1886 



GLEANIKGS In i3EE CULtUlli:. 



421 



At this he became abusive. lie said that 

 was just the way we town folks took ad- 

 vantage of farmers. We got them to bring 

 their produce, then pretended tliere wa^ 

 some fault with it, in order to get it for half 

 its value. Now, I hadn't agreed to buy the 

 man's maple syrup at all. 1 had advertised 

 to buy maple .■*»(/((/•, but hadn't advertised to 

 hwy si/rup, and he was abusive because I ex- 

 ercised my privilege of buying or not buy- 

 ing, as I chose. 



Suppose I want a man to work for me. 

 He says he will work for two dollars a day, 

 but he doesn't care to go to work at a less 

 price. Now, perhaps I am acquainted with 

 him, and do not consider him worth over one 

 dollar a dny ; but he has a p?rfect ]-ight to 

 refuse to woik for less than two dollars, if 

 he chooses. I liave no riglit to feel hard 

 toward him, nor to complain. His strength 

 and skill are his own, and he has a perfect 

 light to do what he pleases with them — 

 that is, within the bounds of reason. He 

 has as good a right to ask two dollars a day 

 for his labor as the man who raised straw- 

 berries in February has a right to ask two 

 dollars a quart for them. If we do not want 

 to pay tliat price for strawberries, we are at 

 perfect liberty to decline, or let them remain 

 in the greenhouse where they were grown. 

 Just the same with labor. Although straw- 

 berries could not be raised at the above 

 prices and sold herein Medina, I should have 

 considerable respect for the man who was so 

 much of an expert with plants and fruits 

 that he could raise a crop of berries in the 

 greenhouse every time without fail. 



I admire skill in any department, and I do 

 love to see men t'.nd women who can com- 

 mand big Avages. When I am in need of 

 such skill, it is a great pleasure for me to 

 pay big wages. So far, well and good. But 

 suppose some old hand of mine should make 

 xip his mind that he couldn't work for me 

 any longer unless I should pay him consid- 

 erably more than I had been paying. Ought 

 I to feel hard toward himV Not at all. Nor 

 lias he any right to feel hard toward me if I 

 pleasantly say I can not afford to give what 

 he tliiuks he ought to have. Neither of us 

 should feel hard if, in discussing the matter 

 we can not agree. I may think he magnifies 

 Ills value, and he may think I am mistaken 

 in thinkiug I can get Jilonc: without him, or 

 supply his place easily. We often have dif- 

 ferent opinions about these things ; but if 

 we are striving after righteousness, we cer- 

 tainly ought not to feel unkindly toward 

 each other because of these differences in 

 opinion. Xow let us go a step furtlier, and 

 suppose this hand should wait until the bus- 

 iest season of the year — the time, in fact, 

 when it would bo most dithcult for me to 

 supply his place on short notice, and then 

 demand an increase of wages before he 

 would consent to keep on with his work. 

 My friends. I think he has a right to do this 

 if he chooses, altliough it seems to me it is a 

 rather unkind way of doing, especially if re- 

 lations have been of a friendly nature. If 

 there has, liowever. been no agreement in 

 regard to giving notice before leaving, I can 

 not see that we should have any right to 

 censure very much. My old lawyer friend 



would say, " What was the agreement?" If 

 no agreement !it all on either side in regard 

 to stopping without notice, he would say we 

 had no right to lind fault. Old and tried 

 hands are often hired by the year, and some- 

 times an agreement is made that either 

 party shall give a notice of 30 or 60 days if 

 they wish to change relationship. A Chris- 

 tian man, or even a gentleman, would usual- 

 ly tell his employer that he would stay by 

 him until he got over his crowd, or until he 

 could look up a substitute. Those who are 

 working for me have almost invariably been 

 willing, or preferred to do this. Perhaps it 

 is because those who do the work for me are, 

 as a rule, personal friends, and I am glad to 

 say those who are not given to the sin of 

 covetousness. They do not want to put me 

 to trouble and expense, even though they 

 may think I have not paid them as much as 

 1 liiight have done. A Christian man is 

 commanded to "■ do good to those who hate " 

 him. Now, if we are to consider the inter- 

 ests of oiu' enemies, and try to do them good, 

 how much more are we under obligations to 

 consider the interests of those who have 

 been ouvfr lends, and strive to do them good ! 



Now, when we consider a case where the 

 entire hands of an establishment, or at least 

 a great part of them, enter into a combina- 

 tion to demand more pay, we come right 

 into the strike business. Is it right? W^ell, 

 I think it is right and proper for laboring 

 people, or worldng people of a factory, to 

 agree together in this way. if they choose so 

 to do. But if they are Christians I think 

 they will give their employer sufficient no- 

 tice beforehand, so that he may make ar- 

 rangements to avoid loss. Everybody has 

 a right to work or not, as he chooses. He 

 has'a right, too, to sell his skill and strength 

 to the highest bidder, providing he does it 

 in a gentlemanly way— in a way consistent 

 with " thou Shalt love thy neighbor as thy- 

 self." Well, now, very likely t look at the 

 matter from one side ; but it does not seem 

 to me as if it were right for those who give 

 up their places, to discourage in any way or 

 in any way try to prevent new hands 

 from taking the places they vacated. When 

 we step over into this matter, telling others 

 what they shall or shall not do with their 

 labor, it seems to me Ave are getting on dan- 

 gerous ground. I have sometimes replied to 

 the friends Avho had their hives and honey 

 stolen, that there Avas a fault aAvay back 

 somewhere, and that the best remedy would 

 be to encourage Sunday-schools and church- 

 es in places Avhere such things happen. 



It seems to me that such is the case where 

 this matter of boycotting and strikes is ram- 

 pant. There surely is a lack of godliness, a 

 lack of Hiblcs. and a lack of Christian spirit. 

 I can hardly think such a state of affairs 

 can come about where the proprietors are 

 good (christian men— where they have been 

 working for the interests and for the salva- 

 tion of the souls of those they employ. It 

 seems to me that it indicates a bad state of 

 affairs, and that this bad state must have 

 existed some time back, or matters would 

 never have come to such a crisis. We ha\'e 

 proof of this from the fact that the law is 

 almost powerless. These combinations are 



