upon their rights and duties as citizens.
Bradford for Dr. McGlynn
Bradford, Va., Jan. 23—Public opinion is coming to the Standard's side fast. It looked a little blue at first on account of the monopoly press of our country taking sides with the pope and Archbishop Corrigan, and prejudicing the people against Dr. McGlynn; but today half the people are outspoken for the latter. All the copies of the Standard that came here this week were engaged before they came to town. and one of our news dealers could not get his order filled.
Patrick F. Kearns
Dr. McGlynn is Right
Skaneateles Falls, N. Y.—I have read the Standard on the case of Dr. McGlynn, and heartily coincide with every word of it. It smacks of the plain, blunt language that is perfectly natural to an honest, free-born man, and is very congenial to my heart and mind.
Martin J. Meagher.
The New York Times Abandons Corrigan and Sides with the Catholic Laity
New York Times.
To thoughtful American citizen the case of the Rev. Dr. Edward McGlynn has a significance that extends far beyond its personal aspects and transcends all questions of ecclesiastical discipline. It brings to an issue, premature, perhaps, the conflict between the Americanizing influence in the Catholic church and the unbending authority of the hierarchy that has its head at Rome and derives its traditions from the dark ages.
There is no question of Dr. McGlynn's faithful adherence to the doctrines of his church, so far as these pertain to matters of faith and of religions observance. He has shown no spirit of apostasy. He is admitted to be a devout man, earnest and fervent as a priest, and obedient to all the behests of his church inmatters purely religions. But Edward McGlynn is an American, a believer in free institutions, in the rights of the people, and in the duty of the citizens of a republic to do their snare to uphold and defend its integrity, though in the particular matter which has led to his suspension he appears as holding views of land ownership which are abhorrent to most Americans. Archbishop Corrigan represents the power of the church and the control of that power which has its source in the bishop of Rome and the edicts of past ages, a power that has undergone in the last three centimes a constant curtailment of its pretensions to rule men in other relations than those of spiritual life and duty. This power is antagonistic to free institutions and to the rights of citizens to think and act for themselves even in matters which have no vital connection with religious faith and worship.
It is a question whether the Catholic church in America is to be Americanized and brought into harmony with the spirit of our institutions or whether it is to Romanize those institutions. Dr. McGlynn represents the tendency in the church to become Americanized. He long ago admitted the right and duty of the state to provide for and to supervise the education of its people in secular matters as a necessary safeguard to the prudent exercise of the rights of citizenship. It is a practical corollary to that position that the church should confine its teaching in an authoritative way to matters of religious belief and practice. It was his position on the subject of public education that first brought Dr. McGlynn into collision with the ecclesiastical authorities. He has also taken the ground that it is the right and the duty of every American citizen to take part in the work of self-government, upon which the maintenance of our institutions depends. What has brought him into conflict with the authorities of the church inthis matter is not exclusively the particular theories that he has espoused, but his insistence upon the right to avow his political principles and to promote their adoption—a right that belongs to every American citizen, what ever his profession or his faith.
It is the individual right of the priest as a citizen and an American that is also objected to, and the exercise of that right otherwise than in obedience to clerical superiors. Catholic dignitaries are by no means averse to the exercise of political influence, provided it is to promote the interests of the church as interpreted by them. They have used political influence against the system of public education, and to obtain public money for their institutions, which are more religious than educational and charitable. Michael Corrigan, as bishop of Newark, in 1875 tried tn use the whole power and influence of his position to defeat amendment to the constitution of New Jersey requiring the maintenance of free public schools. and forbidding the appropriation of public money for the use of “any society, associating or corporation whatever.” There is, we are informed, authentic evidence that the present archbishop's influence and efforts were exerted in the very last political canvass here against the proposition for a constitutional convention as well as in favor of one of the candidates for mayor.
The question which will sooner or later come to an issue in this country in such a form that ecclesiastical discipline emanating from Rome cannot suppress it. is whether a man can be an adherent of the church in full favor and at the same time an American citizen, with all his rights and privileges as such untrammeled. The result will be only attained when it is admitted that the jurisdiction of the church, wherever its head may be heard, is limited to the domain of spiritual and religious affairs, and that a man's allegiance and obedience in other matters are to the Institutions of his country. In the growth of this republic and the development of the spirit of American citizenship, and in the spread of the faith and discipline of the Catholic church in this land, we have no doubt as to which will ultimately prevail. There will be some struggle and conflict in the process, but the tendency will not be checked thereby.
A Catholic Journal on the Cooper Union Meeting
The Cooper Union meeting was organized by Catholics, composed of Catholics and spoken to by Catholics.
In thousands upon thousands, thronging the seats aisles, passage-ways, and reaching out to the streets. the Catholic laymen of this city vindicated their claim to the proud and more than imperial title of American citizens.
Clear and unmistakable, rang forth the repetition of the grandest of O'Connell's utterances: “As much religion as you like from Rome, but no politics!”
The meeting of the Catholic laymen in the Cooper Institute should give hope and courage to the priests of this city. Let them stand by the people and we will stand by them. Let them stand by Father McGlynn and boldly as we now tell them, that to the last we will maintain our rights as Citizens, just. A s tenderly will they bear our accents of affection if they proclaim. their manhood assert their dignity and declare their rights.
We know that were a poll of the priests in this city to be taken tomorrow, a secret poll which would protect them from the spleen of narrow-minded and autocratic power, a majority would be given a favor of Father McGlynn's restoration. They may not be able to manifest their opinions, yet it seems strange to us that a body of men, so capable and intelligent, cannot devise a plan to show the people that when an American dons the cassock of a priest he does not cease to have the rights of a man.
He who is not with us in this fight is against us. He who is not hot nor cold but lukewarm. Will be spat out of the mouth of manly men who recognize in Father Edward McGlynn. the soggarth aroon of the Irish race in America.
Meadville (Pa.) Herald.
The suspension of Dr. McGlynn will draw attention if the dangers which menace republican institutions, if the Roman cardinals can compel the members of their church torefrain from voting as their conscience dictates—Henry George—the democratic and corporation newspapers to the contrary notwithstanding—does not attack the Catholic church, but simply asserts—what every educated member of the church knows—that a set of intriguing politicians are endeavoring to deprive the American Catholics of their manhood and political freedom. One surprising feature about the suspension of Dr. McGlynn is the bias of the American press in favor of Rome. It is evident from the biased tone of the press dispatches, as well as the press comments, that a New York ring of politicians used their peculiar influence on Rome to silence the opposition of Dr. McGlynn to the political bosses and corruptionists of New York city.
The Coal Famine Beginning to Pinch
A General Strike Began in Consequence of the Companies' Refusal to Arbitrate—The Hogan Murder by Pinkerton's Thugs—Carpet Weavers' Strike—Lorillard's
The feeling engendered among Knights of Labor by the obstinate refusal of the coal carving companies to arbitrate has culminated in a general strike of all the organized longshoremen, tugboatmen, dock laborers, grain handlers and men of similar vocations at this port, involving over 30,000 men. It threatens to extend along the lines of the roads the brakemen having signified their readiness to have common cause with the strikers here. On Wednesday night the executive board of District No. 49, K, of L., met to receive and act upon reports. After a long session the board advised all men within its jurisdiction to go out.
Each subordinate organization acts for itself, but the movement is no less extensive than it would be under an order.
A combination among dealers has been formed to raise the price of coal, using the strike as a pretense. To meet this the Knights of Labor have arranged to get coal outside of tine combination, and, it' necessary, will boycott all dealers who are in it. The Central labor union has requested retail dealers to keep the stock now on hand for family use, and to sell no coal to persons who use steam until the strike is over. The coal famine is becoming serious. Factories have stopped: ships are delayed: public buildings and hotels are economizing in steam and in some eases shutting it off entirely, while the city has stepped distributing free coal to the poor.
Last week Pitikeron's troops murdered a boyin Jersey City. While they were patrolling the Delaware. Lackuwanua and Western tracks a number of boys skating near by threw pieces of ice at them. Two or three of the men drawing pistols fired and Thomas Hogan, a boy of fifteen, who was standing on the sidewalk, fell dead, a bullet piercing his brain. Nearly a thousand people assembled, demanding summary vengeance. Three of the Pinkerton party, all Chicago rough-, were arrested. One was subsequently identified as the murderer. Five thousand people attended the funeral of the murdered boy. Two bills have been introduced in the New Jersey legislature intended to put a stop to the use of Pinkerton's men for police purposes, but a force of them is still onguard. The men on strike have in general behaved in an orderly manner. With the exception of a few personal assaults, such its might occur at any time of great excitement, there have been no breaches at the peace. Early in the week a coal-driver was attacked on Jersey City heights and struck by one man with a shovel. A party of Hungarians on their way to Europe were assaulted in Jersey City, and a few car loads of coal have been dumped in wrong places. This is the extent of disorder.
Longshoremen's unions are boycotting all incoming coal. Proprietors of large yards have been compelled to stop shipments, the Coal Shovelers' union refusing to shovel coal loaded by non-union men or brought in by non-union boats. The International Boatmen's union, controlling a thousand boats, refuses to take coal handled by non-union men, on the ground that cargoes loaded by unskilled skilled labor endanger the boats.
The New York Legislature has appointed a committee of five to investigate the cause of the strike and report in forty days, to the end that appropriate legislation may be made.
Last week an interview look place between the striking managers of the Old Dominion line and the men. The ultimatum of the men was thirty cents an hour for day work and sixty cents for night work, and all former employees north and south to be taken back. The president ofthe line refused. and the men retired.
Foreign lines still refusing to handle Old Dominion freight, that line undertook to carry out its threat to resort to legal proceedings. Kelly, one of the foreign a gents of the line, procured a mandamus against the French line, compelling it to carry freight which had been contracted for through the Old Dominion. The French line did not contest the mandamus, out loaded the freight as required. It was compelled, however, to do it with its own crews, all longshoremen absolutely refusing to help, and its managers have ordered its agents south to make no more through shipments by way of the Old Dominion. The Anchor is the only foreign line that voluntarily lakes Old Dominion shipments, and, in consequence. is under the ban of longshoremen. Several of its vessels are in the port, waiting to he loaded.
The Old Dominion is paying from fifty to seventy-five per cent more to carry on the strike than the men are willing to take to end it. Its gang of housed and fed helpers is still on its hands, and as green men handle freight slowly, its losses on shipment are heavy. One by one the longshoremen's unions are agreeing not to handle any Old Dominion freight, and as the Pennsylvania railroad, whose commercial interests are hostile is taking advantage of the situation, the indications are that the line will have to pocket its pride and come to terms with its men, or see its carrying trade go over to its competitor.
The Lorillards have repeatedly announced through the press t-hat their strike was broken. The announcements were not true. Last week they compelled all tickets of admission to the factory and paid off those who turned their tickets in. It was supposed that this move would demoralize the strikers. The strike continues. however, with all the vigor with which it began.
On Monday of this week 2,500 men and girls employed in Higgins' carpet factory struck on account of the efforts of the superintendent to break up the Carpet Workers' union. A strike occurred in this factory in 1884, which are amicably settled. When the present superintendent took charge he got permission from the firm, which has pretended to be friendly to the union since the former strike, to break it up, and discharged about a dozen men and girls for taking part in that strike. Pending negotiations for their reinstatement it was announced that a ten per cent reduction of wages would be enforced in February. A committee of the union waited on the firm, but as they got no satisfaction, they decided to strike at once. On Wednesday the firm acceded to the demands of the union, and the employees returned to work.
No Chance For Poor Immigrants
All the Good Free Land in Southern California Gone
San Diego, Cal., Jan. 18.—Speculation in land values here runs high. At all the hotels there are men who do nothing but buy and sell lands. For a distance of fifteen miles along the shores of San Diego bay, and nearly three miles east ward, the land is cut up into streets and measured off into town lots. The lots average a frontage of twenty-five by a hundred and twenty-live feet. Most of the streets and the great majority of the lots exist only upon the maps. The cheapest lots sell for $30, while the others range as high as $600 per front foot. One man paid $30,000 for a piece of ground 100 feet square, which he refuses to use himself or let others use. The peninsula across the bay, known as Coronado beach, containing a tract of 3,000 acres, is divided off by streets and cut up into town lots, though there is not a single house there or a living creature larger than a rabbit. This tract is owned by a syndicate of rich men who do not hold it for any purpose consistent with the true interests of the city. but charge any persons who wish to use and improve it sums varying from $50 to $1,000 for each twenty-five feet front.
The laborers employed in laying out the streets and measuring off lots received no wages in money, but were “sold” a piece of land at its speculative value in exchange for their services. If the “town lots” were built upon and occupied by bona fide residents, the city of San Diego would have a population of several millions. As it is the population is but 12,000, and emigrants seeking homes are compelled to turn away. One man, a barter, having money enough to start a shop but not money enough to buy a lot and to build upon it, sought in vain for two days for an opening. I read in the paper published in the town a communication from a man who had brought his family to the city to make his home there; but, being unable to had a house for them, was compelled to return east. Men that would form the bone and muscle of the town if permitted to reside in it, must either pay land speculators what they ask or goelsewhere. The trap is set and baited, and the victims are coming.
The Labor Party Nominates a Fall Municipal Ticket
Philadelphia, Jan. 26.—The nominating convention of the united labor party of this city met on the 34th inst. and placed in nomination a ticket that seems to commend it self to the workingmen of that staid city. In the contest for the mayoralty nomination there were many candidates—some of the Coogan type, some of the professional democratic type, and a few of the pure labor type. One of the latter, Mr. Thomas Phillips, shoemaker, of local assembly No. (13, carried off the prize. The remainder of the ticket is taken from the ranks of labor, with the exception of Charles S. Keyser, lawyer, who was nominated for city solicitor. Mr. Keyser has hitherto acted with the greenback labor party, and taken quite a lively interest in the labor movement. The convention, which contained 143 delegates, on the basis of one for every one hundred members of a labor organization, can scarcely be counted more than the advance guard of organized labor in that city, which contains nearly 125,000 organized workmen: and to accomplish much must attract to itself a great deal more strength than it at present possesses. Whether it can do that or not is a knotty question. In the first place there are internal differences in labor's own ranks. Again, there is the influence of the “hangers on” of the two dominant political parties, who will endeavor to use the movement as best suits their individual interests. There are also “doubting Thomases” who scarcely ever act unless they are moved by the power and aggressiveness of the movement.
To hope for more than a mere protest against the republican ring of this city would, I fear, be vain. One thing that may be at least hoped for is that those who are in official position in Iaborers1 ranks will not throw any impediment in the way of those who are honestly endeavoring to bring labor's cause into the foreground of polities, where it must come for final settlement.
Another thing which may seriously hamper the progress of the party in Philadelphia is the many side issues contained in its platform, and the consequent obscuring of the fundamental principles of the party. However they have got an admittedly pure labor ticket, honestly nominated, and it behoove everybody to dohis duty, so that united labor may march on to victory in the near future. The Quaker City may be slow to move, but it contains all the elements necessary to a powerful progressive party, and it remains with those in charge of the movement to utilize all the elements in the inauguration of an aggressive campaign that will solidify labor's ranks and carry consternation into the corrupt rings that dominate this misgoverned city.
After several unsuccessful attempts of a few delegates to place innomination men who would not subscribe to the principles of the party, and to indorse others for minor offices, the convention unanimously nominated the following ticket: Mayor, Thomas Phillips, shoemaker: receiver of taxes, J. Geo. Frank, cigar maker: city solicitor, Chas. S. Keyser: lawyer police magistrate Lewis A. Ross, car driver. Rules for the government, of the party were adopted. and a campaign executive committee of one from each ward was appointed and instructed to issue an appeal to organized labor for funds to carry on the campaign.
Where Shall He Go?
New York.—I am twenty-one years of age, and intend to leave the city. Would Rio de Janeiro be a good place to go to? If not, where would you advise a young man who is trying to better his condition to go.—.S. F. .T.
It is a difficult question. If you expect to better your condition merely by productive work you can probably do it right here in New York as well as any where else, for, all things considered, there is no vast difference m ages the world over. By going to some sparsely settled country and applying such wages as you get to the purchase of a goodly part of it, your condition will be very much improved, if a great many other people should turn their faces in the same direction. They would pay you well for the privilege of living and working there. But as the tide of emigration is westward, your best, outlook for such an opportunity is in our own west rather than in Rio de Janeiro. By taking up land, as much as you can, and adding to it as of ten as you can, you will be in a position to make later corners pay well for their delay, and profit accordingly. But until they begin to come you will have to work hard for scant wages. A man who intends to live by work a lone will not find it greatly to his advantage to go far from home; but one who expects to better his condition by living upon the labor of other people, can purchase prospective opportunities for much less on the edge than near the center of civilization; and if he purchases in the path of emigration will realize earlier upon his investment. Whether you decide to go to Rio de Janeiro or some where else, the sooner you buy a piece of Rio de Janeiro, or a piece of somewhere else, the sooner and more certainly will you better your condition.
Farmers in Maine Impoverished
Dover, Me., Jan. 18.—People in this part of the country are becoming engrossed in the great question of human rights which is agitating the country. They are beginning to see what is really embodied in the declaration that “all men are born free and equal.” A spirit of inquiry is manifesting itself tothe end of making that declaration practical, and the natural right of man to nature's soil is slowly but surely receiving recognition. It is a significant fact that here in Maine, which has more territory than the other live New England states put together, there are less than 200,000 inhabitants. There is land enough here, but under our system farming cannot be made to pay, and the small farmers are fast losing their lauds by mortgages. Our young men are going west as fast as they come of age. The gospel is spreading.
W. L. Gray.
The Tax Reformer thus distinguishes between four-legged and two-legged hogs. Four-legged bogs take all they can consume, and then stop, go to sleep, and give others a chance; while two-legged hogs make for themselves iron-safe and brick-front stomachs, and employ others to fill these while they are asleep.
Workingmen's State Assembly
The Failure of the Politicians to Capture the Annual Meeting
The twenty-first annua1 meeting of the state workingmen's assembly at Albany last week was perhaps the most important ever held by that body. At the very beginning an effort was made to elect a committee on credentials, instead of allowing it to be appointed by the chair in accordance with the constitution. President Gompers firmly and successfully resisted this attempt and appointed the committee.
Mr. Gompers read his animal report, in which he urged the necessity of keeping a close watch on legislation and advocated the passage at this session of the general assembly of laws prohibiting the employment of children under fourteen, limiting the hours of labor on railways to ten consecutive hours, the abolition of the state prison commission and the giving to the state board of arbitration original instead of merely appellate jurisdiction. He urged the assembly to demand fair representation for labor in the coming constitutional convention, and referred to the spectacle witnessed during the past year of judges so construing a conspiracy law as to enable them to send to prison as felons those who urged their fellow workingmen to withhold patronage from their avowed enemies. He also recommended the abolition of the political branch of the assembly which meets every September, and which Mr. Gompers said is nothing more than a nest of political wire pullers.
On a motion to accord the floor to Prison Commissioner George Blair, Mr. Jablinowski made a speech denouncing the old parties and saying that he had come to the meeting especially to propose that the state assembly should go into political action. Mr. Blair, he said, was not a labor leader. He was not only an employer, but an officeholder under one of the capitalistic parties. Mr. Blair was awarded the floor, however, and spoke of the iniquities of the contrast system, and declared that the “piece price” system was no better. A little controversy arose over' the report of the committee on credentials, which at one time threatened to disrupt the assembly or cause it to adjourn without action. In the course of this debate John McMackin of New York city declared that there was an undercurrent in the convention not generally understood: it was that of political intrigue, for which the man on the hill (the governor) was responsible. He protested against allowing the movement to be wrecked by the dictation of politicians, and declared that the governor had attempted to subsidize the labor movement in New York city.
After further debate the committee to compose differences again retired, and on their return report ed that they had reached an agreement. The announcement was received with wild enthusiasm, that showed bow eager the great body of the delegates was for harmony. The report proposed the following officers: President. Thomas J. Dowling, master work man of District Assembly 147, of Albany (he is also a trades unionist): first vice-president, William Lee, Brotherhood of Carpenters. Rochester, trade unionist: second vice-president, J. J. O'Brien, Eccentric Engineers' association No. 1, New York, Knight of Labor; secretary, George McVey, president of the United Piano Makers' union, financial secretary of the Central Labor union, New York, trade unionist; treasurer, Jno. Phillips, secretary of the Hat Finishers' National union, Brooklyn, trade unionist and Knight of Labor.
Legislative committee—F. Freckleton, of Albany: Thomas A. Culhane, Cohoes, and G. W. Flynn, of Albany. Committee on unfinished business—Knights of Labor, F. U. Coe, J. R. Munsiou, J. J. O'Brien; trades unionists, Samuel Gompers. John Franey, A. D. Best. The report was adopted with one dissenting vote.
The following propositions were referred to a committee of seven, consisting of three trades unionists, three knights and one to be selected by the other six:
A bill for food inspection; a call for a workingmen's state convention; to amend the mechanics' lien law; prevention of United States army musicians from playing for private parties: bills to provide for ten consecutive hours' work on street, roads, abolish bobtail ears and license drivers; to reduce pawnbrokers' interest to one per cent. a mouth; to prohibit the manufacture of cigars in tenement houses; to appropriate $1,000,000 for canal improvement: a resolution in favor of the Blair educational bill; bills for a constitutional convention; regulating employers' liability; reorganizing and simplifying the procedure of the civil district courts of New York city; amending the New York city election law, giving representation to all parties on the election boards polling over 50,000 votes at the preceding election; resolutions in favor of tenement house reform, and a resolution in favor of according to women the right to vote for delegates to the constitutional convention.
Thus terminated the meeting from which political wire-pullers expected so much and got so little. The officers chosen are neither pretended Knights of Labor nor professional trades unionists, but honest toilers and intelligent workers in the ranks of labor. The attempt of the politicians to either control or divide the workingmen's state assembly signally failed, and united labor stands for its rights and indifferent to the fate of the camp followers of the state administration. The few who contended for supremacy represented nothing but their own selfish desires, and the outcome has purified the atmosphere and will lead to substantial results for united labor. Its political power is not for sale, and the failure of a concentrated effort by astute politicians to control the Albany meeting shows that the fundamental principles of the labor party have taken deep root and that its adherents cannot be hoodwinked or cajoled or bribed by the allurements of official position.
Men And Women
A strike of school children is in progress in Philadelphia. Mrs. A. M. Spallen, supervising principal of the George B. McClellan public school, has been removed, because, as stated, she refused to hold the examinations in the primary department of the old school building, instead of in the new school building. On Monday the pupils refused to enter the building, and petitions are being signed by the scholars and citizens of the ward, asking that she be reinstated.
Mrs. Carrie B. Kilgore, having been appointed as master in a cause by Judge Fell of Philadelphia on Tuesday, administered an oath and took testimony. This is said to be the first time a woman ever administered an oath or exercised the power of the court in Philadelphia.
Thaddeus B. Wakeman, a member of the law committee of the labor party of this city, will address a large meeting at Boston, in the Meionaon, on Sun day evening, Jan. 30, under the auspices of the united labor party. Mr. Wakeman is an able jurist and a man of wide learning, and is a bright and ready speaker. The various organizations are preparing to give him a big reception.
Last fall the “saviors of society” utilized a certain employe in the public works, an inspector of sewer connections of the name of Carsey, to manufacture bogus trade unions and K. of L.,assemblies for newspaper consumption. But now election is over, and Carsey, like the gangs of street laborers that got a job at the same time, must go until society is pushed into a corner again. He is dis charged from the public works.
The late Rufus H. Garland of Arkansas was a leading greenbacker of that state. He was everywhere, respected for his sincerity and ability.
The National Guard
General Wingate Defends The Congressional Appropriation
The Origin of the Bill—Necessity of a Uniform and Efficient Militia System—Statement that Workingmen are Excluded from the National Guard Denied
If a public meeting were held to denounce the Knights of Labor, at which the resolutions and the speeches showed that those conducting it were utterly ignorant of the objects and even the origin of what they were criticizing, those attacked would naturally feel aggrieved. Yet I must submit that this was the case with the recent meeting at the Cooper Institute in opposition to the “Sewell bill” for the improvement of the militia. As to the constitutional question, the constitution empowers congress “to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia.” Washington, in his letter of June l8, 1780, says: “The militia of this country must be considered as the palladium of our security. It is essential, therefore, that the same system should pervade the whole: that the formation and discipline of the militia of the whole country should be absolutely uniform, and that the same species of arms and accoutrements and military apparatus should be introduced into every part of the United States. No one who has not learned it from experience can conceive the difficulty, expense and confusion which results from a contrary system as the vague arrangements which have hitherto prevailed.”
In 1793 congress passed a law for the disciplining of the militia which makes every able bodied man a member of it, and requires him to equip himself and annually parade for drill—a law which, though practically obsolete, is still the law.
In 1808, at the earnest solicitation of Jefferson, whose democracy and love of state rights no one can justly question, congress provided for an annual appropriation of $200,000, to be expended in arms for the militia of the several states, according to the number of their representatives in congress. Distribution of this appropriation has been made upon this basis since 180S, although the uninformed militia has ceased to exist. Consequently several states having no militia at all drew their proportion of the appropriation, and the arms drawn were disposed of for other purposes.
The much criticized Sewell bill simply changes this law of 1808 in the following points: 1. Raises the appropriation from $300,000 to $400.000. 2.Provides that it may be drawn by the militia in camp equipage and ordnance stores, as well as in arms. 3. Limits the distribution to such states as have an active, uniformed militia. 4. Limits the number of such militia to 500 for each representative in congress, which is about what New York now has. 5. Provides that articles drawn shall be properly accounted for.
It will thus be observed that the act denounced at the Cooper Institute was directly within the letter and spirit of the constitution, and is a measure of the same kind as was advocated by Washington, and proposed and signed by Jefferson eighty years since. The only change now made is to double an appropriation made when the population was tenfold less than it now is, except the provision allowing ordnance stores to be drawn instead of arms, and to prevent their being wasted.
As to the bill being conceived by capitalists and pressed by “money.” This is arrant nonsense. This bill was originally drawn by me (and you know I am not a capitalist) in carrying out a personal hobby, i.e., to make the militia lit for war. It has been pressed for six years by national guardsmen from all the various states, who gave their time and paid their own expenses, and it passed congress on its merits. No corporation or capitalist was ever consulted about it, nor was a cent expended except for printing and postage.
3. The bill prevents u dictatorship instead of helping it. it does not contain a single line giving the central government the slightest control over the militia. Moreover, the only thing that can prevent some “man on horseback” seizing the reins of power is a well armed and disciplined militia existing in the several states, organized and equipped in such a manner that they can unite against the army if it should ever be used against the liberties of the people.
Who is to prescribe “the uniform system” Washington speaks of as being indispensable but Congress? Where are their arms and field equipment to come from except from the general government? It may be said that the states will provide them; but experience shows that, as a rule, they will not. The older and wealthy states having a frontier to defend do so to a certain extent, but the interior states do not. Today many states have no militia. Even in those that have, the vast majority are wretchedly armed and not equipped at all. I doubt, if there are more than three states whose militia could be sent upon a campaign, however short, against a regular force. Even these have arms of different caliber and system. The militia is composed of the people at large. It comes from them and merges with them when its brief duty is performed, and they always have its sympathies. If it is called into service it is certain that it will be more considerate and sympathetic than any other force.
4. That workingmen are excluded from the militia. If this was true it should be a reason for their friends to advocate, not to oppose the bill; for clearly the more the expense for uniforms, ammunition. etc, is reduced by governmental issues, the lighter will be the tax on those in the ranks. But it is not true. On the contrary, I assert that three-quarters of the militia today are mechanics or men occupying a similar pecuniary position, and that the great majority of the officers are. men of limited means. The Eighth, Ninth, Twelfth, Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Forty-seventh, Sixty-ninth and Seventy-first regiments are largely composed of workingmen, the Eleventh and Thirty- second almost wholly so. In other sections the working element in the militia is larger than it is here.
A colonel of one of the New York regiments (and no one is more respected in national guard circles) is a plumber, and was a journeyman when he was elected an officer. Taking the team which shot against the British volunteers as a fair example, I can name among them one machinist, a compositor, a carpenter, three mechanics and one clerk, who was the son of a mason.
I personally know many men in the national guard who are conductors, mechanics of all kinds, and clerks earning less than the average mechanic, all of whom are supported by “daily wages,” and are as good soldiers and as much respected in their companies as anybody.
What defense has the country today but the militia in case of war? Some people say we are so rich and prosperous that no one dare attack us. The sheep are numerous, but that does not protect them from wolves. Our history shows that war of some kind has come at least every twenty years, generally suddenly, and has always found us more or less unprepared. Formerly lighting was done by armies hastily levied, who, although always inferior to veterans, were still fairly reliable as soon as they had acquired some discipline. Now, war is a science, and it takes a long time for a soldier, and particularly for an officer to learn his duty. The hasty levies which Gambetta raised to repel the invaders of France were brave, but they lacked training, and the Germans swept them away like chaff. Our little army of twenty-five thousand men is nothing as a means of national defense. The militia of the states to-day does not exceed seventy-five thousand, and it is doubtful if there were fifty thousand present for inspection in 1886. Today we have not a force sufficient to protect the country from Canada or even from Mexico. The real value of the militia, therefore. is not so much in their numbers as in the fact that they are a school of instruction—a kind of popular West Point. It is from them and from those who have passed through their ranks that the officers and non-commissioned officers must come who will lead the volunteer force of which any army hereafter raised for national defense must be made up, as the officers of the regular army will be few enough to fill the higher position for which scientifically educated soldiers arerequired.
It is for this reason that you will find in every state camps of instruction, in which field movements, skirmishing, etc. are made the principal features. So, too, the tendency is to reduce the number of men and fully equip and instruct those we have. This state has not half the national guard it had ten years ago.
The history of the last war shows that it is the workingmen who fill the ranks upon a sudden call for national defense, and it is their interest, therefore, to see that any system that provides for the education of officers who spring from the people is kept up. It is true that if service in the militia was made compulsory, as suggested in Mr. Levy's letter, and men were fully uniformed and paid for their time, all classes would then be represented, so that no complaint on that ground could be made. Assuming that this might be done in a time of emergency, it is impossible in time of peace. The taxpayers would not stand the imposition which would be required to meet the expense, nor would the people submit to the severe laws that would be necessary to enforce the services of those who are drafted against their will. A national guardsman who does not serve because he likes it is usually a poor soldier, and such a draft would fall the heaviest upon the worker for daily wages. I have written this in the belief that the labor organizations were not opposed to “a well-regulated militia,” referred to by Washington as indispensable, and with the desire to put right those who opposed the Sewell bill in the belief that it meant to infringe constitutional rights. Those who oppose the militia because it is the power which is sworn to sustain law and order if attacked by violence and those who look to other means than the ballot to reform evils in the body politic will not, of course, be affected by it.
George N. Wingate,
President, N. G. A. of the U. S.
New York. Jan. 18.
Gen. Roger A. Pryor Points to Three Needed Amendments in New York Law
Permit me to call attention to three particulars in which the law works an injustice to labor and an immunity to capital:
1. By section 1,902 of the code of civil procedure, an action to recover damages for the death of a person can be brought only by an executor or administrator of the deceased. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred there is no executor of such person; and accordingly in that proportion of cases the actions are brought by an administrator or administration. Before the code of civil procedure on obtaining letters of administration, a bond was required only in the ratio of the personal property left by the decedent. But in that code, section 2,067, these apparently innocuous words were inserted, viz., The administrator must execute a joint and several bond of himself and two or more sureties in a penalty fixed by the surrogate, not less than twice “the probable amount to be recovered by reason of any right of action granted to the administrator by special provision of law.” In a note to this section the codifier declares that the words quoted “were added chiefly in order to include a right of action for causing death by negligence.” The object of this provision is apparent from its effect, which is to prevent an action unless the requisite security be given.
Now, as an immense majority of suits for death by negligence are brought against corporations by the widows or orphans of laboring men, and as such persons are unable to give the bond required, viz, for twice the amount of the probable recovery, i.e., for $10,000. it results that practically these widows and orphans are denied any reparation, and these corporations are suffered to slaughter with impunity.
2. If by the negligence of another one sustains hurt short of death, he may recover indemnity commensurate with his injury; and there have been instances in this state of verdicts for broken legs, etc., to the amount of $30,000. But by section 1,904 of the code of civil procedure a recovery in a case of death is not allowed to exceed $5,000. This is flagrant injustice, for the value of the life destroyed, as estimated by a jury, is the only adequate reparation for the wrong; and it is an injustice legalized avowedly in the interests of corporations, for the pre text of the provision is that without such restraint on the discretion of juries the popular prejudice against corporations would provoke to exorbitant verdicts.
3. Another illogical and inequitable law in the interest of corporations and in hostility to the workingman—in this instance judge-made and not statutory law—is the arbitrary rule that an employer shall not be liable for an injury to his employe, if such injury were caused by the negligence of a fellow servant. But why not? The employe does not select his fellow servant, has no control of his conduct, and cannot discharge him. These things are extensively within the power of the employer; and where the power is, there should be the responsibility. The effect of taking from the employer this invidious exemption would be to make him engage more capable and careful servants, by the payment of higher wages, and so guarantee to employes greater security of life and limb. In some of the states the exemption has already been abolished by statutory provision.
Roger A. Pryor.
Cincinnati's Labor Party
Cincinnati, O., Jan. 23.—The work laid out by the united labor party convention is rapidly progressing. The committee of twenty-five, representing each ward, agreed today. that the wards should be divided up into clubs of one hundred members, who should be required to subscribe to the platform and general principles of the united labor party. Bankers, gamblers and politicians are ineligible. Every safeguard will be taken to prevent outside manipulation. The outlook is very encouraging. The progress of the movement is exciting increasing comment and denunciation. The press is opposed to us. A new name in polities here is incomprehensible. The Jimmys, Johnnies, Tommies, Tims and Mikes don't know how to explain it. But Lord, bless their dear innocent souls, we have just begun: The whole situation is summed up in the nursery rhyme:
“I cannot marry you, my pretty maid.”
“Nobody asked you, sir,” she said.
A. S. Houghton.
German American Bakers' Journal
In order that the English members of the Journeymen Bakers' union of the United States might learn something about what occurs concerning the organization the official organ, the German American Bakers' Journal, will hereafter have one page printed in English. The page is of convenient size, and the type large and clear. The matter is composed of editorials, correspondence, and clippings from contemporaries.
The Committee Of The Party In This City Finally Organized
Resolutions Concerning the Pinkerton Men—Congress Asked to Investigate—Words of Cheer to the National Committee from All Parts of the Country
The representatives of the united labor party met again at Clarendon hall on Friday, the 2lst. A debate was had as to whether the body could properly be called a convention or only a committee. It was decided that it was a convention. The rules were then suspended, and two sets of resolutions condemning the Pinkerton detective system were read. Patrick Doody read one, Col. Hinton the other. The resolutions finally adopted commenced with a vigorous preamble and finished as follows:
Resolved, That we call upon the governor of the state of New York to assert his authority and to stamp out the blood stained gang who have dared establish their headquarters in the metropolis of American civilization: that we demand of the New York legislature the immediate enactment of a law forbidding the employment as special officers of men who are not citizens of the state, and have not resided three years at least in the county where they are to be so employed; all such special officers to be in the exclusive service and pay of the proper authorities, under pain of fine and imprisonment for receiving any salary or reward from individuals or corporations.
Resolved, That we hereby ask Congress to appoint a committee to investigate, with full power, the institutions of the co:ii pools and the interstate rai1roads connected therewith; also to inquire into the employment and use of armed forces under the control of private detective agencies, and to report on the law and the facts connected therewith as early as possible.
It being understood that Dr. McGlynn desired that no resolution in regard to his expulsion should be offered at the meeting, none were read.
The committee on constitution, through Prof. De Leon, submitted a constitution. On motion it was laid over till next meeting, to be discussed section by section.
Delegate McKay of the Twelfth district then moved that the body be called the county general committee of the united labor party. His motion was carried after a hot debate.
Below are given a few brief extracts from the correspondence of the central committee, 28 Cooper Union:
J. B. Nelson, Macon, Georgia: If we are to accomplish anything in the national field, it is the country outside of the cities that should nest engage our attention. The cities are all right. What machinery can be used to reach the farmers?
Charles F. Kipp, secretary of the Lathers' union, Columbus, Ohio: We are taking steps to organize here on the basis of the Clarendon hall platform, and you shall hear from us soon.
John M. Shaffner, the “Breadwinner,” Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Our club is making good progress, hut we must now take steps to organize the whole of this section, and I am ready to help all I can.
Charles A. Schoonover, secretary of the Union club. Danbury, Connecticut: I have no doubt that we shall soon be ready to organize under your committee, and we shall take our politics right into the borough meetings here. Members are required to declare their withdrawal from the old parties, which are irretrievably corrupt, and whose continued existence is a menace to liberty.
Morris L. Williams, Chester, Pennsylvania: We have already got many names and shall double them at the next meeting, and before long we shall have ten claim of a hundred members each in this city—a thousand good men and true.
M. W. C, Boston, Massachusetts: I am a manufacturer, and anxious to devote both time and money to spreading a knowledge of the principles on which you stand. How can we educate the people of Boston on the land question?
James Doyle, Raleigh, North Carolina: T am anxious to do all in my power to organize the state on the lines you have laid down. There is grievous need of education on the land question here.
J . S . H., New Wilmington, Pennsylvania: I am deeply interested in the success of the cause you represent, for I have studied the subject enough to know what you are on the right track.
F. J. B., Dubuque, Iowa: I most cordially indorse the Clarendon hall platform, and shall bring up the subject of organization at our next meeting.
Locke Craig. Asheville, North Carolina: We are now in shape to begin aggressive work, and I think that the reveille will not be sounded in vain in the Old North state.
D. C.. Ballard. Cameron, Missouri: There is as much good in your program as there is in those of both the old parties, and so much to spare that they can be left out entirely and not [text missing].
Marshall Hunzeker, Edgewater, Pennsylvania: Your teachings will benefit the poor and I am one of them. I have been in active worker in the cause of labor for many years, and am anxious to help forward the work, thinking that my humble endeavor may be productive of some good to suffering humanity. It is high lime that we of the working classes should bestir ourselves, otherwise there is grave trouble ahead. We must right our own wrongs at the ballot box. Failing in that, how can we hope to do so in any other manner than by force, which God forbid? The prospects here are good. Workingmen's curses are not loud, hut they are deep, and I think they are tireder voting for Tweedle Dee, republican, and Tweedle Run, democrat.
K. H. Ferguson, Buffalo, New York: I do not despair of this city, but if does seem as if the screws hadnot yet been turned down quite enough on the slaves of toll.
Joseph Grahame, Williamsport, Pennsylvania: We are forming a land and labor club. God speed you in the good work.
John A. Roost, Holland. Michigan: Depend upon it, all that we need is organization to make ours the genuine party of the people. The only difference between the old parties is that of office not at all or principle.
F. W. Rockwel1, Farmington Herald. Farmington, Iowa: I am anxious to put myself in communication with the workers of New York; for the cause less some friends here, and before long we shall organize them.
Benjamin Adams, Charleston, South Carolina: I hear that there will be a national conference of land and labor men next month. Let me know when and where i! will take place. Perhaps we might send one of our members to represent South Carolina.
F. S. H., Hoosick Falls, New York: I have watched the progress of your organization with a keen sense of approval and am with the movement heart and hand. Something must become in this locality, for we have as yet no political party of our own. Such an atmosphere of suspicion prevails among us that we are powerless for good without some outside help to place us on the right truck. I know a large number of men hitherto allied with the old parties who are now ready and anxious to join the new movement to free the white slaves from the oppression of the giant monopoly and their tools, the democratic and republican parties.
A. H. Stephenson, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Our membership is increasing rapidly and I hope we shall be able to do a great deal of good in an educational way. Certainly no city needs education on the land question more than does Philadelphia.
The central committee has appointed Mr. Benjamin Adams of Charleston to be state Organizer of South Carolina. The following call has also been issued:
In accordance with a resolution adopted by the central committee Jan. 10, a conference is hereby called, to consist of one representative of each land and labor club already chartered or now in course of formation, and of one from each congressional district in New York city, to meet at Cooper Union, Wednesday, Feb. 16 next, to consider the state of the movement in the country at large and to advise as to measures for the future.
A Good Example
Mr. C. H. Miller writes from Elgin, Ill., that the local assembly of the Knights of Labor to which he belongs has passed resolutions for the dissemination of literature on labor problems and other political and social questions of the day, appropriating ten dollars per month for a period of live months to purchase hooks, tracts, etc., appointing a committee to select the literature purchased and requesting members to exchange among themselves by way of loan what reading matter they have on the subjects indicated. He adds that in four months there have been distributed among the members 200 books and 900 tracts.
The Present Land System Unchristian
Rev. Washington Gladden, in one of a course of lectures on “Christianity and Socialism,” at Yale college, said recently that after historical investigation he had concluded that the community still retains right to the land it occupies, and when private ownership conflicts with general welfare the state should recall its lands. This he said, accords with the Christian doctrine of property, that the nation is a body of men inhabiting continuously a certain territory, organized for moral ends and holding its sovereignty from God. Christian morality protests against such a distribution of land as is permitted in England, where millions of acres are shut up in parks, I while hundreds her poor are hungry and homeless.
Archbishop Corrigan's Explanation
On Jan. 18 the committee appointed by the parishioners of St. Stephen's wrote a respectful letter to the archbishop, requesting an interview. On Jan. 10, it appears from a letter which Archbishop Corrigan himself has given to the press that he arrogantly told thorn in reply that “in the Catholic church bishops give an account of their official action to their superiors when occasion requires, and not to those under their charge.” He nevertheless condescendingly added that as a matter of favor he was willing to state the reasons for his action in Dr. McGlynn's case, provided the doctor would express, in writing, a desire to that effect. So far as the public are informed Dr. McGlynn did notexpress this desire, either in writing or in any other way: but the ink was hardly dry upon his letter to the committee when Archbishop Corrigan gave to the press what he calls a simple, straightforward and final statement of the facts in the case.
It did not need the brief declaration which this pronunciation of the archbishop has called forth from Dr. McGlynn, who in this, for the first time, breaks the silence he has all along maintained, to show to the careful reader that what the archbishop calls “a simple and straightforward statement of the facts in the case,” is in reality a piece of pitiful pettifogging. In which suppression of documents and parts of documents is made to give a false color to important particulars—particulars as to which the Catholic mind is especially sensitive. For a full and straightforward statement of facts it is evident that the public will have to wait until Dr. McGlynn shall feel able to make it.
But Archbishop Corrigan's statement is straightforward enough in what to the general public is the matter of the greatest importance. He makes no pretense whatever of disguising the fact that the offense for which the foremost priest on the American continent has been, so far as ecclesiastical power could compass it, silenced, degraded and ruined, is that he ventured, in purely political matters to express opinions different from those prescribed for him.
With an astounding and evidently unstudied frankness, Archbishop Corrigan declares to the American public that American priests, no matter what their political convictions, must be governed in American polities by orders from Rome. He unblushingly asserts that Dr. McGlynn, an American citizen. was in 1882 under penalty of being suspended from his vocation as the pastor of a congregation of American citizens in the American city of New York, compelled to promise to abstain from publicly expressing sympathy with the peaceful struggle. of a friendly people against a galling tyranny, and was in 1883 compelled to promise to abstain from such expressions of sympathy, even for charitable objects, because, forsooth, the Italian cardinals of the propaganda, with whom the English agent Errington was then carrying on a successful intrigue, objected to it; that he was in 1886, on the ground of orders from a foreign country, forbidden to attend a certain meeting relating to the municipal politics of New York, or to take part in any political meeting “without permission of the sacred congregation of propaganda fide” in Rome; that he was actually suspended because he addressed a political meeting against “the distinct wishes of the S. C of Propaganda;” that he was again suspended because in some sort of an utterance (most likely a newspaper interview) he expressed an opinion with reference to the public policy of an American community that in Archbishop Corrigan's imagination ran counter to some “statement of the holy father,” and that this suspension was finally made continuous and an American citizen deprived of his livelihood, because he refused to retract certain politico-economic convictions at the bidding of Rome, and failed to proceed to Italy to be questioned and punished for his course in American affairs.
The brutal boorishness with which Archbishop Corrigan utterly ignores Dr. McGlynn's reasons for not proceeding to Rome; the manner in which Dr. McGlynn has been repeatedly ordered to cross the Atlantic in the dead of winter, despite the fact that his physician, Dr. Shrady, one of the most eminent in this country—the editor of a leading medical journal, and one of the physicians called upon to attend President Garfield and Gen. Grant—positively forbade the trip, declaring that at present it might be fatal, is a matter which concerns the personal character of Messrs. Corrigan and Simeoni, and which is only of interest to the general public as showing that it is not necessary to be a gentleman to arrive at high dignity in the Catholic church. But the fact that a Catholic archbishop claims, by virtue of authority derived from a foreign country, to absolutely dictate the political course of American citizens, and that an American priest can be stripped of all that he holds dear and be summoned to Europe to be interrogated and punished for his course in .American polities, is of the very highest importance not only to American Catholics, but to the whole American people. If Archbishop Corrigan and Cardinal Simeoni do truly represent the Catholic church, then Catholicism is utterly inconsistent with free institutions, and in it we have in our midst a secret, irresponsible political machine, which may be used by domestic schemers or foreign enemies to undermine and destroy the republic.
In the second issue of the Standard I stated that in the last election Archbishop Corrigan not only wanted to defeat a certain candidate, but also wanted to defeat the call for a constitutional convention; that he communicated with priests to influence them to vote against the convention, and that at a gathering where one of these priests endeavored to carry out the wishes of the archbishop a proposition was made to get hold of the bags containing ballots in favor of the convention and destroy them.
Archbishop Corrigan saw fit through a Herald reporter to say that this statement was false, and through a Tribune reporter that it was ridiculous ; whereupon I stated in the last number of the Standard that if he would come out over his own signature and make an unequivocal denial, I would either give my authority or retract the statement. In the meantime, as showing that such interference in polities was nothing new on the part. of Archbishop Corrigan, I referred to the fact that as Bishop of Newark some years ago he sought in a similar way to influence the priests of his diocese to defeat certain proposed amendments to the constitution of New Jersey.
Archbishop Corrigan has not seen lit to make the denial I called for, nor do 11hink he is likely to. If he does, however, I stand ready either to substantiate the statement or to make public retraction.
In the interval the New York Herald has limited up the facts in the New Jersey episode to which I referred. In 1875 amendments to the constitution of New Jersey were submitted to the vote of the people of that state. These amendments prohibited the legislature from granting special privileges to corporations, associations or individuals. and from making special laws in reference to the management and support of public schools; prohibited the donation of land, money, property or credit by the state or any municipal corporation to any individual, association or corporation; forbade counties, cities and towns from becoming security for, or directly or indirectly the owner of any stocks or bonds of any association or corporation, and required the legislative to provide for the support of a thorough and efficient system of free public schools.
A few days before the election Archbishop Corrigan, then bishop of Newark, issued the following letter to the priests of his diocese, a copy of which was obtained by the Newark Daily Advertiser and published by it on the evening preceding the election. Its authenticity has never been denied:
Newark, Sept. 3, 1875.
Reverend and Dear Sir—Having taken legal ad vice, I am informed that by the new constitutional amendments clerical property is liable to taxation. This would involve so heavy an additional burden to the diocese that I feel it my duty to recommend you to INSTRUCT your people to strike out the objectionable clause, or, better still, to make assurance doubly sure, let them strike out the whole ballot.
It is not enough to abstain from voting; let them vote, and vote against the amendment Very truly yours,
Michael, Bishop of Newark.
P. S.—Remember that our people must cancel by pen or pencil the whole ballot and then vote it thus canceled, in order to protest against in justice.
Remember also that the special election in regard to these constitutional amendments will take place next Tuesday, Sept. 7.
Observe the phraseology. The archbishop, with the absolute power of removal and promotion in his hands, recommends to his priests to INSTRUCT their people how to vote on a most important constitutional amendment. This is the power which Archbishop Corrigan uses, as he claims, at the behest of Italian cardinals.
The true story of how this letter of Bishop Corrigan's got into print has never been publicly told, although it has been laughed over many a time in the private gatherings of Catholic clergy, when they felt secure from archiepiscopal eavesdroppers. Many of the priests of the Newark diocese felt humiliated and outraged by Bishop Corrigan's interference in politics then, just as many of the priests of this diocese feel humiliated and outraged by Archbishop Corrigan's interference in polities now, but being absolutely under his thumb, none of them dared to say a word. There was, however, in the diocese a German priest, whose knowledge of English was so extremely limited that he interpreted the word “confidential” written across the bishop's letter to mean “confide all”—that is to say, “tell everybody;” “publish this broadcast,” and finding privately that this was his notion of “confidential,” some American priests took means to quietly intimate to a Newark Advertiser reporter that he had better go to see the German priest and ask for a copy of the bishop's letter, as a matter of course. The reporter went; the German priest instantly complied, glad to get the opportunity to obey what he thought was the injunction of his bishop, the Newark Advertiser published the letter, and the waggish priests had a laugh which comes back vet whenever the incident is recalled.
But it is not for the sake of the good story that I refer to this incident; it is as illustrating the feelings of the Catholic clergy. On another page of this paper are published an editorial from the Catholic Herald and a Brooklyn Times interview with a priest whose name is not given, but who will be widely recognized as the foremost of the Irish Catholic clergymen of that city. By both of these authorities the assertion is made that the majority of the Catholic priests are in hearty sympathy with Dr. McGlynn, and from my own knowledge I believe this to be the case. If the Catholic priests were not so absolutely under the dominion of their bishops they would now be the loudest in protesting against the slavish doctrines which Archbishop Corrigan, backed by the papal authorities, is trying to impose upon them as Catholicism.
But there is now no question about the feeling of the masses of the Catholic laity. If any proof had been needed, the manner in which the immense assemblage at Madison Square garden received Michael Davitt's endorsement of Dr. McGlynn and his denunciation of Cardinal Simeoni, and especially the thunders of applause, renewed and renewed again, that greeted his repetition of O'Connell's words, “All the religion that you like from Rome. but no polities,” would have been sufficient to convince anyone that American Catholics, and especially American Catholics of Irish blood. resent Archbishop Corrigan's interpretation of Catholicism as an insult to thorn and a slander on their religion, and are prepared to maintain their political independence against archbishop, cardinal or the pope himself.
It is instructive to observe that, although Michael Davitt saw fit at first to echo the cry that in defending Dr. McGlynn I had attacked the Catholic church, yet no sooner does he come to New York and attempt in the most moderate way to express his feelings upon the outrage, than the same cry goes up that he has attacked the Catholic church. And it is instructive to observe as showing the notions of the man, that Archbishop Corrigan declared to a Tribune reporter, that—
“Cardinal Simeoni is the holy father's secretary. What he does is done under the direction of the pope himself. Consequently, to attack the cardinal is equivalent to attacking the holy father. Mr. Davitt might just as well have attacked him as his secretary.”
Archbishop Corrigan's notion is evidently that the pope is the infallible guide in polities as well as in faith, and that this sort of infallibility attaches not only to his secretary, but to all his ecclesiastical inferiors in all parts of the world.
A Catholic prelate, according to Corriganism, can meddle in polities as much as he chooses, and can command his priests to instruct their people how to vote on any question of man or measure, but if anyone dares to remonstrate, he is insulting religion and attacking the church.
This may be the sort of Catholicism that Archbishop Corrigan believes in and that the Italian reactionists of the propaganda are trying to rivet on the Catholic world in order to use it to beat back the march of democracy; but it is not Catholicism as it is understood by Irish and American Catholics, and as it has been taught by the theologians of the church. According to the most eminent Catholic writers, the pope is no more than a common man, subject to all the weaknesses and frailties of a common man, save when he is speaking ex cathedra [literally “from the chair;” is we would say of a judge, “from the bench”] in his official capacity, tothe universal church, on matters of faith or doctrine.
This is what Dr. McGlynn evidently means when he declares that as a Catholic he would renounce his convictions on the land question if the pope were in this way to condemn thorn. As a Catholic. Dr. McGlynn believes that the pope could not do this, oven if he tried; that Divine Providence would interpose, just as in the biblical record it interposed in the case of Balaam.
As showing Catholic teaching on the limits of church authority, we commend to Archbishop Corrigan and to his backers of the press a standard Catholic work called “The Faith of Catholics” published first in the early part of this century by Fathers Berington and Kirk, two eminent English priests, revised by Father Waterworth and published in this country, with an introduction by Rev. Dr. Capel, “domestic prelate of Pope Leo XIII., member of the congregation of the signature, priest of the archdiocese of Westminster,” etc., and which has been endorsed from time to time by no end of Catholic authorities. On the last page of the first volume of this work they will find, printed in large italic type, in order to give it greater prominence, the following proposition:
EXTENT OF THE INERRANCY OF THE CHURCH.
It is no article of the Catholic faith that the church cannot err, either in matters of fact not relating to faith, or in matters of discipline, things alterable by the circumstances of time and place ; or in matters of speculation or civil policy, depending on mere human judgment or testimony. These things are no revelations deposited in the church in regard of which alone she has the promised assistance of the Holy Spirit.
The “fly in the ointment” in Michael Davitt's otherwise magnificent speech was his intimation that Dr. McGlynn ought to go to Rome. The true ring came from that Catholic audience in cries of “No, no; let Rome come to him.” And in truth, Michael Davitt's whole speech was an impassioned argument why the American priest should not go to Rome (otherwise known as Cardinal Simeoni). From his own statement, it is about time that Rome should understand, from both Irish and American Catholics. that it has nothing whatever to do with their polities.
A vague notion seems to prevail in some quarters that Dr. McGlynn has been called to Rome in order to present his views and discuss the land question. The cable dispatches given to the public by the archbishop must dispel this notion. Dr. McGlynn is ordered by Cardinal Simeoni to retract in writing his views upon the land question, and to go to Rome. If he cannot do the one, what is the use of his doing the other ? The terrible things that are to be done to him, because as an American citizen he has such strong political opinions of his own that he cannot automatically take up others at the dictation of ecclesiastical princelings, might as well be done hero as in Rome.
In the meantime the continued outrages on the parishioners of St. Stephen's speak for themselves.
War Talk And What Is Behind It
The “war talk” in the senate on the passage of the Edmunds-Payne bill, giving to the president the power of adopting retaliatory measures toward Canada for her treatment of our fishermen, was buncombe of the most ridiculous kind. There is no reason why there should be even the shadow of a thought of war between England and the United States. England has nothing to gain by going to war with us, and we have nothing to gain by going to war with England. An armed conflict between the two nations would be merely the causeless destruction of thousands of millions of property, the murder in agonizing ways of thousands of men in the prime of life, the maiming of other thousands and the depriving of vast numbers of women and children of their natural protectors and bread winners, the aggrandizement of corrupt rings, and the sowing of seeds of bitterness and hatred, to bear their crop in future generations. Neither nation could possibly gain anything by it, while both would be certain to lose enormously.
Whatever trouble we may have with Canada has for its bottom cause that foolish, mean and anti-social policy miscalled “protection.” We can practically annex Canada whenever we please, and make the whole continent north of the Mexican line the common country of one homogeneous people. in which there will be no more thought of war than there is today between New York and New Jersey. This we can do by merely abolishing the tariff which erects an artificial barrier between the free intercourse of our people with their brethren of British America. Canada would very gladly follow our example, and the products of the two countries could exchange as freely is now do those of any two states in the American Union. With this unrestricted trade would come such an intimate intercourse as would blend the two peoples into one. If Canada chose to keep up her separate political institutions, and to fly the British flag on her public buildings instead of the Stars and Stripes, it would make no difference to us, and but little difference to them. But in the course of a few years the inevitable tendency would be to make the union in name what it would already have become in reality.
But this war talk, which everybody knows is mere solemn foolery. is made a pretext to urge costly preparations against dangers which nobody really fears. A concerted effort is being made by the steel and iron rings, backed by the sentiment in favor of a strong government, to commit our people to the policy of fortifying their coasts: and in double-headed articles the journalistic organs of monopoly I shriek out that our great cities are at the mercy of the first corner, and that we have no forts, no guns, no ships, fit to withstand the attack of an enemy!
Well, suppose we have not; neither have we any enemy. With the jealousies and hatreds and greeds that make Europe an armed camp we have nothing whatever to do. We have no cause of quarrel with any nation on earth, and no nation on earth can have any disposition to quarrel with us. Mexico is not going to invade us; Canada is not going to attack us; and there is not one of the great European powers, nor all of them combined, that could find anything but loss in a war with the United States.
In the infancy of the republic, when our weakness might have exposed us to insult or in jury, and even to the dream of conquest on the part of a groat European power, there might have been some sense in spending money on fortifications and war ships; but a nation of sixty millions of people—as a whole the richest,the most intelligent, the most active and the most inventive of any people on earth—we are today the strongest nation in the world, and every year that passes increases our strength. With the close of the century our sixty millions will be nearly one hundred millions; and in all the essentials which enable a nation to fight when need be, we shall tower among the groat powers as a giant among ordinary men. the lighting ability of a nation does not depend upon its standing armies and war ships and ironclad fortifications, but on the numbers and wealth and patriotism of its people, on the credit which they can command, and on their ability to stand taxation. And if it be true that in time of peace we ought to prepare for war, then the best way of preparing for war is not to erect forts and build ironclads, but. to give free play to industrial energy. A thousand men engaged in productive occupations, and thus adding to the general wealth, are a better preparation for war than ton thousand men idling away their time in guarding forts and eating up the wealth that others produce.
And the American people are being urged to build themselves steel forts and huge ironclads just at a time when the progress of in vent ion makes it certain that the steel forts and ironclad ships are to be as antiquated in the warfare of the future as suits of mail and crossbows are today.
The development of the torpedo and sub-marine gun will show in the next great war that the enormous sums which Europe has spent in plating ships with iron and steel have been thrown away, and that these monsters, constructed at such enormous cost, are, in the presence of an active enemy armed ,with the latest scientific weapons, but weighted coffins for their crews. So, too, is it certain that the art of navigating the air, or at least of launching aerial explosive-bearers, has already so far advanced that steelclad fortresses are now as useless as the stone forts which the last generation erected. There is no more sense in the American republic building itself steelclad forts and ironclad ships than there would be in Charles A. Dana rigging himself up in a thirteenth century suit of armor and carrying a matchlock through the streets of New York.
But there are other purposes behind all this talk of the necessity of putting the republic in a state of preparation for war. In the first place, there is in the building of ironclads and the erection of forts a groat deal of money for contractors and rings. In the second place, it is a good way of get ting rid of the surplus in the treasury without reducing taxation. Every million voted for fortifications this year will insure the demand for two millions next year, and thus an excuse will be afforded for keeping up a system of taxation which enriches the few at the expense of the many. And in the third place, the committal of the United States to the policy of maintaining an expensive navy and an elaborate system of fortifications is a groat step toward a “strong government.”
Although they may not openly avow it in the press and in public, the rich men of the United States today are yearning for what they call a strong government, and in any company where they talk freely with each other the conversation always tends to the necessity of so strengthening the government that it will be able to secure the rights of property and preserve order—by which they mean the putting down with a strong hand of all labor combinations and strikes. Thoroughly frightened by the rise of labor organizations. By the rapid growth of radical ideas and by evidences that the workingmen of the country propose to go into polities for themselves, the millionaires of the United States would to-day. if it were loft to them, gladly welcome a ruler like Bismarck and a standing army like that of Germany; not for a defense against foreign powers, but to keep down any revolt against the system which enables them to enjoy wealth at the expense of their fellow citizens. the spirit that raises and pays Pinkerton's detectives, that proposes to make Chicago a garrison town, and that asks for the turning of the militia into a regular army, is one and the same with that which clamors for forts and ironclads. The workingmen of the United States ought not, to fall into the trap. It is not England or France or Germany, let alone Peru or Canada, but they themselves that these warlike preparations are wanted to guard against.
The interests of the working masses are everywhere for peace. The common people, the working people, always suffer by a war. It is they who are called upon to spill the blood, to undergo the agony, to pay the cost. It is they who swell the ranks of “food for powder,L while the rich pay substitutes; or if they fight at all, fill the commissioned others. War has always the effect which our last war had, of making the rich richer and the poor poorer, and it is the great means by which the masses of men have everywhere been enslaved. And so is it with preparations for war. American workingmen ought to set their faces like flint against any attempt to rivet upon thorn the burdens of armaments. If the United States goes into the policy of building ironclads and erecting steel forts, the result will be to largely increase the class of professional fighting men maintained in idleness, whose influence and whose strength can always be counted on by the government as against the people—a class who by their education and sympathies learn to look upon the government as one thing and the people another. The garrisons of these forts, the crews of these ships, that we are now asked to provide against imaginary enemies, will constitute, for the seaport cities at least, just the kind of a standing army that American millionaires yearn for.
Instead of increasing our standing army and standing navy, the policy of American workingmen ought to be not only to gradually reduce what we already have, but to completely change their character.
A standing army and a standing navy are not only unworthy of a republic so great and so strong as the American republic, but they are in their organization utterly un-American. Annapolis and West Point are simply the training schools of aristocrats, and in the distinction between the enlisted man and the commissioned officer we preserve a distinction of the kind that grew up in Europe when it was held that the noble was born to command and the serf to obey. In whatever army or navy we have the commissioned officers ought to be taken from the men, and the. treatment of both be that of American citizens, differing only in the responsibility of the positions they hold in the service of a nation whose cardinal principle it is that all citizens stand upon a footing of absolute equality. Under our present un- American system the nation is saddled with the maintenance of a horde of officers who hold like leeches toa service that not only yields them good nay for little work, but gives them an aristocratic distinction, while the treatment of enlisted men is such that they run away so fast that it is even proposed to brand them like galley slaves in order to keep them in the service.
Despite all the attempts to force it into use, the circulation of the silver dollar is steadily decreasing. The people don't want it, and when it is forced upon them return it to the treasury as fast as they can. Yet they are being taxed to coin $2,000,000 more silver dollars every month, to be added to the other millions now lying in the government vaults. If we were to spend $2,000,000 a month in pumping up salt water from the bay of San Francisco, carrying it across the continent and emptying it in to New York harbor. it would not be a more stupid waste of national resources.
The silver notes, however, do go into circulation. They are as readily taken and pass for as great a value as though they promised to pay gold. There could be no better demonstration of the fact that paper money gets its value from the credit of the government issuing it, and not from the value of any specific thing which is supposed to be stowed away in order to redeem it. We might sell all the gold and silver that now lies in our treasury vaults and refuse to buy any more, and at the same time have a currency that the people do like, and that serves all the purposes of money more conveniently and more cheaply than any other medium of exchange. Instead of supporting the coinage of silver, what the greenbackers ought to do is to advocate the issue of government notes. We should have but one paper currency, and that the distinct issue of government. And we should only coin gold and silver in such quantities as are demanded.
In The Right Direction
The discussion of the great questions forced into practical politics by the united labor party of New York in the last municipal election is already producing gratifying results, and light is beginning to appear in dark places.
For instance, the New York Sun, which in the last campaign so bitterly opposed the labor party, has so far progressed in economic education that in a recent editorial it comes out squarely in favor of concentrating taxation on land values. Very properly stigmatizing as narrow and delusive the notion that equality of taxation is to be gained by the more severe enforcement of taxes on personal property, the Sun goes on:
There is one general principle which should always be considered by those who undertake to settle the imposition of taxes upon the people. This principle is that taxes should be so levied as to interfere to the least possible extent with the growth of business, manufactures and population in the commonwealth, and so that they may be collected with the greatest practicable ease and certainty. Moreover, the regard should be had to the certain disposition of men to escape from paying taxes and to their readiness to resort to deceit for this purpose. Or, to state it in another form, taxation should he so imposed that, no deceit and no evasion should be easily practicable.
The one subject of taxation about which there cannot be any deception or uncertainty is the land; and when this is taxed, all persons, those who live by cultivating the land and those who I do not, have at last to pay their proper share of the taxes.
If we insist upon taxing every form of personal property, we hinder the establishment of manufactures, and we burden commerce and drive it away from us; and at the same time we fail of our purpose, because the evasions and deceptions of men will prove too much for the officers of the law. According to the report ofthe state assessors of New York, the taxation of the state is apportioned between land and personal property, as follows:
It thus appears that nine-tenths of the taxes in this state are now levied upon the land, and it would require but a slight change to laythe whole of them upon it.
There are also various money-lending corporations that may properly be subjected to taxation, but every form of commercial and manufacturing enterprise, and personal property of every nature, should be free from taxes. Then manufactures and capital will gather into the state, and New York will become greater, more powerful and more prosperous than ever.
This, and especially the sentence we have italicized, is a virtual endorsement of the workingmen's platform, and we congratulate our contemporary on having escaped from the clutches of candidate Hewitt's nightmare, and on realizing at last that instead of bringing anarchy and chaos, the exemption from taxation of all the products of industry would make New York richer and more prosperous than ever before.
There is one error. however, that it may be worth while to point out. It is not true that nine-tenths of the taxes of this state are now levied upon land. Real estate is not land, but land and improvements; and it being the custom inthis state, as well as in other states, to tax improved land As land higher because of improvements, as well as to tax the improvements themselves, the real estate taxes from which the greater part of our state and municipal revenues are derived are actually taxes against improvement.
It may also be well to point out that there is no more reason for taxing “money-lending corporation” than for taxing manufactures or commerce, and so long as agencies of commerce, and so long as there are so many of us who want to borrow money, it is foolish to impose any tax which must have a tendency to drive money out of the state, and to compel those who want to borrow money to pay more for it.
Nevertheless, this article is one of many appearing in all parts of the country, which show the rapid advance that public opinion is making in economic questions. And this advance must go on. The truth always comes out in discussion, and discussion of the fundamental principles of taxation has been now so well started that it cannot be stopped.
Whoever begins to appreciate the advantages, as a matter of mere fiscal adjustment, of placing all taxes on land values, will not be long before he begins to see its far deeper bearings upon social problems.
By raising all our public revenues by taxes levied on land values we should dispense with much costly and corrupting governmental machinery; we should do away with incentives to fraud and perjury which make false swearing, bribe-giving and bribe-taking matters of course, and we should remove all those burdens upon industry and capital that acting and reacting in all directions, enormously lessen the production wealth. But this is not all. We should at the same time be making it unprofitable to withhold from labor the natural opportunities for its employment.
To put all our taxes upon the value of land, irrespective of improvements, so that the man who held a vacant lot would be called on to pay as much taxes as the man who had built a house or erected a factory upon a lot of equal value, would be to make it more profitable to build houses or erect factories, and so burdensome to hold vacant lots, that those who now hold thorn would be forced to got rid of them as quick) was possible to people who wanted to make use of them. The weight of our taxation would thus fall upon monopoly, not upon industry, and the consequence would be that city lots, farming lands, mines and all other natural opportunities for the employment of labor that are now held idle by those who neither use them themselves nor permit others to use them. would be thrown open to labor. Thus an illimitable field for the employment of labor would be opened. which would relieve the glut in the labor market, and put an end to that cutthroat competition for employment among men unable to employ themselves that now constantly tends to force wages to a starvation rate, and is the primary cause of all “labor troubles.”
A Socialist In Heaven
We print elsewhere a second article on the Utopia of Sir Thomas More, who has recently been beatified by the Catholic church, and who will probably before long he canonized as a saint. In view of the fact that a serious attempt has recently been made in this city to show that the Catholic church will not tolerate a belief that these things that God made and man cannot make belong to the people in common. it is at least curious to find the church beatifying this old-time champion of the rights of the poor, a man who believed that not only natural resources, but the direct products of human labor, should be held in common.
Aside from this phase of the matter it is interesting to see how closely the language of a reformer in the earlier years of Henry VIII, resembles that of the men who in this fiftieth year of Victoria denounce the greed of the and holders who gather where they did not sow and selfishly force down the poop into misery.
The superficial thinker and the self-satisfied possessor of good things will only see in this evidence that the oppression of the poor has existed in all ages and must continue for all time to come. Such people are mistaken. Freedom's struggle from the time of the blessed Sir Thomas More to die present time has aimed chic fly at placing that potent weapon, the ballot, in the hands of the people. In this country, at least, that was accomplished long ago, and at last those who bear the burdens of our civilized society and who create all the wealth that such society enjoys have come to see how to put that weapon to use in their own behalf.
Theywill use it, and thus in time build up in this western land a nobler commonwealth than that dreamed of by the author of Utopia—one that will avoid the extreme socialism he portrayed, and leave free play to individual action and incentive while securing to, the people in common the ownership of those natural resources monopolized here today by individuals as they were in England more than three centuries ago.
Dodging Behind The Constitution
In a recent speech ex-Gov. Dorsheimer opposed federal taxation of land values as a substitute for customs and internal revenue duties on the ground, as he expressed it, that “not a single square foot of the soil of this country can be taxed by the federal government without amending the constitution of the United States.” Mr. Dorsheimer's constitutional law is as bad as his political economy.
Congress has power to lay and collect direct taxes as well as duties, imposts and excises. This much Mr. Dorsheimer may be credited with knowing; but inasmuch as direct taxes must be apportioned among the several states according to population, and a tax upon land values is a direct tax, he jumps to the conclusion that a tax upon land values, irrespective of improvements, would be unconstitutional But congress has frequently imposed such taxes and apportioned them among the several states according to population without exciting any doubt as to their constitutionality. On the contrary, the supreme court has resorted to those tax laws for aid in constitutional construction. In 1798 the tax was laid upon “dwelling houses, lands and slaves, according to value;” in 1813, upon real estate and slaves, according to value;” in 1815. upon “the values of all lands and lots of ground, with their improvements, dwelling houses and slaves,” and in 1861 on the same values. The amounts thus raised and apportioned among the several states, according to population, ranged from two millions to twenty millions.
Now, if congress could collect two millions in 1798 and twenty millions in 1861, requiring from each state a quota proportional to its population, to be raised by a direct tax upon land according to values, why cannot congress collect all the revenues of the federal government by requiring of each state a quota according to its population, to be raised by a direct tax on land values alone?
Perhaps Mr. Dorsheimer can answer. If not, let him not again attempt to clothe his economic prejudices with constitutional gauze.
Aid For The National Guard
Gen. Wingate contributes to this issue of the Standard an elaborate defense of the proposed appropriation in aid of the national guard. His position as president of the National Guard association and his long experience in national guard affairs are a guarantee that he has made the best argument that can be made for the appropriation.
The defense is essentially weak in confounding a militia with the national guard. It is not claimed by labor organizations that congress has no power to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia; nor that a well disciplined and uniformly organized and equipped militia is not necessary. But it is claimed that armed social clubs are not necessary or desirable and that congress has no constitutional right to provide for the organizing, arming and disciplining of such clubs.
That the national guard is composed of social clubs is a fact. The different companies have their own by-laws, they fix initiation fees, dues and lines, and by a vote they determine who shall he admitted to their ranks. Black-balls are as effective there as in the Union League, the Century club, or the Manhattan. This kind of organization is not what Washington had in mind when he spoke of the militia as the palladium of our security, nor Jefferson when he solicited an annual appropriation for the militia of the several states.
The law of 1793 which. as Gen. Wingate says, is a law still, though practically obsolete, provides for the only kind of militia entitled to any sort of recognition that does not belong to a target company. That is the kind of militia to which Washington referred and for which Jefferson solicited— a militia composed of every able bodied man in the community.
We are quite ready to believe that Gen. Wingate, in drafting the Sewell bill, had no worse motive than to benefit an organization to which he is devoted. But the proposition is, nevertheless, in line with the aristocratic conspiracy now in progress against American liberty, of which the Pinkerton army, the proposed garrison at Chicago and the clamor for the building of forts and ironclads are surface indications. The kind of militia we ought to have should consist of all citizens, and very nearly all that is required to give us an overwhelming force in time of national need is that our young men should be accustomed to the use of arms. The money that we now waste on a standing army could be much better spent in providing our lads with facilities for the practice of marksmanship and athletic exercises.
The New Party And The Negro
We have already stated in the Standard our reasons for believing that the true friends of labor in the south must lay aside their prejudice against admitting the colored voters to a share in their effort to rescue our country from the grasp of monopoly. Mr. Edwards, of Waco, Texas, writes us a letter strongly presenting his own views in opposition to any attempt to enlist the negro in this light. We have read his article with care, but we fail to find in its somewhat passionate presentation of the case any reason to change the opinion already expressed in these columns.
We understand fully the fears entertained by southern white men as to the possible result of the re-entrance of the negro into politics; but it is idle to imagine that the present condition of affairs there can continue. The negroes have a legal right to vote, and they cannot forever be excluded from the exercise of that right. The only question is whether men like Mr. Edwards shall educate and lead them into voting in the interests of the many, or whether they shall again become the tools of selfish individuals who seek only their own personal welfare and aggrandizement.
We think that Mr. Adams, who writes us on the same question from South Carolina, has the true conception of the aim and method of the new party. It must educate and lift men in order to achieve results. The failures of the non-political struggle of labor have always been due to the eagerness for work on the part of a less intelligent or less scrupulous body of laborers, and frequently to the presence of a body of imported and ignorant men as unfit to participate intelligently in governmental matters as any plantation negroes. This is the class that helped to defeat the labor party in New York last fall. We here understand, however, that such men will continue to vote, and we propose to educate them into voting for permanent prosperity for themselves and for us instead of voting for a two-dollar bill given them on election day by the agents of the bosses and millionaires, who flourish under a system of politics based on money. Our southern friends owe a similar duty to the negroes, and only through its faithful performance can they hope to achieve success.
Gen. Roger A. Pryor, in an article elsewhere, points out an obnoxious provision of the civil code that interposes an effectual bar in many cases to the bringing of suits against corporations for causing death by negligence. He also instances another unjust law in the interest of corporations and against workingmen by which an employer escapes all liability for injury to an employe where such injury is caused by the negligence of a fellow servant. This is, as Gen. Pryor says, judge-made, and not statutory law. A Hartford letter in last week's Standard showed how the courts of Connecticut had arrived at a conclusion diametrically opposite to that of the New York courts in this matter, the result being that the railroad magnates are trying to procure the passage of a statute putting the workingmen of Connecticut on the same footing on which those of New York have been placed by our courts. This is a precedent that workingmen here may well follow. Let them insist that the unjust law laid down by our courts shall be remedied by an affirmative act declaring the opposite principle, and that the code shall be amended so as to annul the clause pointed out by Gen. Pryor, and probably smuggled into it by some corporation lawyer.
“The first martyr of the new crusade” is the apt title given by Judge Maguire of San Francisco to Father McGlynn.
No one better understands than Felix Adler, who lectured last Sunday on the child slavery in vogue in our great cities, how nearly impossible it is to emancipate the children while saviors of society flourish and wax fat upon their earnings. When parents are able to barely live on their own wages the temptation to put their children into stores and factories is overwhelming, and perjury respecting their ages is to be expected. Prof. Adler's proposition that the state should pay a stipulated sum to the indigent parent of a child under thirteen so long as it goes to school would be scouted as communism, and offered as a charity instead of a right, it would be degrading. The true relief is not in the alternative slavery on the one hand or charity on the other, but in justice. Put an end to the system by which natural opportunities are withdrawn from the many and appropriated by the few, and child slavery will put an end to itself.
The attempt by the Albany politicians to run the State Trades assembly last week failed: but it caused entirely too much trouble, nevertheless. The true friends of labor must keep out of their councils the puppets who jump whenever politicians pull the string.
The Tammany statesmen propose a law limiting the earnings of all public corporations to ten per cent on the actual cost of the property held and used by such companies. An article entitled “Highway Robbers,” printed elsewhere, shows that just such a law has been on the statute book for years, but it has never been enforced. The workingmen do not ask new laws at the hands of the old parties, as the influences by which these parties maintain themselves in power—influences that keep the corporations in power, no matter whether the republicans or the democrats are turned out by the people—still prevail. Tammany is in a beautiful position to “conciliate the workingmen just now. Its leaders know that a republican legislature will accept no legislation proposed by it, and hence it can propose anything, sure that that will be the end of the matter. Nothing better can be expected from the republicans, and though a little tinkering may be done, no radical reform can be looked for until the labor party elects a legislature of its own.
“Why do they not go to the vacant lands of the west?” is the frequent injury of comfortable people concerning the New York poor. How far west would you have them go? Is California far enough? If so, read a letter from San Diego, printed elsewhere, and see how much chance a poor man has there.
The small farmer who owns his own land is supposed by many to be the lion in the path of the land restoration party. The report of an interview with Richard F. Trevellick, reported elsewhere from the Detroit Evening Post, shows that if this is the only obstacle to the success of the land and labor movement, it is one that is vanishing with amazing rapidity. If the new movement had nothing else to commend it, it would be deserving of general support because of the promise it offers to the real tiller of the soil, whose burdens under the land monopoly system grow heavier from year to year.
People who are as averse to reading as they are prone to talking persist in declaring that the doctrine of land restoration is difficult to understand. If such people will refresh their minds by rest for a real effort and then read the two letters by Mr. Barnes, printed in another column, they will possibly be able to gain at least a glimmering of a truth already perfectly plain to the great body of workingmen inthis city.
Priests who denounce justice to the poor in the name of Christ are not much further away from the truth than are those politicians who invoke the name of Abraham Lincoln in support of the money- supported monopolistic republican party of today. Home extracts from the liberator's speeches and letters printed in this issue prove conclusively that Lincoln was as firm a foe to industrial slavery he was to that chattel slavery in the overthrow of which he was the greatest of all leaders.
Adding Insult to Injury
From the beginning of the troubles in St. Stephen's church, the enemies of Dr. McGlynn have not scrupled by innuendo and whispered stander to attempt to blacken his character. Conspicuous in the dirty work has been the New York Sun, which on Thursday morning reported Father Donnelly as saying: “I know that Dr. McGlynn owes anywhere from twenty to fifty thousand dollars to servant girls who have lent their savings to him.”
A gentleman thoroughly acquainted with the matter informs us that Dr. McGlynn always kept, notonly books, but an expert accountant; that the financial report every year has been audited with inspection of vouchers by reputable members of the congregation: that these reports are on record in Lord Preston's chancery office; that if the debt is now larger than when Dr. McGlynn went there, twenty-one years ago, there are hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of improvements to show for it, in the building of the Twenty-ninth street half of the church, which is in itself equal to an ordinary church, in marble altars, paintings and a score of other improvements, and in valuable properties acquired in Twenty-eighth street, at New Dorp, S. I., and at Pordham.
The amount of money due at the end of 1886 to members of the congregation whom Father Donnelly sneers at as servant girls will not be “anywhere between twenty and fifty thousand dollars,” but about fifteen thousand dollar land this money was not “lent to Dr. McGlynn,” but to the corporation of St. Stephen's church and for the use and benefit of St. Stephen's church, and the payment of this money is guaranteed by the trustees of St. Stephen's church.
Our informant adds that for verymany years before St. Stephen's home began to receive any money from the city for the board of committed children, St. Stephen's church supported hundreds of destitute children in the home.
The Guild of the Iron Cross
The Guild of the Iron Cross, the scope and objects of which have already been explained in the Standard, held its second annual convention in St. Augustine's chapel on Tuesday. The afternoon session was attended by some fifty delegates, and at the meeting Father Field, of St. Clement's church, Philadelphia, Father Huntington, of the Holy Cross mission of this city and the Rev. G. M. Christian of Newark were appointed a committee on publication. Bishop Potter was elected an honorary chaplain, and Mr. Douglas of Newark was elected president of the guild for the coming year. The name of the society was then changed to "The Guild of the Iron Cross, and Church Workingmen's Society.”
At the public, service in the evening the church was filled to overflowing. Bishop Huntington delivered a sermon in which he treated at length the social problems of the times, and said that Christianity was on the side of the laboring class, so far as it recognized any distinction between classes at all.
The guild has now sixteen chaplains, six honorary chaplains, one hundred priests associate and fifteen hundred members.
The McGlynn Testimonial
The publisher of the Standard edges the receipt of the following the McGlynn testimonial:
|Jack Plane, Tarrytown, N. Y.||
William McMichael, Philadelphia
R. P. Daniels, Washington, D. C.
T. F. Monahan
T. B. Jodin
Reilly and Fogarty, two New York boys working hard for low wages
“A Wexford Man,” Boston
J. C. H., Georgetown, D. C.
T. F. McM, Tonawanda, Pa.
“Three sisters,” Providence, R. I.
James Henderson, Philadelphia
Jeremiah Chapman, Haddenfield, N. J.
A Catholic priest
Among the assemblymen from New York who voted for Hiscock in the late triangular battle of millionaires at Albany was young Crosby, a son of Howard Crosby. His republican constituents, mostly Morton men, called him to account at a public meeting. and he charged the agents of both Morton and Miller with directly o He ring large sums of money for votes. He smoothed the ruffled feelings of his audience by stating that Mort on, as soon as he went to Albany, put a check on his agents, and gave the Millerites a side slap by saying that Miller's canvass from that moment steadily advanced. Hiscock's agents were not alluded to by Mr. Crosby, but whatever they may have done is hardly a reflection on the way he voted, since Hiscock was his Hobson's choice.
The committee that has been hearing testimony to determine whether or not the republican boss, Mike Cregan, sold out Allen Thorndike Rice, the republican candidate for congress in the Tenth district. has adjourned and will report to the republican county committee, which meets at the Grand Opera house next Tuesday. The testimony has shown that the management of republican politics is as corrupt and mercenary as that of Tammany or the county democracy. A majority of the committee will report that Cregan is guilty.
The daily papers have glowing account-s of the charity ball, an annual event in New York which brings together the wealth and fashion of the metropolis, and at which many young ladies make their social debut. This year it was held at the Metropolitan Opera house, the grand march beginning at. half-past ten at night. The display of diamonds was dazzling enough to excuse the scarcity of apparel. Levi P. Morton led the march. Mrs. Hicks-Lord was there and attracted a great deal of attention. So did Capt. Williams, the notorious policeman who on a small salary has become a rich man. The expense of preparation for this ball goes high up in the hundred thousands; the proceeds go to charity. Both expense and proceeds come chiefly from objects of the charity.
The attitude of the New York press toward organized labor is well illustrated in a report that appeared last week in one of the leading dailies concerning the Lorillard strikers. The article was calculated to impress the reader with the idea that pretty nearly all of the female strikers were dressed in “silk plush” or “sealskin” sacques and “silk dresses,” and the men with corresponding elegance. This statement, it should be observed, is made only a few days after the publication of the fact that the girls have been, many of them, working for from $5 to $7 per week. This daily should now favor us with an article on “How to wear a sealskin on $5 per week.”
The latest coverts to communistic doctrines are the managers of the Western Union telegraph company. It seems that they even go so far as to believe that the news sent over their wires should be common property, for they have been allowing Kiernan & Co., news agents, of this city, to use the news which the agents of Dow, Jones & Co. have sent to the latter firm. This has been going on for some time, and this case is merely one whore the proof is a little easier to be obtained than usual. Of course, no one doubts that the managers and big Wall street speculators connected with the W. U. have had access to all the private information sent over their lines; but that the outside public should be let into the game is something new.
The brutal insolence of the police seems to be on the increase. Their performances at the Davitt meeting at Madison Square on Sunday evening were remarkable. In the early part of the evening they thrust back all who held tickets, declaring that only those wishing to buy tickets would be admitted. Having thus caused the house to be crowded, while people holding tickets were compelled to stand in the muddy streets, they then refused to permit those excluded ones to enter because the building was filled.
That notorious ruffian, Capt. Williams, stood at the-Twenty-seventh street door and he appears to have been responsible for this outrage on the rights of ticket holders. He was noisy and insolent as usual. and treated the people as though they were dogs. The writer saw one man go up to the door and show his ticket. He was roughly told to get back, that he could not enter. He insisted on his right, when Williams seized him roughly by the lapels of his coat and violently ran him backward for some distance through the unresisting crowd. For this Williams ought to be convicted of assault and battery, stripped of his uniform and sent to jail; but nothing will be done until the present police commissioners are removed, as they sustain the police in just such lawless brutality.
One ruffian of this kind, according to a Herald item, came near being lynched on last Tuesday. He was Policeman George K. Houser of the Thirty-fifth street station. He brutally clubbed into insensibility a 'longshoreman named Edward Nolan last Sunday. The policeman was apparently drunk, and an angry crowd threw stones and mud at him. Though Nolan's wounds showed how brutally he had been treated, Justice Smith of the Fifty-seventh street court sent him to jail in default of bail, and made no attempt to so much as rebuke his inhuman captor. Such outrages will, if continued, lead to a riot, for which the police alone will be responsible.
The week has been marked by important action in congress. The electoral count bill has been agreed to by both houses and is now in the hands of the president. It provides that the proper tribunals of each state shall settle all disputes as to the electoral vote of such states, but when these tribunals fail to act no disputed votes shall be counted without the concurrence of both houses of congress acting separately. The bill prevents any more such performances as those that disgraced the country in 1877.
There has been much apparent excitement over the Canadian fisheries question during the past week. Mr. Edmunds' bill authorizing the president to protect and defend American fishermen and vessels passed the senate by a vote of 40 to 1. It authorizes the president to boycott Canadian goods if need be. In the course of the debate on the bill Frye of Maine, Hoar of Massachusetts, and Ingalls of Kansas made violent speeches denouncing the Canadian authorities and urging non-intercourse with the Dominion if the recent treatment of American fishermen is continued. Mr. Ingalls declared that the bill “is a declaration to Great Britain recognizing her agency in the matter, and notifying her that she will continue it at her peril.” Cable dispatches indicate that this declaration has caused much more excitement in England than in this country. The house of representatives, on motion of Mr. Belmont, has called on the president for the correspondence relating to the case. The Canadian authorities are excited over the senate's action, and Sir John McDonald and Mr. Foster, minister of fisheries, declare that the Dominion government will yield nothing to this attempted coercion. Meanwhile the Gloucester fishermen are bowling with delight over the tremendous row raised in support of their demand to lay a tariff on Canadian fish. Any consideration whatever of the rights of American consumers of fish would pave the way for an immediate settlement of the whole difficulty.
On Tuesday Mr. Blair of New Hampshire called up in the senate his bill proposing an amendment to the constitution giving the suffrage to women. After a brief debate. In which a number of sapient senators concluded that the question at issue was whether a woman shall be a voter or a ministering angel, the bill was defeated by a vote of thirty-four nays to sixteen yeas. The result indicates clearly a great march of public sentiment on this question, however. as it would have been impossible to get six votes much less sixteen in the senate for woman suffrage ten years ago.
The Woman Suffrage association began its annual session in Washington on the very day that this vote was taken.
The senate last week ratified a new treaty extending the Hawaiian reciprocity treaty, with an added article giving to the United States the use of Pearl river harbor as a naval coaling station. On last Saturday the house adopted a resolution reciting the action of the president and senate, and instructing the committee on the judiciary to report whether such a treaty involving the rate of duty on imported goods can be valid and binding without the concurrence of the house. This is an old question, and has never been definitely settled.
The conference report upon the bill for the allotment of lands in severalty to Indians has been agreed to. It is a bad bill, and can only work evil to the red man while promoting the schemes of white adventurers and land speculators.
Mr. Outhwaite has had a resolution passed asking the secretary of the interior for a detailed statement of the debt owed by the subsidized Pacific railroads to the government at the beginning of the present year, and. For his opinion as to the effect of Mr. Outhwaite's bill now pending for the relief of those roads. Our private advices indicate that Mr. Outhwaite's bill will not pass. It is to be hoped that Mr. Springer's substitute will also fail. The companies are entitled to no extension and they can pay this debt if they want to do so.
The bill for the forfeiture of the New Orleans, Baton Rouge and Vicksburg land grant, as amended, passed the house last Saturday.
Last Saturday Secretary Manning issued a call for $13,000,000 three per cent bonds, which will be paid March 1. No more such calls will be possible after July 1.
The argument in the telephone case before the United States supreme court was begun on Monday, and will probably continue for two weeks. The Herald of this city publishes a story going to show that the telephone was really invented and patented by Mr. House years ago, and that, therefore, none of the present claimants are entitled to a patent.
The Reagan-Collum interstate commerce bill has passed both houses of congress and gone to the president. This is the first serious attempt at federal regulation of railroads and the beginning of the end of railroad swindling and oppression. With such amendments as experience may prove necessary, the law will make it impossible for railroad pools and railroad kings to throttle interstate commerce, and with the decline of plundering profits interstate roads will pass easily under national control. The bill relates to common carriers between states, and prohibit-s special rates, rebates, drawbacks and all other devices for discriminating in charges, except bona fide commutation tickets and business passes. Greater charges for short hauls than for longer ones are forbidden, except by permission of the railroad commissioners. Mr. Fink's occupation will be gone, for pooling is declared unlawful. Rates for fare and freight must be posted at every station, and no advance ts allowed until after ten days' notice. Reductions may be made without notice, but must be posted immediately. Any deviation from the published rates is unlawful, and every violation of the act is a misdemeanor punishable by fine not to exceed $5,000. The commission provided for is to consist of six commissioners, of whom not more than three shall belong to the same politica1 party, and will have complete supervision of interstate transportation.
The long sensational struggle in Nebraska ended last week in the election of A. S. Paddock, a stalwart republican and friend of the monopolist, as United States senator in place of Chas. H. Van Wyck. This is a victory for the railroads, who were determined that the independent and belligerent Nebraskan should not. go back to the senate. Under a provision of the Nebraska constitution the people of the state indicated a desire at the last election that Van Wyck should be sent back. The leaders of the two old parties cared more, however, for the railroads than for the people. Enough republicans voted for Van Wyck to have elected him had the democrats, probably at railway dictation, voted for the anti- monopolist instead of wasting thirty-two votes on a man who had no chance. Van Wyck finally submitted to the republican caucus, which nominated Paddock late at night. After the election one of the members of the house of representatives offered the following:
Whereas, The great state of Nebraska has been delivered into the hands of a powerful corporation by the dramatic action of a midnight caucus; therefore be it
Resolved, That the public buildings of said state be draped in mourning for the time or thirty days.
It was, of course, laid on the table.
Several sensational contests continued up to the closing of this page. In New Jersey both. parties are seeking to gain their ends by revolutionary tactics. The republicans refused to organize the Senate, and the democrats are pretending to hold a joint session despite this lawless action of their opponents. It looks as though the republicans would be compelled to withdraw Sewell and the democrats Gov. Abbott.
The deadlock in Indiana continues. The democrats stubbornly adhere to Turpie and the republicans to Harrison, though numerous ballets appear to show that the four men who hold the balance of power will vote for neither.
In Texas there is a warm contest between Maxey, Reagan and Ireland, and John Hancock is receiving some votes. Senator Maxey led for several ballots, but Reagan then came to the fore, and Maxey and Ireland's friends united on Wednesday evening to force an adjournment.
There is a streak of daylight in West Virginia where seven democrats have revolted against the caucus determination to re-elect Senator Camden, a Standard oil millionaire, who is backed by the Baltimore and Ohio, the Chesapeake and Ohio, and all the other corporations that have for a long time ruled the state.
One of the silly quarrels promoted by our stupid tariff is now in progress. The dealers in wool claim that importers' “noils” and ring waste are equal in value to scoured wool as it comes from the sheep, and they insist that its cost to the manufacturers shall be increased by adding to the tax on it. The manufacturers, who are high tariff men themselves when they can make anything by it, resist the demand of the dealers with much indignation. The treasury department has the case under consideration.
The National board of trade is the last body that has attempted to ride the free trade and protection horses at once. It comes to the ground like the other jockeys who have tried the trick.
The Massachusetts fishermen have called a meeting at Gloucester, on Feb. 23, of all persons in the country directly or indirectly interested in the fisheries. This includes all who eat fish, and if the invitation is accepted a resolution will be adopted in favor of letting all who want tosell fish sell them as cheaply as possible. This would carry the Yankees.
Mrs. Mary E. Ketcham, of Philadelphia, has obtained a verdict. For $10,000 against the Citizens' Passenger Railway company for the loss of her husband, who diedfrom injuries caused by a fall from an ice wagon. An excavation made in the street by the defendant was the cause of the accident. Under the existing unjust law of New York not more than $3,000 could have been recovered in such a case.
The British parliament opened on Thursday, and a lively time may be anticipated. This summary necessarily closes too early to permit any comment onthe opening proceedings.
An event that fills all faithful liberals with delight is the defeat of George J . Goschen, the former liberal who recently accepted the position of chancellor of the exchequer in the tory cabinet. His defeat is very embarrassing to the government, and in consideration of a peerage it is thought that Sir John Mowbrey will resign his seat for Oxford university in order to give it to Goschen.
Gladstone is back in London, in excellent health and spirits, and predicts that he will be in power again inside of three months.
The tory ministry evidently thinks that a coercion bill will smell more sweet if it is called a “conspiracy bill” and it will promptly introduce such a measure. It will be vigorously fought by the Gladstonians and the Irish, and may prove to be the rock on which the government will split.
Sir Michael Hicks-Beach has declined an invitation to visit Glenbeigh to witness for himself the horrible evictions now in progress. He declares that “it appears that the public are only protecting the owners in the necessary enforcement of their rights.” and that any .sufferings that may result are due to others. Messrs. Conybeare, Dillon, Harrington and Mahoney, members of parliament, have publicly replied, denying Beach's statement and demanding that he shall explain and make public his authority for it. Sir Michael in departing from his usual cautious reticence, appears to have opened his mouth only to put his foot in it.
A new island has just been discovered in the Pacific. As it is called Allison island, we presume some man of that name has already appropriated it.
Press Comments on the McGlynn Case
The Catholic church authorities who have assumed to dictate what Catholics shall believe or disbelieve. or how they shall act on political matters, have gone so far beyond their jurisdiction that they must retrace their steps or the Catholic church will suffer eventually through their imprudence,—[Boston Transcript]
We heartily concur with the great Irish liberator —“Ah much religion as you like from Rome, but no politics.”—[Charlottesville, Va., Chronicle.]
We doubt very much even if Catholics of any grit or splints will allow themselves to be made slaves of in a matter of mere political opinion by Italian priests, who have no sympathy whatever with American ideas or American institutions.—[Sacramento, Cal., Union.]
This religious revolt is likely to be just as far-reaching in its effects as any of the new departures of these days in the religious world. It can scarcely do less than to modify the power and influence of Rome among American Catholics.—[Minneapolis Journal.
Every true American citizen will agree with Mr. George in the belief that Dr. McGlynn should stay where he is.—[Minneapolis Mercury.]
When Rome shall speak through her infallible head Dr. McGlynn will be found nearer the sublime pontiff than are the archbishops and cardinals who are now disciplining and humiliating him.—[St. Louis Republican.]
Dr. McGlynn is not obliged to obey the summons unless he sees fit. He is in a free land—he may go or stay.—[Peabody, Mass., Reporter.]
Father McGlynn was commanded by the archbishop to cease advocating the election of Mr. Henry George to the office of mayor, but refused to go back on his principles, and for this honest act , though one of the ablest and most devoted clergymen in the country, he was deposed—[Rockland, Me, Opinion.]
No title the church can confer could raise Dr. McGlynn higher than he stands before the world, a perfect type of the Christian of apostolic times, enduring and bearing all these things for the sake of the ministry to which he devoted his lite, and which, let us hope, he will soon resume and continue to the end.—[Memphis, Tenn., Appeal.]
When men have become used to saying who they will have for civil officers, it is not surprising that they should claim a voice in deciding what preacher they will have, what pastor shall supervise their religious duties and services.—[Indianapolis News.]
We are ready to say with Mr. George that “in the meantime American workingmen might as well make up their minds that in their light for the enfranchisement of labor they must. meet the opposition of the Catholic hierarchy.”—[Glenwood, Ia., Journal.]
Dr.McGlynn may have erred in becoming an active propagandist of Henry George's new land gospel, but the Catholic hierarchy are as much liable to criticism for entering into politics as Dr.McGlynn.—[Boston Transcript.]
Whatever may be the rights of the Roman Catholic church over its priests, it is unfortunate that its archbishops should so often be opposed to the temporal welfare of the people, and consequently to the efforts of those priests who see the necessities of the poor and strive to relieve them.—[Detroit Labor Leaf.]
The archbishop has the same right that any other citizen has, whether priest or layman, to take whichever side in the discussion of the social question seems best to him. But to issue an edict to his flock, virtually prohibition them from any action in the settlement of a question so important to their welfare, unless it be to do as he, the archbishop, shall direct, is, to our mind, going somewhat outside of his office.—[Troy, N . Y . , Clarion.]
If this species of ecclesiastical tyranny is to prevail it will show to the laboring men that their church is inconsistent with the free institutions of America.—[Martha’s Vineyard Herald.]
Edward McGlynn, the American citizen. A greater than Father McGlynn, the subordinate of a foreign potentate. The experience of Michael Davitt in Rome, where he was even refused an audience with the pope through the influence of the representative of English aristocracy, Errington, has not, faded from the minds of thousands of Ireland's cause—the cause of the proletarians of the world. So it is not to be wondered at that the church should view unfavorably a similar cause in America—[New Haven Workmen’s Advocate.]
The American idea is that there are certain inalienable rights. If practically the law defeats the individual in these rights—as it certainly does in free speech onpolitical questions, including the questions which Mr. George places before the public, and if any man fails to exercise his liberty, it is his own lookout.—[Galveston News.]
We believe with Henry George and Dr. McGlynn. and with many good Catholics as well, that the Roman Catholic church has no right to step in and call an American citizen to account for performing his legitimate duties as a citizen. The enemies of that church have long claimed that a good Catholic could not be a good American, because he professed a higher fealty to a foreign potentate than to his own government. The answer has been that the fealty to the pope is on matters pertaining to religious faith, not to governmental policy. Is the church going to render that answer impossible in the future?—[Voice.]
A Communist Blessed
The Author of “Utopia” Officially Declared to be in Heaven
In the first number of the Standard I gave brief sketch of Sir Thomas More, and set forth, largely in his own words, the political ideas that he sought to illustrate in his much talked of but little read volume of Utopia. In that article I spoke of the fact that the name of this early advocate of socialistic doctrine was likely to be added to the calendar of saints by the Roman Catholic church. That process has apparently not yet been completed; but a dispatch to the Herald last week announces that Sir Thomas has been “blessed.” That is to say the church formally declares that he has been received into heaven, and is thenceforward to be “reverenced” by good Catholics.
In the first article I showed clearly that Utopia was no mere fanciful romance written for amusement. but a serious presentation of political views for consideration. These ideas were presented in the first book in the shape of reports of a pretended conversation between More and Ralph Hythlodaye, the suppositions traveler who had visited Utopia. The second and last book contains Hythlordaye's description of the country and the laws, manners and customs of the people and numerous passages in it go to show that its author was at least strongly inclined toward belief, not merely in the common ownership of land, but in communistic socialism of the most radical kind. Utopia is an island containing fifty-four “large and fair cities or shire towns,” most of them twenty-four miles apart, and none more distant from its nearest neighbor than a day's journey on foot. Amaurote is the capital, and to it come yearly from each city three “old men, wise and well experienced,” to debate of the affairs of the whole island.
None of the cities have on any side less than twenty miles of ground. None of them wish to increase their holdings, “for they count themselves rat her the good husbands than the owners of their hinds.” The rural districts are divided into farms well furnished with buildings and the necessary implements of agriculture, and the people of the cities go there, according to an appointed order, to dwell. Each farm has a household of forty persons, men and women, and two bondmen, “all under the ride and order of the good man and good wife of the house,” who are “sage, discreet and ancient persons.” Half of this household returns to the city each year, and is replaced by liberty more persons brought from town. and the newcomers are instructed by those who remain. In some cases those fond of country life remain on the farms for years.
These people till the ground and send the produce to town. They raise many chickens, “and that by a marvelous policy, for the liens do not sit upon the eggs, but by keeping them in a certain equal heat they bring life into them and hatch them.”
The city of Amaurote is situated on a river forty miles from the sea, and this river is spanned by a bridge of stone, with arches so high that. ships may pass under them. Another and smaller river supplies the city with water by means of brick canals. The houses are built close together, but at the rear of each is an simple garden. The street doors are never locked, “for there is nothing in the houses that is private or any man's own.”
Every thirty families choose yearly an officer, formerly called a syphograunte but later a philarche. Every ten of these philarches are under a chief philarche. In choosing a prince the people of each of the four quarters of the city name a man “to stand for the election” [such is the translator’s own phrase] and from among these four the philarches are sworn to choose the one “they think most mete and expedient,” and they choose him by a “secret election.” He serves for life “unless he be deposed or put down for suspicion of tyranny.” The chief philarches are chosen yearly but are usually re-elected. These chief philarches meet the prince in council every third day, or oftener if need be, and at each meeting two of the syphopgrauntes attend. “every day a new couple.” “It is death to have consultation for the commonwealth out of the council or the place o f the common election.” This is in order that the prince and council may not easily conspire together to oppress the people by tyranny.
Every inhabitant learns husbandry, and in addition to this each learns some other craft. There are no tailors. for one uniform style of garment is worn by the men. another by the married women. And still another by the unmarried women: and these are of such simple fashion that each family manufactures its own. The lighter occupations are driven to the women, but each person must do something for the common wealth.
“Every one,” says the narrative, “applies his own craft with earnest diligence. And yet, for all that, not to be wearied from early in the morning, to late in the evening with continual work like laboring and toiling beasts, for this is worse than the miserable and wretched condition of bondmen.” They divide the day into twenty-four hours. For six of these hours they work before noon. When they take dinner. After dinner they rest for two hours, and then work three hours until they go to supper. They sleep eight hours. They occupy the remainder of the time as they please. Many attend lectures that are given early in the morning, and they have concerts and games, but no gambling. As they all work they find that nine hours of toil insufficient. This, the author says, any one can see must be the case if he will take into consideration the enormous number of idle people who are maintained by those who do the work in other countries. Among the idle he mentions “all rich men, especially all landed men.” He thus continues:
Now consider with yourself, of these few that do work, how few he occupied in necessary works… But if all these that he now busied about unprofitable occupations, with all the whole flock of them that live idly and slothfully, which consume and waste, every one of them, more of these things that come by other men's labor than two of the workmen themselves do; If all these, I say, were set to profitable occupations, you easily see how little time would be enough, yeah, and too much, to store us with all things that may be requisite either for necessity or commodity, yea, and for pleasure, so that the same pleasure be true and natural.
Utopia proves this, for in the whole city and surrounding country there were not so many as five hundred persons who because of age or weakness were exempt from labor. These are the only persons so exempt except a certain number who give their whole time to learning. “If any one of these prove not according to the expectation and hope of him conceived, he is forthwith plucked back to the company of artificers,” while, on the other hand, a handicraftsman who bestows his leisure in learning by which he profits, is of ten “promoted to the company of the learned.”
The population is divided into families, all the males born continuing in their father's houses, and the daughters, when married, joining the families of their husbands. Where families grow too large some of the members are transferred to smaller households. A due proportion in population between cities is similarly maintained by transfers. In case the population of the whole island becomes too numerous, persons are chosen from each city to build up a town under their own laws in the nearest land “where the inhabitants have much unoccupied ground.” They try to induce the inhabitants of the land to which they migrate to adopt their laws and customs, and in that event both prosper. If the inhabitants will not accept their laws, however, then the Utopians drive them out of the bounds of their colony, “for,” says the speaker, they count this the most just cause of war when any people hold a piece of ground cold and vacant to no good and profitable use, keeping others from the use and profit of it, which, notwithstanding by the law of nature, ought thereof to be nourished and relieved.”
On the island every city is divided into four equal parts. In each quarter there is a market place, where the works of every family and all kinds of produce are stored. The head of every household goes thither at will and carries away whatever he needs, without pay. No one takes more than he needs, “for,” asks Hythlodaye, “why should it be thought that a man would ask more than enough who is sure never to lack. Certainly in all kinds of living creatures either fear or lack causeth covetousness and ravin.”
There is always kept a store of provisions on hand sufficient for two years. The surplus they exchange with neighboring nations for that which they lack: chiefly iron. By this system Utopians usually have more of such things than the countries producing them. They sell largely on credit, taking the obligations of neighboring states. This is a fund they draw on to hire soldiers in case they are compelled to go to war. They also keep a great treasure of their own for such purpose; but as they have no use for money and regard the greed of other nations for gold and silver with contempt. they make of these metals the manacles of prisoners, who are compelled to wear gold rings on their lingers and in their cars to mark the grade of their offense. They also make vessels, put to vile uses, of gold and silver.
Owing to their leisure, learning is quite general among the Utopians, and they not only know the movements of the stars, but predict the course of storms stud tempests. Hunting among them is not regarded as a pleasure,and when wild animals are to be killed the duty is assigned to the butchers to whom it property belongs.
The bondmen in the island consist of those of their own Citizens who are guilty of heinous offenses and of men condemned to death in other lands and who are saved from execution by their purchase as slaves. The last are better treated than their own condemned, as the people think that men brought up in so excellent a commonwealth have no excuse for violating the law. Marriage is encouraged and incontinence severely punished. A council of men and matrons inquire diligently into all demands for divorce,and this is rarely and reluctantly granted because they know that “the easy hope of a new marriage” breaks “love between man and wife.” Adultery is punished by bondage, and the wronged husband or wife is granted a divorce.
They have but few laws and think it unreasonable that people should be obliged to obey laws so numerous that they have no time to read them, or so obscure that they are not easily understood. Hence there is little litigation among the people and lawyers are unknown. So far as possible the Citizens of the country are kept out of wars, as the Utopians feel that it is useless to waste anything so precious as life when they can hire strangers to do so with such worthless still as money. When necessity does force them into battle, however, the Utopians are the bravest of the brave, because they have no apprehension that their families will suffer in case they fall.
There are divers lands of religion on the island, but most of them agree that there is a certain godly power, unknown, everlasting, incomprehensible, and diffused throughout the world, and “him they call father of all.” When Hythlodaye and his companions told them “that Christ instituted among his all things in common,” they listened with interest to the story, and some of them were baptized. In the very beginning King Utopus made a decree “that it should be lawful for every man to favor and follow what religion he would, and that he might do the best he could to bring others to his way of thinking, so that he did it peaceably, gently, quietly, and soberly, without hasty and contentious rebuking and inveighing against another.” He who declares that the soul perished with the body they do not account a man, much less a citizen, while those who were loud and contentious about religion were punished by the magistrate.
Hythlodaye says the system of Utopia is not only the best, “but also that which alone of good right may claim and take upon it the name ofa common wealth or public weal; for, in other places. They still speak of the commonwealth, but every man procureth his own private gain.” In such countries a man may starve in the midst of riches, in which he has no share. while in Utopia no man lacks anything essential, fears no want for himself or his family, nor is he burdened with care for the morrow.
Hythlodaye declares he can see no justice at all in the custom of other countries, where the idle and those who render no actual service to the commonwealth “have a pleasant and a wealthy living either by idleness or unnecessary business, when in the meantime poor laborers, carters, ironsmiths, carpenters and plowmen. by so great and continual toil as drawing and bearing beasts be scant able to sustain. and, again, so necessary toil that without it no commonwealth were able to continue and endure one year, should get so hard and poor a living and live so wretched and miserable a life that the state and condition of the laboring beasts may seem much better and wealthier.”
The daily wages of these men are so small that they can lay up nothing, and hence must be tormented with the fear of indigence in their old age. Is not, he asks, that an unjust and unkind public wealth that permits such a system?He thus continues:
Besides this, the rich men not only by private fraud, but, also by common laws do every day pluck and snatch away from the poor some part of their daily living; so that whereas it seemed before unjust to recompense with unkindness their pains that have been beneficial to the public weale, now they have to their wrong and unjust dealings (which is a much worse point) given the name of justice, and that by force of law. Therefore, when I consider and weigh in my mind all of these commonwealths, which nowadays anywhere do flourish, so God help me? I can perceive nothing but a certain conspiracy of rich man procuring their own commodities under the name and title of the common wealth. They invent. And devise by all means and craft, first, how to keep safely, without fear of losing, that which they have unjustly gathered together, and next how to hire and abuse the work and labor of the poor tor as little money as may be.
Yet despite all this, the speaker declares that the condition of the rich in Europe is not to be compared with the wealth and felicity of the Utopians, because the latter are free from all of the strife and crime engendered by the greed for money, and never know the fear and apprehension with which even the rich are accustomed to contemplate the possible loss of wealth. Having thus defended and extolled the institutions of Utopia, the narrator declares “this form and fashion of a weale publique would I gladly wish unto all nations.”
Of course More maintains the fiction that all this is told him by Hythlodaye, and he professes to dissent from it to some extent, yet in his own name he winds up with the declaration that “so much I needs confess and grant that many things be in the Utopian weale publique which in our cities I may rather wish for than hope after.”
Sir Thomas More's ideal state was not merely one in which the land was owned in common, but one embracing at once all that is aimed at by either socialism or communism. His own comments indicate doubts as to the entire practicability of his system, but he manifestly believes that the condition described was that which Christ sought to establish on earth. In many things events have proved that there was something prophetic in his vision. His sympathy with the poor, his clear recognition of the true relation of labor to the commonwealth, his denunciation of cruel punishments for crimes fostered by our social system, and his broad principles of religious toleration are astounding to all familiar with the practice and temper of the age in which he wrote.
Wm. T. Croasdale.
Two Interesting Letters
The Proposed Tax Reform Illustrated—The Central Committee's Work
The two letters given below, recently sent out by Secretary Barnes of the Central committee, 28 Cooper Union, are of more than private interest:
In answer to a letter of inquiry from a prominent member of the building trades:
“The leading propositions on which the late campaign in this city was fought were of a character that should especially appeal to every member of the building trades. Inclosed with this is a copy of the Clarendon hall platform, and w e would particularly call your attention to the clause which proposes to 'abolish all taxes on buildings and improvements, so that no fine shall be put upon the employment of labor in increasing living accommodations,' and which declares that 'taxes should belevied on land values irrespective of improvements, so that those who are holding land vacant shall be compelled either to build on it themselves or to give up the land to those who will. You will at once see the importance to all the various trades concerned in building operations of these demands, since to tax unused land as heavily as land of equal value that is built upon will, of course, compel the utilization of all land desirable for building purposes which is now held by speculators. For when it comes to levying all taxes on land values no landowner will bear the burden of such a tax without making use of any site which is valuable enough to make the tax onerous.
“Taxes levied on things of human production (and with the exception of land all things that men own are produced by them) always fall upon the final consumer—that is, a tenement house owner gets back his taxes in the rents that he charges; if his taxes are increased, his rents are increased; if a shopkeeper's rent is increased, he in turn gets that back in the greater price of everything he sells. Now, a tax on land values cannot be shifted upon any one. It must always be paid by the land owner—that is to say, taxes on land values must be paid by the man on whom they are imposed. Taxes on everything else are always paid by the user, the consumer. And the reason is this: Taxes on the products of labor increase prices by decreasing demand, and so checking supply. For instance, you tax hats $1 apiece. The maker of hats would stop making them unless he could add the one dollar tax to the cost of manufacture. As a matter of fact, he would not make so many hats, since the demand for them at the higher price would decrease, and the supply would be checked. On the other hand, a tax on land values could not raise the price of land by checking supply, for the reason that land, which is not a thing of human production, is fixed in quantity. And, indeed, a tax on land values would have the opposite tendency—that is, it would increase the market supply, of land by compelling those who now hold land idle to put it in the market.
“A striking and significant contrast is presented by the facts that, whereas the products of industry tend to decrease in price with growth of population, land values, on the contrary, constantly tend to increase with population, so much so that density of population is everywhere a reasonably accurate measure of the value of land. To a solitary settler land is useful, but it has no value until two men want it. It has a greater value when three men want it, and so on. Accordingly, in great cities land values are enormous, and these values, created by the whole body of inhabitants, are appropriated by a privileged few through a fiscal system not till now called in general question. Thus society, by its mere increase, finds itself provided with a great fund for social needs; and this fund, which now goes to enrich mere appropriators. it is the proposal of the new party to take by taxation for the common use.
“There is some little misfortune attending the necessary use of the word 'land,' for that term calls up in the minds of those who have not looked closely into the subject the thought of the farming interest—of acreage. Now, when the working men of New York brought the land question to the front it was not that they wanted land to dig in it with a spade. They claimed a right not only to live, but to live in New York—a right not only to land, but to the land of this city. And this right they do not propose to secure by parceling out land or by disturbing anybody's title deeds, but by taking for the use of all, through the instrumentality of the tax office, the value which is created by all; and the way they propose to get at this is by abolishing all other forms of taxation, direct and indirect, one after another.”
In answer to an inquiry as tojust what the central committee hopes to accomplish:
“The chief reason for the existence of this committee lies in an endeavor to give what its members, and the great body that appointed them, think is the only true direction to the new party movement. What this direction is is unmistakably pointed out in the Clarendon hall platform. To see the principles of that platform (unencumbered by local, temporary or superficial demands) generally adopted throughout the country—and they have already been so adopted in many cities—would more profoundly alarm the far-sighted politicians of both the old parties than could a decade of agitation for measures, some good, some of little moment, and perhaps a few reactionary in their tendency, with men in one section demanding certain things and in another section other things.
“The cause was most fortunate in this city both in the character and firmness of the men who voted for Mr. George, and in the conciseness and precision with which their demands were phrased. It was this that so alarmed the professional politicians of New York and spurred them to their desperate opposition to the popular revolt, instead of the time-worn generalities, special grievances were declared and specific remedies for them proposed. The votes were here not only in 1886, but in many preceding years. To the Clarendon hall platform and to the judgment and earnestness of the leaders in the recent campaign we owe the fact that for the first time these votes were got together and put into the ballot- box. The platform goes to the very root of our social injustices, proposing a reform which includes and carries with it all the more obvious correctives that lie on the surface of things.”
An Enthusiastic Prohibitionist
Westfield, N. J., Jan. 26.—The united labor party will create, first, consternation, then havoc among the political parties of our day, which are bound hand and foot by rum and money. You are preparing the way, however, not for your own party success, but for that of the party to which I am proud to belong—the prohibition party. Our success, which is certain in the national election of 1892, will so ameliorate the condition of the producing class the wide land over that the need of a distinct labor party will be removed. Indeed, I would fain hope that before that year of triumph your party and mine shall have joined forces in a holy crusade against the liquor traffic and its almost equal enemy of justice and freedom, a corrupted ballot-box.
I congratulate you also on the noble defense you make of Father McGlynn. It has opened my eyes to see that the Catholic vote is not the terrible bugbear which I bad painted it, and 1 am now ready to seek the support for my own party of those among them who feel deeply the stain which the legalized saloon must ever prove upon the fair name of a Christian union.
E. L. Markett.
The Negro In The New Party
A Strenuous Protest from Texas—A South Carolina View
Waco, Texas, Jan. 12.—The negroes were brought into this country against the wishes of the colonists. Virginia put a capitation tax upon each slave imported, and in her colonial legislature repeatedly protested against their continued introduction. The Chinese question today is exactly what the negro question was then.
The progressive democracy has in its platform invited all, without regard to race, color, or previous political affiliation, to stand upon that platform. There is an apotheosis of Jefferson in this platform, too, because he wrote the Declaration of Independence. At a recent meeting of presumably a part of this party in New York city, the vice-chairman was Ferrall, the negro member of the Home club, K. of L., which created so much trouble in Richmond by neglecting to observe an old rule of good breeding, “When in Rome do as the Romans do.” Doubtless there were a great many Chinese in New York city, but no mention is made of their being provided with invitations or seats upon this very broad platform. Yet Mr. George himself cannot look upon Chinese immigration without alarm; and he is quite right. It is, therefore, fair to concede that this wide race plank was not intended for Chinese to stand upon.
Mr. Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence “that all men are created equal.” Yet he complains in the same instrument that the king “has excited domestic insurrection against us;” and in a, passage, afterward stricken out, he charges that the king “is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he also obtruded them.” Again it says: “He has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian savages.” Mr. Jefferson evidently had no idea of indorsing the absurdity of the equality of all men in the right to govern without regard to race, color, previous condition of servitude or present condition of barbarism. This is more clearly shown in a letter written in 1777 proposing that the negroes be gradually emancipated and exported to Africa or to some part of America.
“It was, however, found,” he says, “that the public mind would not yet bear the proposition, nor will it bear it even at this day. Yet the day is not distant when it must bear and adopt it, or worse will follow. Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free, nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion have drawn indelible lines of distinction between them. This question has once forced itself upon the country, and it could then have been settled as indicated by Jefferson. Instead, it was temporarily adjusted in a spirit of revenge, and with a view to politically throttling the white race of the south. Cain did not strike a more fratricidal blow. The negroes were freed. as they should have been, and were enfranchised, as they should not have been.
The republicans enfranchised the negroes, disfranchised the leading whites, sent down the men with carpet bags and followed them shortly after with the men with knapsacks. The war of reconstruction followed. For ten years the south struggled in the grip of carpetbagger and negro. Repeatedly she rose to her feet, flinging them both off. As often did Grant prostrate her with his bayonets. At last Haves stole the presidency from Tilden, or the south stole it from Haves and he stole it back. All of that is much mixed: but there was a trade somewhere, and the troops were sent north. The carpetbaggers and negroes were put where they belonged so quickly that in a month it was all ancient history. And now the south snivels at the tomb of Grant, and slobbers publicly over the negro. But she puts 153 solid electoral votes into the box for the democratic party all the same, and the greater the negro vote the longer it takes to count the democratic majority. “The solid south is solid,” says Donn Piatt in the January number of the North American Review, “not because of its democracy, but because of its negroes. This mass of brutal ignorance was suddenly lifted into citizenship and made the governing element by republican carpetbaggers and bayonets. It (the south), was forced into a deadly antagonism by a sense of protection. And so it stands today, actually in favor of a personal government that would give heavy appropriations under the flag, with about as much democracy in it as is possessed by the Czar of Russia.” In other words, the form of the republic is here, but the substance is gone. Somehow, by force, by contrivance, or by fraud, perhaps, the negro vote is controlled by the whites. The republican party was actually beaten by devices it hoped would make its power perpetual. The moral direct this has and will continue to have upon the south needs not be stated. The point sought to be made is this: How absurd it is to calculate upon receiving political support by so palpable a bid for the negro vote. The south has not forgotten her nightmare of forty acres and a mule, and politically today she is more crafty than Machiavelli. This, however, is the history of all countries of mixed races the world over. Nor is it philanthropy, but politics, that is putting Ferrell and the race issue to the front. It is bad politics at that. If the negro is capable as a citizen, an invitation to all, without regard to previous political affiliation, would embrace him. If race and color make no difference, it is bad taste and worse judgment to mention those disjunctions. If they do make a difference, it is miserable truckling to bid so for such a vote.
The white race dominates the south, and on the issues raised by the progressive democracy that race must be addressed, and addressed alone, for it is confidently believed those issues are of a kind that will engage all the extra attention of our rather meddlesome brethren of the north, who will be more apt than otherwise to call upon the slow-going conservatism of the south for aid in the crisis soon to come. Albert Parsons and his mulatto wife are of southern birth, and are radical products of the period of reconstruction. Albert is to be hung for preaching in Chicago that anarchy which he and his crew practiced here. A government administered by a party with as philanthropic a plank as the one under discussion protected for years in the south such thieves and murderers from their just deserts.
The south should have the profound sympathies of the north in this race struggle. This struggle does not exist at the north, for that thrifty section is said to have somewhere sold its unprofitable human chattels. The great trouble in the south is that politics are perforce controlled by color and by caste. Northern men can understand how race questions rise uppermost in the consideration of foreign statesmen. They make the mistake of supposing that in a republic human nature has undergone some peculiar change. Governments differ in form only; just as the Protestant churches have assumed to themselves as bodies that infallibility which they have denied to the pope. The progressive democracy should not assist in sacrificing the white people of Jefferson' s section to a sentiment too sickly for any but a political Mrs. Jellaby; and if it desires any votes in this section it will do well to eliminate reconstruction phraseology from its platforms.
A Plan From South Carolina
Charleston, S. C., Jan. l3.—In an extract from a letter from Waco, Tex., published in the Standard of Jan. 8, Mr. W. E. says that he cannot have anything to do with a political movement that offers equal rights to the negro, but that he would be heart and soul with “land and labor” if the appeal were to white men alone.
While respecting the right of every man to his honest convictions, I cannot refrain from asking Mr. W. E. h ow he can reconcile these views with the fundamental principles of the platform of the land and labor party. The movement is first and last a protest against the injustice of man against man, and its object is to lift society, not from the middle, but from the very lowest point. What will be gained if we in the south lift the white population while leaving the negroes, who constitute in some states a majority of the citizens, in their present state of abject poverty and ignorance? And what right would the white workingmen have to demand equal rights for themselves only to turn around and deny them to the black workingmen? It is not in this spirit that great revolutions are accomplished. Had a negro approached Jesus of Nazareth, 1800 years ago, he would have taken him by the hand and called him brother. This is the spirit in which we in South Carolina, the cradle of secession, have started the land and labor movement, stretching out a helping hand to every man who respects himself, be he black, white, yellow, or green, for in elevating the negro we shall be helping ourselves. Arid I will venture t o predict that, once fairly started with the cry of “The land for the people,” bribery and intimidation will not avail against the white and black workers fighting hand and hand for their rights. This is very different from the former war of races, when the negroes were led by a few unscrupulous carpetbaggers, with the whole white population against them.
“Did you ever,” said one preacher to the other, “stand at the door after your sermon and listen to what people said about it as they passed out.”
Replied he: “I did once.” a pause and a sigh, “but I'll never do it again.”
It is now fashionable for young ladies to be photographed in toboggan costumes. When a young man received a photograph of his girl arrayed in one of these outlandish rigs he immediately broke off his marriage engagement. He said blamed if he was going to marry an Indian squaw.—[Norristown Herald.]
At the Grand Central. Driver: “Hansom?” Statue of liberty visitor (from Elmira): “Waal, I dunno. If yer'd take a little 'r that air paint off yer bugle yer might pass in a craowd”—[Tid-Bits ]
At the bedside. Patient—“Tell me candidly, doctor, do you think I'll pull through?” Doctor “Oh, you are bound to get well; you can't help yourself. The Medical Record shows that out oi' one hundred cases like yours one per cent recovers invariably.” Patient— “That's a cheerful prospect.” Doctor— “What more do you want? I've treated ninety-nine cases and every one of them died. Why, man alive, you can't die if you try. There's no humbug about statistics.”—[Texas Siftings.]
Prof. Proctor estimates that in 16,000,000 years there will not be a drop of water left on the face of the earth. Kentucky will have a long time to wait for her golden age.—[Washton Hatchet.]
Mr. Gladstone gets $1.000 for a magazine article. The magazine articles turned off by Herr Krupp come very much higher.—[Boston Transcript.]
Mrs. A.—Mrs. B. is very ill, so Dr. Gabb tells me. Mrs. C.—Indeed; what is her complaint? Mrs. A.—Pneumonia, I believe. Mrs. C.—I don't believe a word of it! It's just like her boastfulness. Depend upon it, she's only pretending she has the pneumonia, just to make people think she is in the habit of going into first-class society, where evening dress is indispensable.—[Boston Transcript.]
Teacher—Johnny, you may tell me what the feminine of hero is. Johnny—Shero.—[Tid-Bits.]
A Philadelphia Episode.—Young Mrs. B .—Do tell me, Dr. Gruel, in a really scientific way. Do you consider our Schuykill water either healthy or fit to drink- Dr. G. (who holds a political appointment on the board of health)—Viewed in the light of a beverage, its wholesome qualities are abused by many: but if taken by the spoonful. and properly chewed, I consider it both nutritious and toothsome—[Life.]
At Dinner.—Young Hostess—I must show Mr. Brown: are you fond of them? Brown (absent minded)—Yes—oh yes: but I haven't eaten any lately.—[Life.] One colored hunter to another—“Hold on dar, Abel You’11 strain dat gun fus’ thing you knows tryin’ ter shoot dat duck so fur off, an’ de weepon nebber will be no mo’ count.”—[Texas Siftings.]
Mr. Isaac—“Mine frendt, gant T sell you a sude off mislit glodings? Peings ids you. I’ll magke ’em dwenty ber cent pelow gost.” Meginnis—“Indade ye can’t. When Oi want a misfit Oi’ll go to me tailor and have it made to order.”—[Texas Siftings.]
She (to young poet)—“How much do you get for your poems, Charley?' Charley (with pride) —“From $2 to $5.” She—“Well, isn't that very little? I see that Sir Walter Scott got $10,000 for one of his.” Charley—“Yes; but you see writing poetry isn't the business it used to be. There's too much competition.”—[New York Sun.]
The railroads of this country are on top, and the managers thereof have their feet on the necks of the people.—[St. Louis, Mo., New Order.]
In our view no class of men are more interested or better prepared to lake a long step in advance on the land question than the farmers. What does the future promise to the farmers' children, the children of the pioneer who has struggled for years to raise them, only to find land values so increased that they, like himself, must leave friends and the comforts of civilized society for western wilds' and all because while he toiled the speculator stood by ready to grasp the adjoining lands which the industry and enterprise of the farmer is making valuable, and which should in justice be open for the occupancy of his children.—[Omaha, Neb., Truth.]
There is lots of talk now-a-days about “railroads paying taxes,” and there are lots of people who really believe that railroads really do pay taxes. Such people forget that taxes on railroads come out of freights and freights come out of farmers. Then who pays the taxes? Thumb to nose and wiggle lingers to the men who say that railroads pay taxes.—[Kirwin, Kan., Independent.]
The bomb-slinging anarchists of Chicago blew up a half score of policemen. The senatorial anarchists of New Jersey have undertaken to blow up an entire commonwealth. The former are under sentence of death, but the latter there is no punishment. —[Philadelphia Record.]
The New York Tribune “regrets” the passage of the interstate commerce bill. So do Jay Gould, Leland Stanford and C. P. Huntington. They also believe “it is not a wise measure,” but they are not quite as sure as the Tribune appears to be that “it will certainly do less to carry out the wishes of its projectors than they anticipate.”—[Rochester Post-Express.]
Wool that costs from 35 to 55 cents a pound is a rather dear article to come under the heading of “waste.” But then this “waste” is imported at a duty of ten cents a pound, while woolen yarn, which has no higher value to the manufacturer, is subject to a duty of 85 cents a pound. In this way the tariff is tempered to the shorn lambs of “the wool market, so to speak, and our manufacturers geta small taste of free trade.—[Philadelphia Record.]
Social Studies—The Labor Problem—The Labor Movement
Heber Newton's “Social Studies,” a collection ofessays prepared at different times during the past eight years, has just been issued by the Putnams. In “A Bird's-eye View of the Labor Problem,” originally presented to the senate committee on labor and education, Mr. Newton makes a general examination of the labor question, leading up to approval of public proprietorship of land. The productive phase of co-operation is treated in an article contributed to the Princeton Review in 1882, and the distributive in one contributed to the North American Review in 1882. Old guilds and modern commercial associations, intemperance, education and the religious aspects of socialism are among the subjects of these studies, the whole ending with an excellent address on communism which was delivered before the church congress at Albany in 1871), and the Ministers' Institute at Princeton, Mass., in 1881, and published by the Unitarian Review in the latter year. “Communism,” the address begins, “is a word wildly flung about in our social discussions. It is the stock bogy of our dry nurses of the pulpit. the press and the platform wherewith they scare children of a larger growth from peeping into the dark places of our social system. It is the club with which the guardians of society reason, in the vigor and rigor of the New York policeman, with the brazen-faced Oliver Twists who imprudently dare to ask for more—an argument that silences by stunning.” With such an introduction it may well be inferred that neither this discussion, nor those preceding it in the volume, is of the hackneyed kind with which workingmen are patronizingly approached when clergymen have a call in that direction. Although many of Mr. Newton's studies were prepared before labor questions had excited general attention. they are as fresh now as if they had been written with a knowledge of existing conditions and expressly for the present time.
The Harpers publish what purports to be a collection of plain questions and practical answers about “The Labor Problem.” Most of the book's contests originally appeared in The Age of Steel of St. Louis. Prof. Ely leads with an article on “Co-operation in Literature and the State,” and is followed by James A. Walworth on “The Conflict Historically Considered,” the book concluding with a contribution on “Side Lights on the Labor Problem,” by Fred. Woodrow. Intermediate is a collection of replies to set questions regarding strikes, arbitration, division of profits, industrial partnerships and productive co- operation from political economists, manufacturers, workingmen, divines, labor commissioners and journalists, which are about as useful as would be so many explanations of the solar system that ignored the law of gravitation.
George E. McNeill, recently the labor candidate for mayor of Boston, has completed his work on “The Labor Movement.” It is published by Bridgman at Boston, Hazen at New York, Appleton at St, Louis, Roman at San Francisco, Gately & Conroy at Cincinnati, Iliff at Chicago, Ellsworth at Detroit, the Herald at Eric, and Hamilton at Cleveland. Among the associate authors are Terence V. Powderly, John J. O'Neill, J. M. Farquhar, Robert Howard, Henry George, Richard Trevellick. John Jarrett, R. Heber Newton, Frank K. Foster, Dr. Edmund J. James and P. J. McGuire. Beginning with a history of the rise of the modem laborer, the book proceeds with an historical account of mechanical labor and the story of the labor movement in America, showing the progress of labor legislation and the relations to the movement of shoemakers. the textile trades, coal miners, iron workers, railroad men, the building trades and miscellaneous trades. A history of the Knights of Labor is contributed by the founders. And among questions discussed by different associate authors are hours of labor, arbitration, co-operation, industrial education, the land question and the army of unemployment. The book is neatly printed on heavy paper, extends to six hundred pages, and contains forty portraits and five general illustrations.
A Plain Provision of the Law Neglected by the People's Representatives
I notice there is one feature of the general railway act of 1850 with which your article in the first number of the Standard on “How Railroad Millionaires are Made” does not deal. That act says the legislature shall have power to so regulate the charges for passengers or freight that the animal dividends shall not exceed 10 per cent on the actual cost of construction and equipment. The legislature nor the railroad commissioners have ever made an attempt to en force this provision. It this provision was enforced the people of this state would not have to pay such rates of fare and freight charges as enable these railroad corporations to pay interest on an immense paper indebtedness representing no actual value. It is a fraud from beginning to end, and I hope you will use all the influence of the Standard to secure the adopt ion of a constitutional amendment at the coming convention to entirely prohibit this swindle in the future. Every railroad company that has received a charter from this state, either horse car or steam is subject to the provisions of this general railroad act of 1850, and if the legislature and the different attorney generals had not had their eyes closed to the people's interests by the money of these corporations our industries and people would not now be bearing the burden of this monstrous wrong. In my opinion the word swindle does not half express it; it is highway robbery. It was shown by a committee of the legislature. which investigated the affairs of the elevated roads in this city, that the total cost of these roads was less than $23,000,000, but they are capitalized at over $43,000,000, with two mortgages on top of that (to constitute a “previous claim” in case property holders should make a combined attack). On top of this gigantic structure of fraudulent indebtedness comes the Manhattan company, with a capital of $13,000,000. I believe the lessees, whose stock is now selling for 155, are not the owners of any properly, but simply operate roads that belong to two other corporations. In view of this, remember their niggardly treatment of their employes, and we see what some of the evils are from which the people are suffering.
The Autobiography of a Successful Journalist
One of the most entertaining bits of autobiography we have ever read is the following account of his professional life, with its disappointments and rewards, by a Texas editor:
|Been asked to drink||
Requested to retract
Invited to parties and receptions by parties fishing for puffs
Took the hint
Didn't take the hint
Threatened to be whipped
Whipped the other fellow
Didn't come to time
Been promised whiskey, gin, etc., if he would go after them
Been after them
Been asked what's the news
Lied about it
Been to church
Expect to change still
Gave to charity
Gave for terrier dog
Cash on hand
The Master of the Sheepfold
De massa ob de shoepfol'
Dat guard do sheepfol' bin,
Look out in de gloomerin' meadows
Whar de long night rain begin—
So he call to de hirelin' shepard,
Is my sheep, is dey all come in?
Oh, den says do hirelin shepa'd,
Dey's some, dey's black and thin.
And some, dey's po' ol' wedda's,
But de res' dey's all brung in,
But de res' dey's all brung in.
Den do massa ob de sheepfol',
Dat guard de sheepfol' bin,
Goes down in de gloomerin' meadows,
Whar de long night rain begin—
So be le' down de ba's ob de sheepfol',
Callin sof, Come in, come in.
Callin' sof. Come in, come in!
Den up t'ro' de gloomerin' meadows,
T'ro' de col' night rain and win',
And up t'ro de gloomerin' rain paf
Wha'r de slect fa' pic'cin thin,
De po' los' sheep ob de sheepful'
Dey all comes gadderin' in,
De po' los' sheep ob do sheepfol',
Dey all comes gadderin' in.
The Bishop And The Outcast
From the French of Victor Hugo.
[Concluded from last week.]
After having said good-night to his sister, Monseigneur Bienvenu took one of the silver candlesticks from the table, handed the other to his guest, and said to him:
“Monsieur, I will show you to your room.”
The man followed him.
The house was so arranged that one could reach the alcove in the oratory only by passing through the bishop's sleeping chamber. Just as they were passing through this room Madame Magloire was putting up the silver in the cupboard at the head of the bed. It was the last thing she did every night before goingto bed,
The bishop left his guest in the alcove before a clean white bed. The man set down the candlestick upon a small table.
“Come,” said the bishop, “a good night's test to you: tomorrow morning, before you go, you shall have a cup of warm milk from our cows.”
“Thank you, monsieur Pabbe,” said the man.
Scarcely had he pronounced these words of peace when suddenly he made a singular motion which would have chilled the two good women of the house with horror had they witnessed it. Even now it is hard for us to understand what impulse he obeyed at the movement. Did he intend to give a warning or to threw out a menace?Or was he simply obeying a sort of instinctive impulse, obscure even to himself? He turned abruptly toward the old man, crossed his arms, and, casting a wild look at his host, exclaimed in a harsh voice:
“Ah, now, indeed! You lodge me in your house. As near you as that:
He checked himself and added with a laugh in which there was something horrible:
“Have you reflected upon it? Who tells you that I am not a murderer?”
The bishop responded:
“God will take care of that.”
Then with gravity, moving his lips like one praying or talking to himself, he raised two angers of his right hand and blessed the man, who, however, did not bow: and without turning bis head or looking behind him, went into his chamber.
When the alcove was occupied a heavy serge curtain was drawn in the oratory, concealing the altar. Before this curtain the bishop knelt as he passed out and offered a short prayer.
A moment afterward he waswalking in the garden, surrendering mind and seal to a dreamy contemplation of those grand and mysterious works of God which night makes visible to the eye.
As to the man, he was so completely exhausted that he did not even avail himself of the clean white sheets: he blew out the candle with his nostril, after the manner of convicts, and fell on the bed, dressed as he was, into a sound sleep.
Midnight struck as the bishop came back to his chamber.
A few moments afterward all in the little house slept.
As the cathedra1 clock struck two Jean Valjean awoke.
What awakened him was—too good a bed. For nearly twenty years he had not slept in a bed, and, although he had not undressed, the sensation was too novel not to disturb his sleep.
He had slept something more than four hours. His fatigue had passed away. He was not accustomed to give many hours to repose.
He opened his eyes, and looked for a moment into the obscurity about him: then he closed them to go to sleep again.
When many diverse sensations have disturbed the day. when the mind is preoccupied, we can fall a sleep once, but not a second time. Sleep comes at first much more readily than it comes again. Such was the case with Jean Valjean. He could not get to sleep again, and so he began to think.
He was in one of those moods in which the ideas we have in our minds are perturbed. There was a kind of vague ebb and flow in his brain. His oldest and his latest memories floated about pell mell and crossed each other confusedly, losing their own shapes, swelling beyond measure, then disappearing all at once, as if in a muddy and troubled stream. Many thoughts came to him, but there was one which continually presented it self and which drove away all others. What that thought was we shall tell directly. He had noticed the six silver plates and the large ladle that Madame Magloire had put on the table.
Those six silver plates took possession of him. There they were, within a few steps. At the very moment that he passed through the middle room to reach the one he was now in the old servant was placing them in a little cupboard at the head of the bed. He had marked that cupboard with [text missing] the right coming from the dining-room. They were solid and old silver. With the big ladle they would bring at least, two hundred francs, double what he had got for nineteen years' labor. True, he would have got more itthe “government” had not “robbed” him.
His mind wavered a whole hour, and a long one in fluctuation and in struggle. The clock struck three. He opened his eyes, rose up hastily in bed, reached out his arm and felt his haversack, which he had put into the corner of the above, then he thrust but his legs and placed his foot on the floor and fortified himself, heknew not how, seated on his bed.
He remained for some time lost in thought in that attitude which would have had a rather ominous look had any one seen him there in the dusk—he only awake in the slumbering mouse. All at once he stopped down, look off his shoes and put them softly upon the mat in front of the bed, then he resumed his thinking posture and was still again.
In that hideous meditation, the ideas which we have been pointing out troubled his brain without ceasing, entering, departed, returned, with became a sort of weight upon him; and then he thought, too, he knew not why, and with that mechanical obstinacy that belongs to a reverie, of a convict named Brevet, whom he had known in the galleys, and whose trowsers were only held up by a single knit cotton suspender. The checked pattern of that suspender came continually before his mind.
He continued in this situation, and would perhaps have remained there until daybreak, to the clock had not struck the quarter or the half hour. The clock seemed to say to him, “Come along!”
He rose to his feet. hesitated for a moment longer, and listened: all was still in the house: he walked straight and cautiously to ward the window, which he could discern. The night was not very dark; there was a full moon, across which large clouds were driving before the wind. Thisproduced alternations of light and shade, out-of-doors eclipses and illuminations, and in-doors a kind of glimmer. This glimmer, enough to enable him to find his way, changing with the passing clouds, resembled that sort of livid light which falls through the window of a dungeon before which men are passing and re-passing. On reaching the window Jean Valjean examined it. It had no bars, opened into the garden, and was fastened, according to the fashion of the country with a little wedge only. He opened it; but as the cold, keen air rushed into the room he closed it again immediately. He looked into the garden with that absorbed look which studies rather than sees. The garden was inclosed with a white wall, quite low, and readily scaled. Beyond. against the sky, he distinguished the tops of trees at equal distances apart, which showed that this wall separated the garden from an avenue or a lane planted with trees.
When he had taken this observation, he turned like a man whose mind is made up, went to his alcove, took his haversack, opened it, fumbled in it, took out something which he laid upon the bed, put his shoes into one of his pockets, tied up his bundle, swung it upon his shoulders, put on his cup, and pulled the visor over his eves, felt for his stick, and went and put it in the corner of the window, then returned to the bed, and resolutely took up the object which he had laid on it. It looked like a short iron bar, pointed at one end like a spear.
It would have been hard to distinguish in the darkness for what use this piece of iron had been made. Could it be a lever? Could it be a club?
In the daytime it would have been seen to be nothing but a miner's drill. At that tune the convicts were sometimes employed in quarrying stone on the high hills that surround Toulon, and they often had miner's tools in their possession. Miner's drills are of solid iron, terminating at the lower end in a point, by means of which they are sunk into the rock.
He took the drill in his right hand, and holding his breath, with steady steps he moved toward the door of the next room, which was the bishop's, as we know. On reaching the door he found it unlatched. The bishop had not closed it.
Jean Valjean listened. Not a sound.
He pushed the door.
He pushed it lightly with the end of his finger, with the stealthy and timorous carefulness of a cat. The door yielded to the pressure with a silent, imperceptible movement, which made the opening a little wider.
He waited a moment and then pushed the door again more boldly.
It yielded gradually and silently. The opening was now wide enough for him to pass through, but there was a small table near the door which with it formed a troublesome angle, and which barred the entrance.
Jean Valjean saw the obstacle. At all hazards the opening must be made still wider.
He so determined and pushed the door a third time, harder than before. This time a rusty hinge suddenly sent out into the darkness a harsh and prolonged creak.
Jean Valjean shivered. The noise of this hinge sounded in his ears as clear and terrible as the trump of the Judgment day.
In the fantastic exaggeration of the first moment he almost imagined that this hinge had become animate and suddenly endowed with a terrible life, and that it was barking like a dog to warn everybody and rouse the sleepers.
He stopped, shuddering and distracted, and dropped from his tiptoes to his feet. He felt the pulses of his temples beat like triphamers, and it appeared to him that his breath came from his chest with the roar of wind from a cavern. It seemed impossible that the horrible sound of this incensed hinge had not shaken the whole house with the shock of an earthquake. The door pushed by him had taken the alarm and had called out: the old man would arise; the two old women would scream; help would come; in a quarter of an hour the town would be alive with it and the gendarmes in pursuit. For a moment he thought be was lost.
He stood still, petrified like the pillar of salt, not during to stir. Some minutes passed. The door was wide open. He ventured to look into the room. Nothing had moved. He listened. Nothing was stirring in the house. The noise of the rusty hinge had wakened nobody.
This first danger was over, but still he felt within him a frightful tumult. Nevertheless he did not flinch. Not even when he thought, he was lost had he flinched. His only thought was to make an end of it quickly. He took one step and was in the room.
A deep calm filled the chamber. Here and there indistinct, confused forms could be distinguished; which by day. were papers scattered over a table, open folios, books piled on a stool, an a rm chair with clothes on it, a pric-Dieu, but now were only dark corners and whitish spots. Jean Valjean advanced, carefully avoiding the furniture. At the further end of the room he could hear the equal and quiet breathing of the sleeping bishop. Suddenly he stopped—he was near the bed, he had reached it sooner than he thought.
Nature sometimes joins her effects and her appearances to our acts with a sort of serious and intelligent appropriateness, as if she would compel us to reflect. For nearly a half hour a great cloud had darkened the sky. At the moment when Jean Valjean paused before the bed the cloud broke as if purposely, and a ray of moonlight crossing the high window, suddenly lighted upthe bishop's pale face. He slept tranquilly. He was almost entirely dressed, though in bed, on account of the cold nights of the lower Alps, with a dark woolen garments which covered his arms to the wrists. His head had fallen on the pillow in the unstudied attitude of slumber; over the side of the bed hung his hand, ornamented with the pastoral ring, and which had done so many good deeds, so many pious acts. His entire countenance was lit up with a vague expression of content, hope and happiness. It was more than a smile and almost a radiance. On his forehead rested the indescribable reflection of an unseen light. The souls of the upright have vision in sleep of a mysterious heaven.
A reflection from this heaven shone upon the bishop.
But it was also a luminous transparency, for this heaven was within him; this heaven was his conscience.
At the instant when the moonbeam overlay, so to speak, this inward radiance, the sleeping bishop appeared as if in a halo. But it was very mild, and veiled in an ineffable twilight. The moon in the sky, nature drowsing, the garden without a pulse. the quiet house, the hour. the moment, the silence, added something strangely solemn and unutterable to the venerable repose of this man, and enveloped I his white locks and his closed eyes with a serene and majestic glory, this face where all was hope and confidence—this old man's head and infants slumber.
There was something of divinity almost in this man, thus unconsciously august.
Jean Valjean was in the shadow with the iron drill in his hand, erect, motionless, terrified at this radiant figure. He had never seen any thing comparable to it. This confidence filled him with fear. The moral world has no greater spectacle than this; a troubled and restless conscience on the verge of committing an evil deed, contemplating the sleep of a good man.
This sleep in this solitude, with a neighbor such as he, contained a touch, of the sublime which he felt vaguely, but powerfully.
None could have told what was within him, not even himself. To attempt to realize in the utmost violence must be imagined in the presence of the most extreme mildness. In his face nothing could be distinguished with certainty. It was a sort of haggard astonishment. He saw it: that was alt. But what were his thoughts? It would have been impossible to guess. It was clear that he was moved and agitated. But of what nature was this emotion?
He did not remove his eyes from the old man. The only thing which was plain from his attitude and his countenance was a strange indecision. You would have said he was hesitating between two realms—that of the deemed and that of me saved. He appeared ready either to cleave this skull or to kiss this hand.
In a few moments he raised his left hand slowly to his forehead and took off his hat, then letting his hand fall with the same slowness Jean Valjean resumed his contemplations, his cap in his left hand, his club in his right, and his hair bristling onhis fierce-looking head.
Under this frightful gaze the bishop still slept in profoundest peace.
The crucifix above the mantelpiece was dimly visible in the moonlight, apparently extending its arms toward both, with a benediction for one and a pardon for the other.
Suddenly Jean Valjean put on his cup, then passed quickly, without looking at the bishop, along the bed,straight to the cupboard, which he perceived near its head. He raised the drill to force the lock. The key was in it. He opened it. The first thing he saw was the basket of silver. He took it, crossed the room with hasty stride, careless of noise, reached the door, entered the oratory, took his stick, stepped out, put the silver in his knapsack, threw away the basket, ran across the garden, leaped over the wall like a tiger and fled.
The next day at sunrise Monseigneur Bienvenu was walking in the garden. Madame Magloire ran toward him quite beside herself.
“Monseigneur, Monseigneur,” cried she, “does your greatness know where the silver basket is?”
“Yes,” said the bishop.
“God be praised!” said she, “I did not know what had become of it.”
The bishop had just found the basket on a flower-bed. He gave it to Madame Magloire and said: “There it is.”
“Yes,” said she, “but there is nothing in it. The silver?”
“Ah!” said the bishop, “it is the silver then that troubles you. I do not know where that is.”
“Good heavens! it is stolen. That man who came last night stole it.”
And in the twinkling of an eye, with all the agility her age was capable, of Madame Magloire ran to the oratory, went into the alcove, and came back to the bishop. The bishop was bending with some sadness over a cochlearia des Guillons, which the basket had broken in falling. He looked up a t Madame Magloire's cry:
“Monseigneur, the man has gone! The silver is stolen!”
While she was uttering this exclamation her eves fell on an angle of the garden where she saw traces of an escalade. A capstone of the wall had been thrown down.
“See, there is where he got out; he jumped into Cochefilet lane. The abominable fellow, he has stolen our silver!”
The bishop was silent for a moment, then raising his serious eyes he said mildly to Madame Magloire:
“Now, first, did the silver belong to as?” Madame Magloire did not answer; after a moment the bishop continued:
“Madame Magloire, I have for a long time wrongfully withheld this silver; it belonged to the poor. Who was this man? A poor man evidently.”
“Alas! alas!” returned Madame Magloire. “It is not on my account or mademoiselle's; it is all the same to us. But it is on yours, monseigneur. What is monsieur going to eat from now?"
The bishop looked at her with amazement.
“How so! have we no tin plates?”
Madame Magloire shrugged her shoulders.
“Well, then, iron plates.”
Madame Magloire made an expressive gesture.
“Well,” said the bishop, “then wooden plates.”
In a few minutes he was breakfasting at the same table at which Jean Valjean sat the night before. While breakfasting Monseigneur Bienvenu pleasantly remarked to his sister, who said nothing, and Madame Magloire, who was grumbling to herself, that there was really no need even of a wooden spoon or fork to dip a piece of bread into a cup of milk.
“Was there ever such an idea?” said Madame Magloire to herself, as she went backward and forward, “to take in a man like that, and to give him a bed beside him; and yet what a blessing it was that he did nothing but steal! Oh, my stars! it makes the chills run over me when I think of it!
Just as the brother and sister were rising from the table, there was a knock at the door.
“Come in,” said the bishop.
The door opened. A strange, fierce group appeared on the threshold. Three men were holding a fourth by the collar. The three men were gendarmes; the fourth Jean Valjean.
A brigadier of gendarmes, who appeared to head the group, was near the door. He advanced toward the bishop, giving a military salute.
“Monseigneur,” said he—
At this word Jean Valjean, who was sullen and seemed entirely east down, raised his head with a stupefied air—
“Monseigneur!” he murmured, “then it is not the cure!”
“Silence!” said a gendarme; “it is monseigneur, the bishop.”
In the mean time Monsieur Bienvenu had approached as quickly as his great age permitted:
“Ah, there you are!” said he, looking toward Jean Valjean. “I am glad to see you. But! I gave you the candlesticks also, which are silver like the rest, and would bring two hundred francs. Why did you not take them along with your plates?”
Jean Valjean opened his eyes and looked at the bishop with an expression which no human tongue can describe.
“Monseigneur,” said the brigadier, “then what this man said was true? We met him. He was going like a man who was running away, and we arrested him in order to see. He had this silver.”
“And he told you,” interrupted the bishop, with a smile, “that it had been given him by a good old priest. with whom he had passed the night. I see it all. And you brought him back here?It is all a mistake.”
“If that is so,” said the brigadier, “we can let him go.”
“Certainly,” replied the bishop.
The gendarmes released Joan Valjean, who shrank back.
“Is it true that they let me go?” he said, in a voice almost inarticulate, as if he were speaking in his sleep.
“Yes, you can go. Do you not understand ?” said a gendarme.
“My friend,” said the bishop. “before you go away here are your candlesticks. Take them.”
He went to the mantelpiece, took the two candlesticks and brought them to Jean Valjean. The two women beheld the action without a word. or gesture, or look that might disturb the bishop.
Jean Valjean was trembling in every limb. He look the two candlesticks mechanically, and with a wild appearance.
“Now,” said the bishop, “go in peace. By the way, my friend, when you come again, you need not come through the garden. You can always come in and go out by the front door. It is closed only with a latch, day or night.”
Then turning t o the gendarmes he said:
“Messieurs, you may retire.” The gendarmes withdrew.
Jean Valjean felt like a man who is just about to faint.
The bishop approached him and said in a low voice:
“Forget not, never forget that you have promised me to use this silver to become an honest man.”
Jean Valjean, who had no recollection of this promise. stood confounded. The bishop had laid much stress upon these words as he uttered them. He continued, solemnly:
“Jean Valjean, my brother, you belong no longer to evil, but to good. It is your soul that I am buying for you. I withdraw it from dark thoughts and from the spirit of perdition, and I give it to God!”
In God We Trust
O where shall we look for comfort,
Sweet Lord, where place our trust,
As we drearily moil in thankless toil,
With our faces down in the dust?
These hovels that line the alley
In tottcring, bleak decay,
Are swarming with lives—O honeyless lives—
Of the workers of today!
But yonder stands a mansion,
With its gleam of shining gold;
With its airy halls and its pictured walls,
And store of wealth untold.
And the haughty, scornful tenant,
Meets us ever with a frown;
For unsated still he works his will,
And grinds our faces down.
But what have we done, O Savior,
To merit this fatal doom?
Is this our pay for the sweating day
At the hammer and spade and loom?
Or look we still for the evil
That binds us into the dust,
While the idler drives o'er our wearied lives!
Ah ! where shall we place our trust'
Dear Lord, thy hand is mighty;
Dear God, thy will is sure :
Thou still wilt keep thy starving sheep;
Thou still wilt save the poor!
Even now the morn is breaking;
Her radiant beams we see;
The sweet reward Thou wilt bring, O Lord;
We rest our faith in Thee.
D. J. Donahok.
Josh Workhard's Shopmate
How He Looks on Things Now
I met my old acquaintance Billion yesterday near City Kali park. Before the war he made a living by shoving a jack-plane, and he and I worked in the same shop. Somehow he managed to get into the shoddy business, and after awhile became one of the masters of the “ring.”
“Well,” said he, “you seem to be kicking around vet, and I don't s'pase you've any better off now than you were a year ago.”
He was just going to step into his coupe, but I laid my hand on his sleeve and said, “How do you expect a poor man to be better off this year than he was a year age, when things are as they are?”
“Bah! that's all bosh,” said he, leaning against the door of the coupe. “Things are all right. They suit me well enough, any how, and if you'd only do as I have done. Josh, you”
I looked at the crafty millionaire, and said: “Billion, 'tisn't everybody can do as you have done, and, 'tween ourselves, I don't believe everybody wants to.”
He laughed, and said: “I thank you for the compliment. I don't believe everybody's got brains or nerve enough to do what I have done.”
“Billion,” said I, as he leaned shivering against the coupe, “have you given one thought those cold, bitter winter days to the fact that there are thousands of deserving people in this city who are at this moment suffering for want of the commonest necessaries of life?”
“It's their own fault in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred,” said Billion. “There's a screw loose somewhere. Nobody's got any business to be poor in this world. Let 'em do as I have done and they'll soon get over their sufferings and stop their growling.”
“Does it ever occur to you, Billion,” I asked, “that the poor have rights which the rich ought to respect?”
“Respect them for what?” said he. “I do respect them. I respect them just so far as they can do the work for me that I want them to do. That's all; and it;s all humbug to say that they are entitled to any more respect than that. I've got enough to do. I take care of my self. Let them take care of themselves.”
“But you must admit,” said I, “that much, if not the greater part of the existing poverty, is the result of the accumulation of immense fortunes in the hands of the few.”
“I won't admit any such thing,” he said. “It's all their own fault; you can bet your bottom dollar on that.”
I thought of my humble apartments in a cheap flat, and I also thought of Billion's grand mansion on Fifth avenue, with its retinues of servants, its many comforts and extravagant luxuries.
“But I haven't got a bottom dollar, Billion,” said I; “that went for the rent a day or two ago, when I would have been dispossessed if I hadn't raked enough together to pay it.”
“Well, you managed to get it, didn't you?” he said, looking me full in the face with his cold, sunless eyes. “You got it, and you've got a bed to sleep in. That's as much as I've got, when it comes to that.”
“Yes,” said I, “thank heaven I've got that; but the shop where I worked shut down just before the holidays, and since then I've been unable to get work at anything.”
“Pshaw! Josh." said he. “You're strong and hearty, and something will turn up again after a while. I reckon you weren't cut out for a tramp.”
“Look here. Billion,” said I, “so long as I can keep on my legs and hunt for work I shall try not to be a tramp. I am willing and able to work, and I hope that something will turn up for me before long. But look at the thousands who are even worse off than I am. Tenants, broken down in health, turned homeless into the streets— many of them by landlords to whom they had had paid rent for mouths and perhaps for years. And yet—“
“You can't work on my feelings in that way, Josh,” he said, “so you might as well change the subject.”
But I was in no mood to change the subject, and said: “And yet I read in the paper yesterday that the wife of a senator appeared at at a White house reception last week wearing $500,000 worth of diamonds, and thousands out of work and starvation going on all over the country.”
He straightened up, thrusting his hands into his pockets, said, “S'pose she did; who got 'em for her? Her husband, of course, and he was smart to get 'em Josh.”
“But how did he get 'em?” I asked.
“It's nobody's business how he got 'em,” said Billion. “He got 'em any how.”
“But it is somebody's business,” I said. “It's the people's business.”
He laughed and said: “Well, I can only say what another once said on that subject and that is, The people be d—d.”
“But the people won't be d—d forever,” said I. “The people are at last awake. They are beginning to know something about the causes of the evils that beset them. The light has broken in upon them, and through it they sec the infamous railroad rascalities, the terrible effect of monopolies, the iniquities of corporation power, and the corruption of legislation. They see that they are crushed beneath the iron heel of those who have no heart, no soul, no proper regard for the toilers, who are the real builders of the property of the country and the actual makers of the capital which-a few have gobbled up.”
“Josh, you talk like a statesman,” said the millionaire. “Why don't you rush into politics and go to the state legislature?”
I answered that I wasn't cut out for a politician, and that all I wanted was work and fair wages.
“You're a fool,” he said, “You just get elected to the legislature and get on some good committee. You'll find it will pay you better in one term than all your work and wages for twenty years. Take my advice, Josh. I know how it is myself. I ain't shamed to say that I have worked things up there and will probably do so again if I find it pays.”
“Bribery?” said I.
“Well, call it what you please,” said he. “Do you s'pose that these poor devils at Albany and Harrisburg and Indianapolis and a dozen other capitals I might name, can afford to go to the legislature for the beggarly salaries they get if you do, you don't know anything about human nature, that's all.”
I replied with a shrug of the shoulders.
“Well,” said he, “you keep on and you'll succeed in making a tramp of yourself yet.”
“And yet,” said I, “you can recollect when tramps were not known in this country.”
“Well, who made them tramps?” said he, with a growl.
“Just such men as you,” said I, “have closed your heart to the natural claim of the workingman to plenty of work and adequate wages. You and your set want the earth and would take it, too, in my opinion, if you could grab it. But you can't. The people are after you, and by the force of the ballot they will bring you to a realizing sense of the wrongs you have heaped upon them.”
“Josh,” he said, “you'11 never live to see that day.”
“But it will surely come. Billion, whether I live to see it or not. It is the inevitable,” said I, as he stepped into his coupe and went rolling home, while I resumed my hunt for a job.
San Francisco Reporter.
The wages problem resolves itself into a very simple question, viz.: Which is the better for a community—to have 10,000,000 men earning $2.50 a day, with hours that enable them to read and rest and pass a fair proportion of their time with their families, and at the same time have no millionaires, or to have those 10.000,000 men working fifteen hours a day at $1.50, and have a few score millionaires?
The Slavery Of Today
Plantation Life in Louisiana Harder on Workmen Now Than Before the War
In New Orleans, surrounded by the luxuries and refinements to be found only in the aristocratic quarters of such a city, reside the owners and lessees of Cote Blanche, an extensive sugar plantation on an island of the same name in St. Mary's parish. These gentlemen live much after the manner of the slave owners in years gone by—whose places, indeed, they seem to fill—the only difference being that they have fewer cares and more time to spend in their luxurious city homes. Slaves they have not nominally, but. all their wants are supplied with as much alacrity as could be required by the most exacting slave masters, and, looking at these men, one is tempted to inquire wherein the conditions of which they are the outcome differ from those existing before the war.
Cote Blanche is managed by an overseer who receives his commission from the lessees, who take that trouble off the owners' hands. This overseer lives on the plantation in a large franc house near the little village composed of the hovels of the laborers. The laborers are while and black, and all live alike in little board shanties, whitewashed on the outside. These shanties have but two rooms, one used as kitchen, en ting room and general living room, and the other, which they occupy in common with the dogs, pigs and turkeys, as a sleeping room. The clothing of these people is ragged and dirty to the last degree, and their food—pork, black bread and a mixture called coffee—is as unhealthful a diet, considering the climate, as could be given them. Their only luxury is vile tobacco. Their privileges are, working all day when in health and being thrown out when sick. Their miserable food they are forced to buy at the plantation store. Liberty is given them, however, to die wherever and whenever the3r please, as this is a matter of the most absolute unconcern to any one in the world except their families and the many poor wretches who are willing and anxious to take the places of those who die or are discharged as “used up.” The overseer does not have to work hard; his only concern is to extract from his people the greatest amount of exertion that exhausted nature can yield—and to do this the lash and whipping post are unnecessary. Work means at least enough pork and enough black bread to sustain the lives of father and children, while dismissal means starvation.
Heroin lies the difference between the free competition method and the old slave owning plan; herein, too, is found the advantage of the present system looked at from the employer's standpoint. A man who owned a large number of slaves used to be envied, while the slaves were in some degree pitied. Now the conditions are reversed; the slaves whom a man takes and “uses up” are envied by a large part of the community (those out of work), while the man who uses them is looked on as a public benefactor, as if he were throwing away his money for the poor to pick it up. The slavery on the Cote Blanche plantation is degrading and hopeless. The relative position of the slave is more pitiful, that of the master more powerful. The days when master and men knew each other by name, when the private servants of the master were taken from the ranks of the plantation workers, when each man or boy had the opportunity of doing some little favor for their master and winning his favor, is gone. The real master never or rarely sees his men; his work is all done by a deputy. The highest ambition of a man is to be allowed to slave like a dog for the veriest necessities of life. It is here most obvious, too, where the cause lies. It is in the system that gives to a perfumed idler lounging in his city home the absolute control of all the means of production. It is this placing the land in the hands of the favored one or two that gives them the power of saying to one “come,” and to another “go,” with a certainty of being obeyed. The land of Cote Blanche is naturally adapted to the raising of sugar cane: the improvements are few: the rent therefore is not the reward of capital invested, nor of the efforts of a far seeing man to provide for a popular demand, but it is simply the payment demanded by one who monopolizes the soil from which all must draw their sustenance.
English Trade Unions
Official Statistics Showing Their Numbers and Resources
From the London Standard.
By order of the house of commons Messrs. Hansard have just printed an appendix to the returns of the chief registrar of Friendly societies for the year ending Dec. 31, 1885, giving a list of registered trade unions in the United Kingdom, with the dates of their establishment, and, in some cases, particulars of their funds, incomes and membership. From this it appears that the oldest of all the trade unions is the Steam Engine Makers' society, Manchester, which was establish on Nov. 3, 1824, and has now £10,435 accumulated funds, an annual income of £11,336 and a membership of 5,032. The union possessing the largest fund of those which have sent in returns (though it must be remembered that several of the largest societies, such, for example, as the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, have given no particulars of their nuances), is the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners, with headquarters at Manchester. The funds of this organization are stated at £50,780; annual income, £63,122, and membership, 25,781. It is, however closely pressed by the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants of England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales, whose headquarters are in City road, London. The funds, of this society are stated at £50,780, with an annual income of £14,375 and 9,054 members.
The largest annual income, £70,703, is claimed by the United Society of Boilermakers and Iron Shipbuilders of Newcastle-on-Tyne, with 27,695 members and accumulated funds amounting to £38,317. The Durham Miners' association appears to be, so far as the returns show, numerically the strongest union in the kingdom, having 35,000 members, with an income of £46,153, and funds amounting to £35,993. Some of the titles of these societies show the extensive ramifications of trades unionism. That there is a warehouse men's Philanthropic society, inBradford should occasion no surprise; but the same town boasts of a Stuff Makers-up Provident society, with considerable funds and an income of more than £1,000 a year. The card-setting machine tenters, drillers and cutters “of the River Wear,” Dutch yeast importers, trimmers and teemers, crabbers and singers, silk ballers, potters' mould makers, boot-top cutters, hammermen, the canister makers, carriage straighteners, tape sizers, chippers and drillers, brass cock finishers, the amalgamated chimney sweeps, the amicable wool staplers and the randlet coopers—all these and many more have separate trade organizations of their own for mutual protection.
Women, too, have learned the utility of combination, as may be gathered from the titles of the Westminster and Pimlico branch of the London Tailoresses' trade union and the Rochdale Male and Female Card and Blowing Room Operatives' association. In Sunderland there is a Shipyard Helpers' association, and Birkenhead possesses the distinction of being the headquarters of the United Society of Holder-up of Great Britain and Ireland, which has 317 members, an annual income of £355 and £375 funded.
The Glorious Past
Reminiscences for the Benefit of Those Who Decry the Present
It is profitable occasionally to go on a brief spree of reminiscence in order to find out how fast the world is going forward, because the world does move very fast. The new idea or invention of today is the old one of tomorrow. People today who can't do without their telephones and who accept telephones as if they had been born to them sneered twelve years ago at the idea of one man's talking audibly to another two, ten or twenty miles distant.
It is not well to reminisciate all the time, because if you do you'll get into your back brain and live entirely in the past and fossilize there, as even now do many men and women who are somewhere near or a little past that equator of life, middle age, and who evidence the first symptoms of cerebral fossilization by talking of the times, the things, the customs or the men of their youth as vastly superior to anything produced by the present.
This is a sad mistake. It is they who are inferior, who are fossilizing—not the times. The future has ever in store new things, new ideas, new inventions and greater wonders than the past, at least the past of our race or the past of this cycle of our planet's existence.
Forty years is but as an hour in the life of a planet. In 1847 telegraphy was at most an experiment; all men chewed tobacco; San Francisco was a cluster of barren sand hills; everybody had a right to be cruel to animals; coal oil was unknown as a lighting fluid; people in the Connecticut towns farmed out the poor to the lowest bidder; lightning rods were preached against as an insult to deity; it was argued that He had a right to send His lightning where He pleased, and that it was sinful to try and prevent Him; the homeopathic school of medicine, then in its infancy, was snubbed and nearly kicked to death by the allopaths; a church organ in the country was a rarity; the country choir “fiddled and sang” the ninety-ninth hymn, and even a bass viol was looked on with hostility by the elders: steel pens were just coming into use; “to mend a quill” was part of every schoolboy's education.
No world's fairs had been held; no international yacht races or shooting matches had been thought of; four or live side-wheel steamers only paddled between this country and Europe; postage to Illinois was ten cents a letter; the American dandy wore a ruffled shirt bosom; a clergyman who had visited Palestine was canonized, in the Protestant sense; the six-shooter was just coming in to perform its necessary office in advancing civilization; whale-oil was generally used for house-lamps and spoiling carpets; some of the older people hung on pertinaciously to their flint and steel to kindle their fires, and avoided “lucifers,” as friction matches were then called; uniforms were not as common as at present, so that cabin-boys were not taken for admirals; warming-pans were used to make beds habitable in cold weather; ladies carried foot-stools to church to keep their soles warm; the average sermon of that period was twice as long as the present one and was divided into from sixteen to twenty- ix “heads.” Doctrines were hotter, sterner and harder. The Presbyterian fought the Methodist; The Methodist in turn kicked argumentatively the Baptist, and all these made a wholesale fight against the Episcopalian and the Catholic “Brotherly love” then didn't get much beyond the walls of “our church,” nor sisterly either. When a house frame was raised the whole village turned out, took a hand in it, and there was ruin enough drunk to flood the floor timbers. The usual deacon of that time had a red nose. and was several degrees meaner than the rest of the congregation. Every householder was required by law to keep two leathern fire buckets. The war feeling of 1812 against England cropped out strong in places, and in every village Fourth of July oration we whacked thunder out of the British. All Germans were “Dutchmen,” and a “Dutchman” was a curiosity.
A congressman then was somebody, and was quite respectable. So was an editor. The funny newspaper man had not come. No one dreamed of the railroad as a political power. Everybody then made their own soft soap, and had plenty of it. Tomatoes were known as “love apples.” It was a disgrace to be married by a justice of the peace. Good whiskey in the South street saloons was three cents a glass in front of the screen and six behind it. The “free lunch” was unknown. No one then had any definite idea as to the prolongation of individual existence after death. Nobody then had dreamed out the elevator and by it converted the regions of the upper air into real est ale, as in our present twelve storied buildings. Doctors then, armed with calomel and lancet, bled, pi lied and purged patients with an energy and ferocity unappreciable in these days of weaker tinctures and atomic pills. Cremation was unheard of. There was no risk of being burned alive to avoid being buried alive. The coffins were all of wood. Tombstones were rarely over five feet in height, but they slung more words, flattery and gush into the epitaphs than now. In cases the less praises they gave a man when living, the more work they gave the stonecutter after his death. One trip to Europe was enough for a lifetime. It set a man up in his town or precinct as a traveler and a man of the world. Cafes, five o'clock dinners, round dances, pet pugs, dog-carts, stuffed owls, sleeping ears and hundred millionaires were unknown. A man with a million was thought to have quite a sum of money. All the locomotives then burned wood, set the forests on tire, They ran off the track three times as often as now, and went through or over a cow every day. The locomotive then killed about one-third of our beef; steamboat boilers burst frequently. There were no ladies' clubs, no sorosis, nor cry of the sex for its rights; no abuse of man as a tyrant; no female preachers: no complaint by man that women were trying to make their minds as strong as those of the stronger sex. Men were strong then; they did not come home at night weak, worn out and discouraged by the struggle with the world and depend on the wife, the “weaker vessel” for hope, cheer and consolation. They did not come home and unconsciously draw their strength for the next day's effort from her, and then go off and use it, and give themselves all the credit for such strength. No. They came home oftener half drunk and went to bed and slept it off, and arose the next morning and refreshed themselves firstly before breakfast, either at the family sideboard or the tavern bar with a glass of old New England rum straight, and the wives died oftener then of consumption before middle age, and the man married more of them, because marriage then was a divine institution—for the man left a widower with five children.
A Simple Mode of Taxation
The Detroit Labor Leaf says: The necessity for a simple mode of taxation is plain to every thinking man. The tariff and internal revenue taxes are constantly evaded, and the county and city taxes give riseto a large amount of fraud, especially when a man has considerable personal property. Vacant land held on speculation is taxed at a low rate, while single improved lots are taxed heavily. We should substitute for these cumbersome and easily evaded taxes a single tax on land values. Such a tax would abolish land speculation and give the producer access to it.
O tired heart!
Not you nor I.
Who reach our hands for gifts
That wrist love must deny.
We blunder where we fain would do our best
Until aweary, then we cry, “Do Thou the rest.”
And in his hand the tangled thread we place
Of our pour, blind weaving, with a shamed face.
All trust of ours He sacredly will keep.
So,tired heart, God knows, go thou to work or sleep.
A Short Sermon by Bishop Massilon
John Baptist Massilon, bishop of Clermont, France, died 1742, after earning a reputation for goodness and eloquence that extended throughout the Catholic church. Since his death all Christians join in this estimate of his character and ability. We givethe following extracts from his sermon on John vi., 11:
“Who is ignorant that originally everything belonged in common to all men: that simple .nature know neither property nor portions, end that at first she left each of us in possession of the universe? but that, in order to put bounds to avarice and to avoid trouble and dissensions, the common consent of the people established that the wisest, the most humane find the most upright should likewise be the most opulent; that, besides the portion of wealth destined to them by nature, they should also be charged with that of the weakest, to be its depositories and to defend it against usurpation and violence. Consequently they were established by nature itself as the guardians of the unfortunate, and whatever surplus they had was only the patrimony of their brethren, confided to their care and their equity. Who, lastly, is ignorant that the ties of religion have still more firmly cemented the first bonds of union which nature had formed among men; that the grace of Jesus Christ, which brought forth the first believers, made of them not only one heart and one soul, but also one family, where the idea of individual property was exploded? . . .
“These are the funds and the heritage of the poor. You are only their depositories, and you cannot encroach upon them without usurpation and in justice.
“The gospel forbids life of sensuality and voluptuousness equally to the rich as to the indigent.
“That the rich. sheltered in their opulence, should see only from afar the anger of heaven, while the poor and the innocent shall become its melancholy victims: Great God! thou wouldst then overwhelm only the unfortunate in sending these scourges upon the earth! Thy sole intention then should be to complete the destruction of those miserable wretches upon whom thy hand was already so heavy in bringing them forth to penury and want!
The primitive church, . . . there was no poor among them,” says St. Luke, “nor any that lacked.”
News and Opinions
There are broad-church Presbyterians getting into vacant chairs of Scottish universities. Principal Cunningham has been giving the broadest practical teaching to the farmers, whom he tells that the prohibition of Sabbath work did not apply to harvest labor in the short summers of Scotland. Dr. Story at Glasgow calls for the emancipation of his chair of history from all theological tests.
The Evening Post has been calling for a statement of the wrongs of workingmen, and asks what legislation they want.
The Christian Union. gives clear and definite answers from news documents, which were as easily obtainable by the Post as by any one else.
The Independent has some plain words for the churches, taking as its text the words of a workingman at the Newark meeting:
Mr. Powderly has been telling you what his religious position is. Now I will tell you about my religion. I am not an member of any church. Now, I don't say this as anything toboast of. On the other hand, I am ashamed of it. But if I am not a member of the church, I have read my New Testament a good deal and I have come to one-conclusion, and that is that then; would not be a single pauper in the world if the teachings of Jesus Christ were obeyed. And I have come to one other conclusion, and that is that where there are so many paupers in the world the church has got a great way off from the teachings of Jesus Christ.
The Catholic Mirror reports that Cardinal Gibbons will start for Rome in a few days. He goes to receive. it: company with the other recently created cardinals. the red hat from the holy father's own hands. The consistory will occur some time in March.
This visit will stop the cardinal's work for the present on his book treating of labor problems.
The Protestant Episcopal papers reflect the continued interest taken in the proposed change of the name of the church, which gained so large a vote at the recent convention. Dr. McVicker of Philadelphia has made an earnest speech echoing the spirit of opposition expressed by Dr. Phillips Brooks. Correspondents of the most loyal character are predicting disaster to the church if the proposition is pressed.
Despite all the recent enthusiasm, Prof. E. D. Morris, a Presbyterian, claims that “non-essentials” are to be insisted on as a basis. It Is a curious reactionary expression, and the Evangelist gives it the most prominent place in its columns. It is the spirit which the late Dr. Adams of New York reproved at the Pan-Presbyterian council in Edinburgh, when he rebuked his British brethren for their almost numberless divisions and subdivisions. “Brethren,” said he, “you are R. P's and I. P's and U. P's. Whydon't you call yourselves split peas and be done with it?”
The Christian at Work advocates Christian socialism, and says that it is:
1. The unity of the race as the creation of God.
2. The brotherhood of the race through Christ, the son of God.
3. The subjection of the race to Christ, the king. Let not the church ignore these movements. Let not anymistake, nor even crime, blind the law abiding to the transcendent fact of human need. The church must proclaim to the socialists: “What you need, what you ignorantly seek after, can only be found in the the light of the gospel,” And it must be able to demonstrate that it can be found there. Just now this is not a very easy task.
Let churches and ministers, let religious papers, let individual Christians give heed, and let them attend to the wrongs complained of.
“Sam” Jones has removed from Toronto to Boston in his evangelical work. He opened with a talk to ministers in this style: “When a minister is to be called it is asked. Is he careful? Is he conservative.' Is he prudent? Which means, when it is boiled down, 'Is he a pusillanimous puppy, that will do no harm.' The Episcopalians are the best organized and equipped denomination in America, but they have been in camp two hundred years, and have not hit anybody.”
A New Grab
The Bradford Era suggests that, under the guise of a law to prevent waste of natural gas, the organized gas companies will endeavor to obtain legislation at Harrisburg which will aid them in establishing a firmer monopoly of the business by preventing the drilling of competitive wells. The legislature should go slow in dealing with a business so that it is not generally understood.
Debbs Ferry (N. Y.) Record of the Times.
The State has a “discharged convicts agent” whose duty it is to visit the prisons oncea month to furnish released convicts with clothing, transportation, tools or money. He draws on $7,500 appropriation. Of this he takes $3,500 for salary and distributes(?) $4,000 among convicts. In fact, it costs the State $3,500 to give away $4,000. Gov. Hill recommends office he abolished.
Lincoln And Labor
The Martyr President the Advocate of Workingmen's Rights
The reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln in the North American Review led me to read again writings and speeches of that great man, with the result of bringing into strong relief the contrast between his aims and works and those of the statesmen who today direct the machinery of the party that calls itself grand and old. Old it is to the verge of senility, but its grandeur faded and died with its youth.
The appalling contrast between the earnest, honest, great-minded and loving-hearted Lincoln and the average republican lender of today, with his false pretenses, political hypocrisy, and servile devotion to the cruel and greedy demand of organized capital, can only be paralleled with that existing between the life and works of the founder of Christianity and those of the per formers in the various Fifth avenue temples misusing his name.
That in the political contest for which the armies are now organizing, between the people upon the one side and the aristocracy of wealth. with its hirelings and dupes, upon the other, Lincoln would have been upon the side of the people, no can did student of his speeches and writings can doubt.
In his message to congress in December, 1861, Lincoln deprecated the effort to place capital even upon an equal footing with labor in the structure of government. He denied the assumption that labor is available only in connection with capital, and that nobody labors unless induced to do so by somebody else owning capital.
Lincoln says: “Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
A letter that Lincoln wrote in 1859 in answer to an invitation to attend a dinner given in celebration of the birthday of Jefferson by the republicans of Boston (think of it!) is also interesting in this connection. He said:
“The democracy of today hold the liberty of one man to be absolutely nothing when in conflict with another man's right of property. Republicans, on the contrary, are both for the man and the dollar, but in case of conflict the man before the dollar. I remember being once much amused at seeing two partially intoxicated men engaged in a long with their great coats on, which fight, after a long and rather harmless con test, ended in each having fought himself out of his own coat and into that of the other. If the two leading parties of this day are really identical with the two in the days of Jefferson and Adams, they have performed the same feat as the two drunken men. . . . All honor to Jefferson; to a man who in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document an abstract truth application to all men and all times, and so to enshrine it there that today and in all coming days it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling block to the harbingers of reappearing tyranny and oppression.
Jefferson and his principles are not held in so high esteem by the republicans of 1887 as they were by Lincoln and the republicans of 1859, and both of the parties have now scuffled out of Jefferson's coat and thrown it away for a new party to rescue and wear.
A favorite method of argument of the capitalistic press, in discussing labor troubles, is to invoke general principles of American liberty, the freedom of contract and the like. The Evening Post especially, during one of the street car strikes, overflowed with ardent expressions of exalted patriotism, and brought showers of epistles from its admiring readers, generally shallow in thought and vapid in expression, but which served to fill many weary columns.
When, prior to the civil war, the extension of slavery into the territories was a subject of absorbing interest, the labor monopolists of those days, with much show of patriotic sentiment, appealed to the “sacred right of self-government,” which phrase, said Lincoln, “though expressive of the only rightful basis of any government, was so perverted in this attempted use of it as to amount to just this: That if any one man chooses to enslave another, no third man shall be allowed to object” No less absurd is it in these days of industrial suffering to invoke the sacred right of “freedom of contract” when one of the parties is a starving, helpless, and despairing man.
Lincoln said in a speech in Baltimore in 1804:
We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he please with himself and the product of his labor, while, with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men and the product of other men's labor.
As has been repeatedly noticed, there are many points of resemblance between the circumstances of the formation and first contests of the republican party and those of the new party of the present. Wealth, power and influence, then as now, were upon one side, and devotion to a just principle upon the other. As Lincoln in 1858 described his new party and its first battle, the words are entirely applicable to the new party today. He said:
We mustered under the single impulse of resistance to a common danger, with every external circumstance against us. Of strange, discordant, and even hostile elements, we gathered from the four winds and formed and fought the battle through, under the constant hot tire of a disciplined, proud and pampered enemy.
How apt, too, is his description of the condition of the black man in 1857 to the state of the workingman, black or white, of thirty years later:
All the powers of the earth seem rapidly combining against us. Mammon is after him; ambition follows; philosophy follows and the theology of the day is fast joining the cry. They have him in his prison house; they have searched his person, and left no prying instrument with him.
Nor did Lincoln seem to have such a dread of political and co-operative movements by workingmen as fills the hearts of the monopolistic speakers and writers of the sham republicanism and democracy of today. In his message of 1861, before quoted, he says:
Let them (the toilers) beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which, if surrendered, will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they, and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them till all of liberty shall be lost.
And again in 1863 he wrote:
The strongest bond of human sympathy, outside of the family relation, should be one uniting all working people of all nations and tongues and kindreds.
Well, also may we apply to our case the words of caution and encouragement which he uttered in the Cooper Institute in 1860:
Let us be diverted by none of those sophisticated contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied and belabored—contrivances such as groping for some middle ground between the right and the wrong, vain as the search for a man who should he neither a living man nor a dead man. Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us; nor frightened from it by menace of destruction to the government nor of dungeons to ourselves. Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith let us to the end dare to do our duty as we understand it.
George A . Miller.
Letter From Ruskin
He is Opposed to Paying Men for the Use of God's Bounty
The Christian Socialist publishes the following letter from John Ruskin:
“BRANTWOOD, CONISTON, Lancashire, Dec. 11, 1886.
“Dear —, I should have thought the question about raising rents had been, to your own knowledge, enough answered by me. I have in several, if not in many, places declared the entire system of rent-paying to be an abomination and wickedness of the foulest kind; and have only ceased insisting on that fact of late years, because I would not be counted among the promoters of mob violence. The future, not only of England, but of Christendom, must issue in abolition of rents; but whether with confusion or slaughter, or by the action of noble and resolute men in the rising generation of England and her colonies, remains to be decided. I fear the worst, and that soon. Ever affectionately yours,
In the New York senate on Monday evening a resolution was unanimously adopted requesting the district attorney of this city to speedily report by what authority the Pinkerton detectives are permitted to carry arms here, and what, if any, legislation is necessary to prevent such persons from carrying arms. In the New Jersey assembly on the same evening bills were introduced to prevent the employment of Pinkerton's men in New Jersey. The workingmen should watch these bills and commit to memory the name of every man who votes against them.
The Ocean association of 'longshoremen have sent a petition to the board of aldermen of this city asking why the Old Dominion and Morgan lines were permitted to monopolize the public land at West street with-their freight, to the detriment of 20,000 longshoremen and the public generally.
The New York Central Labor union at its meeting last Sunday approved the bills recently introduced authorizing the state board of arbitration to investigate the coal strike, and it adopted resolutions urging retail coal dealers to sell coal only to families at present, and refuse the orders of shops, stores and offices.
There appeared in this summary last week a statement condensed from the daily press dispatches stating that? the Bakers' National union at its recent session in Chicago had made honorary members of the condemned anarchists, and applauded an address by the editor of the Arbeiter-zeitung. Mr. George Block, secretary of the Bakers' National union, writes us that the editor named did not address the convention at all. As to the other matter, Mr. Block writes: “Bakers' union No. 10 made these men honorary members about two months ago. Union No. 1 of New York objected to this action as being against the constitution of the order. Delegates of No. 10 stated that they had simply followed the example of all the other trade unions of Chicago, who had thus honored the condemned men, to show their indignation at the farcical trial that these men had received at the hands of the representatives of the gilded mob of Chicago. The convention passed over the matter without any action, whatever. So far from sympathizing with the ideas of the so-called anarchists, the convention classified the Arbeiter-zeitung along with the capitalistic sheets, by excluding its reporters along with others from the convention, as it deemed with injurious to a sound development of the labor movement.”
The girls in the Elizabethport Steam Cordage works at Elizabethport, New Jersey, struck against a reduction of wages. The factory was closed, and 600cmployes are idle.
Ninety men at Cooper & Hewitt's iron furnace at Pequest, N. J., are on strike for higher wages. During last fall's municipal canvass it was declared that trouble was impossible between the benevolent Hewitt and his grateful men.
The employes of the Keystone Boot and Shoe company at Huntingdon. Pa., struck Monday for “uniform wages.” The men working on the finest grades were notified that they would only receive what was paid for second-class work and that those working on the inferior goods would receive the benefit. The men objected to this and combined, and now demand the same price for all classes of goods. Two local assemblies of tailors have withdrawn from the Knights of Labor in Philadelphia on the ground that middlemen who take contracts from wholesale clothiers and employ others to do the work are admitted to the order. The journeymen barbers of the same city-have surrendered their charter and reorganized as a trade. The dissatisfaction among the textile workers has been allayed by granting them a separate district charter. The chargers at the Valley coke works of Frick & Co., at Everson, Pa., struck last week for the same wages as the handlers are receiving. The advance asked is about fifteen cents per day.
The employes of the pipe mill of the Heading Iron works at Heading were some time since granted an increase of wages. but it was not satisfactory and a strike, which would affect 800 men, was threatened. This, however, has been averted by the granting of another increase in wages, and the men now express themselves as satisfied.
The demands of the employes of the National tube works at McKeesport, Penn., for higher wages have been granted. The increase, averaging 15 per cent, affects 2,500 men.
The arbitration committee appointed by the manufacturers and weavers of upholstery goods in Philadelphia has agreed upon a price list.
The members of the Boxmakers' assembly, K of L., have agreed not to drink any beer until the strike of the brewery employes is settled.
Trouble is threatened by differences between the bosses and workmen in the Philadelphia carpet factories.
Trouble is expected among the employes of the Etna iron works at Newcastle, Penn. When the men went to work, a year ago, they agreed to allow a percentage of their wages to remain in the hands of the company for a certain period, in order that a steady run could be made. The allotted time when the men should receive full pay has passed, and they claim that some of the money due them should be paid. A meeting of the employes was held on Saturday, when it was decided to have a committee wait upon the firm and request the extra pay. If this is not granted the men will strike next week.
A bill is pending before the Pennsylvania legislature that enacts that any person, firm or corporation, engaged in manufacturing or repairing, which requires from persons in his or its employ, under penalty of forfeiture of part of the wages earned by them. a notice of intention to leave such employ, shall be liable to the payment of a like forfeiture if he or it discharges without similar notice a person in such employ, except for incapacity or misconduct, unless in case of a general suspension of labor in his or its shop or factory. It also imposes a fine of from $50 to $100 for each case of black-listing and requires the posting in each room where workmen are employed a plainly printed or written notice stating the number of hours of work required of them each day of the week, and the employment of any person for a longer time than so stated shall be deemed a violation of this section, unless it appear that such employment is to make up for time lost on some previous day of the same week in consequence of the stoppage of machinery for adjustment or repairs upon which such person was employed or dependent for employment.
For about two months trouble has been brewing at Ybor City, Fla., growing out of the fact that the immense cigar firm of V. Martinez, Ybor & Co., of New York, Ybor City and Havana, has refused to employ Cuban cigarmakers. Its factory turns out about 900,000 cigars and cigarettes a week and gives work to over 1,000 hands. The Cubans have a federation or trades union and the Americans are all members of the Knights of Labor. Between these two bodies bad blood has been engendered. Friday of hist week a meeting of the Knights of Labor was held in their hall, the exact object of which was not made public, but it was known that Benitos, the superintendent of the factory, was present. This infuriated the Cubans and their opened fire on the hall with rifles, killing M. F. Martinez and fatally wounding four other knights. The greatest excitement prevailed, and horses were galloped to Tampa for surgical and municipal aid. The steamer Margaret was closely watched until her departure to make connection with the steamer Mascotte for Havana. to prevent the leaving of the suspected assassins. The military were pressed into service and are doing duty at Ybor City. Circulars offering $700 and support to union men who will strike are posted over the city. Three of the suspected Cubans were placed under arrest in Tampa.
The Michigan house of representatives has passed a bill to prevent the importation of Pinkerton detectives into that state. The coal operators of Ohio on Friday of last week met in Columbus, formed a state organization, and, after a consultation with a committee from the State Miners' Amalgamated association- adopted a resolution favoring the principle of arbitration in all disputes between miners and operators. The meeting adjourned to Fob. 7, when a scale of prices for the coming year will be agreed upon.
The Cause Of Drunkenness
Not the Drinking Habit so Much as Overwork and Poverty
To a healthy performance of the functions of the human body, plenty of fresh air, nutritious food and moderate physical and mental exercise are essential. The absence of any or all of these necessities is an undoubted cause of disease, and the intensity of the disease is in direct ratio to their absence. The air we breathe revivifies the whole system. If it is impure or insufficient in quantity, the vital force of our being is weakened. What then can you expect of a human being cooped up in an ill-ventilated manufactory from morning to night pursuing a monotonous occupation as if he were part and parcel of the machine he operates?What can we expect of a miner who inhales quantities of coal dust that causes a special form of consumption known as “miners' lung.” Such men crave stimulus. The cause of drunkenness lies not in the mere habit of using alcohol, bur must be found in the social relations of human beings.
With all the vast improvements in machinery that have marked this century the question remains. Has the condition of the great mass of mankind in the United States been improved in proportion to the increase of the means of production?I answer no. If such had been the case drunkenness would have disappeared. The telegraph, the railroad and other great inventions, instead of benefiting the mass of humanity to the extent intend d by a kind Providence, have been allowed to get into the hands of monopolists who have used their great power over the means of sustenance to oppress and trample mankind in the dust. Prohibitory laws are by their advocates accounted the only methods to prevent drunkenness. A diseased condition of the body politic as of the individual body cannot be thus cured. Our present social state is based on the competitive system, and therein lies the cause of drunkenness. The use of alcohol to certain scientific minds seems almost a necessity, because it is thought that a large portion of humanity must be killed off every year to make room in the world for the rest and thereby contribute to the so-called “survival of the fittest.” The establishment of a system that will tend to repress rather than encourage intense competition offers the only remedy for drunkenness. It is not in a day or generation that this is to be brought about, and it is only by the most careful study of all the conditions of our social state that-mistakes in this matter will be obviated.
To a successful attempt at substituting social co-operation in place of the competitive system, the recognition of certain inalienable rights on the part of the people as a whole in the elements of production, is essential. As I understand the theory of taxation proposed by Mr. George, it is held that the term "land" includes not only the soil, but such forces of nature as heat, light, electricity, and chemical affinity, which are equally part and parcel of the globe and the product of no man's labor. To my mind the public ownership of all these forces and the matter they act upon through the means of taxation is necessary to the eradication of drunkenness.
Prohibitory laws are merely a placebo remedy—that is, is a medicine designed to amuse the patient while it does not radically alter the diseased condition.
I would vote for prohibition or any other method of curtailing the use of alcohol, provided the advocates of these repressive measures will guarantee future generations against a return to alcoholism. Can they do it without radically remedying the cause of drunkenness?
Wm. N. Hill, M. D.
Walter Besant, in his new novel, “Children of Gibeon,” draws a harrowing picture of the life of three English girls who support themselves by plain sewing. By working thirteen hours a day at constant sewing, they manage to make together seventeen shillings and three pence a week. Out of this they pay four shillings for the room they jointly inhabit, leaving thirteen shillings and three pence—about $3.25—for their food and clothing. The consequence is that they are always in unwomanly rags,” and always hungry. They eat the poorest kind of food, and never have enough of it. The smell of meal roasting drives them crazy with fierce desire. All these are skeletons; one of them dies of slow decay caused by want. They are paid a penny apiece for making rough shirts on the machine, and two pence a dozen for buttonholes.
Uncle Rufe on Honesty
“Talk about honesty!” said Uncle Hufe, “there ain't much honesty—that is, penal code honesty except among the rich; and there ain't much there only while they are rich. Why, I never trust a poor man with money, leastways a man who needs more than he's got. Some men are honest by nature: but they are the kind that you make martyrs of, and the martyr crop ain't as good as it used to be. The average citizen is honest us long as he can hold his end up, but when he's in bad luck keep an eye on him. He may want to be honest a good deal harder than the rich man, but the temptation is greater, and he can't respond if he forgets to keep two pocketbooks, one for his money and one for yours. A rich man for honesty and a poor man fur service; that's my motto.”
“Society” and the Opera
New York correspondence Charleston News and Courier.
From long observation of the rich people of New York who have occupied the boxes at the Academy for the last twenty years and have now deserted it for the Metropolitan opera house, I do not believe that one out of ten cares a snap for music or regards opera as any thing but a convenient pretext for the exhibition of line clothing. The greatest danger that threatens German opera in New York at present is that the fashionable people who own the boxes and are expected to shoulder the deficit, should any be found at the end of the year, may tire of being hissed for talking while music is going on. This is almost a nightly occurrence at the Metropolitan this year, and there are signs of serious discontent in the boxes, the occupants of which look down with supreme contempt upon the sturdy Germans who pay their money to hear the music and do not hesitate to hiss vehemently when the chattering of the well-dressed and empty-headed people in the boxes interfere with their pleasure. The first year of our German opera there were several exciting scenes, caused by these little differences between the pit and the boxes, but gradually the upper ten have given way, and this year one or two vigorous hisses during an evening are sufficient to keep the house reasonably silent. But the tipper ten do not like it; no one hissed them when Italian opera was given, and in their opinion Italian opera was just as good as German, opera, and often a good deal better.
They are Rapidly Ceasing to Own the Soil They Cultivate
Detroit Evening Post.
“'Peasant proprietorship,'” said Richard F. Trevelliek, “or if you prefer another form:—'ownership of the land by its cultivators,' is rapidly becoming extinct in America. You are surprised? Well listen! Three things are necessary to a man"s existence—warmth, shelter and food. When the farmer evens up at the end of the year and pays for these things he finds that he has 3½ per cent profit on the value of his holding. That calculation was made for Illinois. Call it 3 per cent. Now, say a man owns 100 acres valued at 89,000. At the end of the year, after paying his necessary expenses, he will have $300 to the good. In time he will be tolerably well off. This is, of course, assuming that he does not owe a cent. That is where the trouble always comes in. The farmer almost invariably owes. But why? you ask. Simply because he can't help it. How many farmers are ever able to begin with a capital of $9,000? Some few, possibly, but an infinitesimal few. A man who has $9,000 and a head upon his shoulders will invest it in some other business. He will buy real estate for speculative purposes, or put it in a mortgage on some other man's farm, and live on the interest. The men who usually become farmers have a small capital of $1,000 or $3,000. Give our farmer $3,000. He buys 100 acres, pays $3,000 cash down and gives a mortgage for $6,000, payable in 10 or 20 years at 7 per cent, which is quite as low as he is likely to get it. The interest for the year is $420. The farmer thus pays away ail his $300 profit, and has still $120a year to pay. He may do this for a few years by stinting himself and family and working harder than a man should work. But, stint as he may and work as he may, he will never be able to pull himself clear of that mortgage. After a while he will begin to lose courage, his debts at the village will pile up, and eventually there is only the one alternative—either to sell out or be closed out by the sheriff.
“Remember, I am speaking of the average farmer. The average was struck after much research. It was the average taken during ten years. This talk about a man with no capital buying land for $2 an acre, or even for nothing, and cultivating it and making money is nonsense. A man can only gel such land far from any market where the prices of produce are very low. To make anything above a mere subsistence he must have good machinery and stock. These east money. He must borrow, and the interest will in time eat up his whole farm. Where the productive power of land (above the cost of living) is only 3 or 3½ per cent., and interest is from 7 to 10 per cent, a man can never borrow and hope to succeed as a farmer. If a man can buy a farm outright, stock it and run it without borrowing he can live well. Now you needn't speak of an individual farmer who has done well. I admit that they exist. But if you doubt my knowledge go to the registry offices of Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, or any of the more recently settled states. We examined the records in four counties, taken at random in Iowa, and what do you think we found. One-half of the land in these counties was mortgaged beyond the possibility of redemption. The farmers were, there fore, merely the serfs of those who owned the mortgages. They worked year in and year out, but paid everything over their mere living expenses to their lords and masters—the mortgage holders. Farmers who have settled, lived on and improved lauds for ten and fifteen years are being continually forced into the cheaper lands of the west, leaving their homesteads in the hands of the interest-takers who. if they do not live in, certainly live on 'houses which they builded not and vineyards which they planted not.' The same state of things exists very generally, except in the case of capitalistic farmers and farmers whose land, close to good markets, has come down to them improved and unencumbered from the days when these things were not. InIllinois one man, Mr. Scully. has an income of $200,000 a year from his tenant farmers. Mr. Scully is an absentee landlord after the regulation Irish pattern. He roams the world and leaves an agent on his estate. The leases so run that the tenant must keep every thing in first-class repair and pay all the taxes, and the agent is there to see if done. “I have seen Mr. Scully's tenants,” continued Mr. Trevellick. “They are very poor. Illinois is rapidly becoming a tenant farmer state. Most of the farms around Chicago are rented, while the original owners live on the rent.
“We are a nation of interest payers. We have 11,000,000 workers in America. It takes 2,000,000 of them all their time to produce enough wealth to pay the interest paid in this country from year to year.
The Treatment Of Labor
If Workingmen Did Receive Better Treatment it Would Only be Their Just Due
“But the American workingman is better treated than ever before,” is the triumphant cry of some superficial people who would soothe the discontent of the time by an appeal to ancient precedent. Their assertion is more difficult of proof than they imagine: but even if, for the sake of argument, its truth be granted, it proves nothing save that the agitation of the past has to some extent, counteracted the effect. of the gradual absorption of natural opportunities bya minority. If the American workingman is not “well treated,” in the name of justice and reason what man in America, should be well treated .' Should the American idler be singled out for the special favor of gods and men' And to go a step further, who, forsooth, shall mete out “treatment” to the American workingman on the one hand and the American idler on the other? Is it not logical that the latter exists merely on the sufferance of the former? The truth is. that the American idler has long been treated vastly too well by his working brother. This is no new or revolutionary doctrine, but it is as old as the text which declares that he who does not work shall not eat. The time is coming when all who are usefully employed. with head or hand, will inquire by what title any man has the privilege of living in idleness.
“But,” says the spokesman of privileged idleness, “when we say 'workingmen,' we mean those that toil with their hands, and surely they are better treated and better off than ever before.”
Good. Granting your assertion for the sake of argument, the answer is that the humblest menial is entitled, for labor faithfully done, to such compensation as shall furnish him at least reasonable comforts through his working years and freedom from want or the fear of want when he is no longer able to labor. Once free natural opportunities from the possession of those who exact a tax for the privilege of using such opportunities and laborers with head and with brain will easily arrive at the proportional reward of each. Any man who approaches the great social problems of today in the spirit of him who speaks of the “treatment of labor,” is involved in hopeless darkness. Lord Bacon, three hundred years ago, laid bare the very heart of this subject, when he said that a country should not have too numerous an aristocracy, because it is too great a burden upon the common people. It matters little whether such aristocracy trace its ancestry to a knight of the Norman conquest or to the peddler of a patent mouse-trap. He whose possession of natural opportunities enables him to live in idleness is part of an oppressive aristocracy that workingmen must support. That aristocracy has vastly grown in this country of late years. until we have a large class whose business amusement. It is of no consequence that most of them have some ostensible occupation. If their work of hand or brain be not of a useful kind and such as produces more than they consume, they are part of a burdensome aristocracy, and every man who works carries some of this burden on his shoulders; The burden has been tenderly carried, and it shows a curious misconception of natural justice that any man should find comfort in the ruptured fact that this inert lord treats its bearer well.
No other public teacher lives so wholly in the present as the editor: and the noblest affirmation of unpopular truth—the most self-sacrificing defiance of a base and selfish public sentiment that regards only lite most sordid ends: and values every utterance solely as it tends to preserve quiet and contentment, while the dollars fall jingling into the merchant's drawer, the land-jobber's vault, and the miser's bag—can but be noted in their day, and with their day forgotten. It is his cue to utter silken and smooth sayings—to condemn vice so as not interfere with the pleasures or alarm the consciences of the vicious—to commend and glorify labor without attempting to expose or repress any of the gainful contrivances by which labor is plundered and degraded.
There is a different and sterner path—I know not whether there be any now qualified to tread it I am not sure that oven one has ever followed it implicitly, in view of the certain meagerness of its temporal rewards and the haste wherewith any fame acquired in a sphere so thoroughly ephemeral as the editors must be shrouded by the dark waters of oblivion. This path demands an ear ever open to the plaints of the wronged and the suffering, though they can never repay advocacy, and those who mainly support newspapers will be annoyed and of ton exposed by it: a heart as sensitive to oppression and degradation in the next street as if they were practiced in Brazil or Japan; a pen as ready to expose and reprove the crimes whereby wealth is amassed and luxury enjoyed in our own country at this hour. as if they had only been committed by Turks or Pagans in Asia some centuries ago. Suchan editor, could one be found or trained, need not expect to lead an easy, indolent, or wholly joyous life—to be blessed by archbishops or followed by the approving shouts of ascending majorities—but he might find some recompense for their loss in the calm verdict of an approving conscience; and the tears of the despised and the friendless, preserved from utter despair by his efforts and remonstrances, might freshen for a season the daises that bloomed above his grave.—[Horace Greeley.]