Newspaper Page Text
PAGE TWO
Public Opinion Throughout the Union
THE LEVEE STRIKE AND
ARBITRATION.
Yesterday the Joint Conference of
the Commercial Exchanges considered
the letter of Mayor Behrman, asking
for a general investigation of the
whole question of charges at this port
compared with Galveston with a view
to discovering and removing the
causes which make it impossible for
New Orleans to compete with trade
rivals, and forwarded to him a reply
which accepts his proposition under
certain conditions.
The conference agrees to undertake
a complete and thorough investiga
tion, provided that the Screwmen
agree in advance to accept the ver
dict already rendered, namely, the
hand-stowing of 200 bales of cotton
per day at the old rate of wages,
that rate to prevail during the prog
ress of the investigation and arbitra
tion, and also to agree in common
with the other interests to accept the
final verdict of the arbitrators. The
conference further proposes that, in
the event that the labor interests
agree to go to work at once, an
arbitration or investigating commis
sion be formed to consist of two mem
bers from each side, with the Chief
Justice of the State Supreme Court
as the fifth member.
The action of the conference of Ex
changes is satisfactory insofar as it
expresses a willingness to have a gen
eral investigation, and to arbitrate
the existing differences, but in in
sisting upon the 200 bales per day as
the work of the Screwmen pending
arbitration, The Picayune believes
that a mistake has been made, in the
sense of prejudging the case, or at
least one phase of it. It may be per
fectly true that an investigation will
show that 200 bales per day is by no
means a big day’s work, but why as
sume that in advance when that is
one of the matters in contention? It
should seem that it would have been
fairer to insist that all other classes
of labor but the Screwmen should re
sume work at the old rate, since there
has been no serious difference of opin
ion on that score, and that the Screw
men also go to work agreeing in ad
vance to abide by the verdict of the
arbitration board, both as to future
rates of pay as well as to the com
pensation to be paid during the period
that the arbitration board is in ses
sion. That would avoid all appear
ance of prejudging anyfijehase of the
matters in contention.
With respect to the general char
acter of the proposed board of arbi
tration, or investigation, there can
be no criticism. It may bs that the
Hon. Chief Juatice may not have rhe
time or the inclination to preside,
particularly as the questions involved
are not legal questions, but purely
economic problems which a practical
business man or a statistician would
be better able to solve than a judge
learned in the law.
Aside from the points noted The
Picayune believes that the action cf
the conference of commercial ex
changes opens up away out of the
existing difficulties, and the Screw
men would do well to accept the prop
osition in principle and make
WATSON’S WEEKLY JEFFERSONIAN.
arrangement as to the amount of
work to be done, and the rate of pay
to be accepted during the time that
the arbitration is in progress, which,
while evidencing a disposition to
make concessions on their part, would
still not have the appearance' of pre
judging the main issue in the contro
versy.
Now that the contending parties to
this unnecessary controversy have
been measurably brought together
again, and the groundwork has been
laid for the resumption of negotia
tions, they should see to it that no
further impasse is permitted to oc
cur, as the community is heartily tired
of the anxiety and trade suspension
which have characterized the past
week, and demands that some settle
ment be speedily arrived at. —The
Picayune.
THIS YEAR MR. PULITZER HAS
GOTTEN HIS PRICE.
For years Mr. Pulitzer has assailed
Tammany Hall. For years he cried
out at the iniquities of Croker, and
in later years the pages of his pa
per* have teemed with fierce and al
most frenzied denunciation of Mc-
Clellan and Murphy. People who
did not know Mr. Pulitzer imagined
that the “moral awakening” sweep
ing over the country had caught Mr.
Pulitzer in an eddy, and that these
violent attacks were due to some righ
teous moral sentiment, some sincere
indignation at debauchery and corrup
tion, some honest desire to accomplish
reforms.
But no. It appears now that the
only reason for Mr. Pulitzer’s opposi
tion to Tammany was that he had
not been bought. It appears now that
his fnlminations against the fraud
and graft and vice and thievery of
Tammany were merely an expression
of resentment at the neglect shown
him. **
This year Mr. Pulitzer is out for
Murphy. This year he is an ardent
supporter of Tom Foley, the election
thief. This year Mr. Pulitzer is for
the whole Tammany ticket, and for
the whole Tammany organization, and
for all the corrupt Tammany methods.
This year Mr. Pulitzer has gotten his
price—not a very big price, either,
but probably all that he is worth.
Mr. Pulitzer’s personal attorney,
Jimmy Girard, has been nominated
for the Supreme Court.
The Gas Trust rejoices too at Jim
my’s nomination, for Jimmy has also
done work for them —and may again
—but there is no joy like the joy of
Pulitzer. Long regarded as a man
whose opposition was more valuable
than his support, long welcomed as
an antagonist and avoided as an ally,
he has at last compelled considera
tion—or a consideration—and he is
doing his shameful best to earn it.
The consideration was small, and
for it Mr. Pulitzer has not only eaten
his own werds, which must taste bad
enough, but he has swallowed a tick
et and a political program that would
gag a ghoul and choke an old and
hardened hyena.
Surely for such work the price is
cheap; one might almost say as cheap
as DIRT.
• • - - - Jr* j— * jVWjffc
Note: The foregoing precious Por
ter-house steak is out from one of
the Hearst Newspapers.
Last year, Mr. Hearst was doing
exactly what he now damns Pulitzer
for doing. Last year, Hearst was the
ally of Tammany.
Pulitzer, who owns the New York
World, didn’t want to play second
fiddle to the Hearst newspapers, and
that is probably why it now takes
the place which Hearst took last
year.
FEROCIOUS ATTACK ON BRIT
» ISH LORDS.
(Special cable to the New York
American.)
London, Oct. 10. —“A dissolute no
bility descended from a tainted an
cestry,” is the terrible indictment
brought against the bulk of the Eng
lish peerage by Henry Labouchere,
the fearless editor and critic.
Resorting to no sc ft artifice of
words to hide the severity of the ar
raignment the editor cf “Truth” de
clares that the majority of the hold
ers of titles in Euerland today are the
weakling descendants of infamous
forbears.
He mercilessly pillories some of the
greatest names and titles in England
and declares the present holders of
them to be descended from illicit
unions and flagrant liaisons of the
past.
He declares that same of the fair
est estates in all England are vested
in the descendents of illegitimate off
spring of former kings and great no
bles, children of the mistresses of
kings and powerful rulers.
Much has been said of tainted mon
ey and questionable business methods
in America, but there have been no
attacks on the homes of the master
freebooters of finance. With ruthless
hand Labouchere tears back the cur
tain from the ancient private life of
many of the greatest families in Eng
land. He points out that the govern
ing body in the House cf Lords is
composed cf men descended from rob
ber barons and weak-moraled favor
ites.
Greatest Names in England.
Taking some of the greatest titles
in England Labouchere shows how
they were created by kings to care
for illegitimate offspring or to pla,-
cate discarded mistresses.' Referring
to some of the greatest • estates in
England he shows how they were
parceled out to pay for the amours
of monarchs and to care for children
across whose birth record the bar sin
ister is drawn. Categorically sum
ming up he points out the absurdity
of vesting in these descendants of
questionable unions of the past the
hereditary power of ruling through
the House of Lords.
Tn a scathing article headed with
fine sarcasm “Our Old Nobility,”
Mr. Labouchere takes up the question
of a continuance of the House of
Lords as a vested ruling body, and
then name by name catalogues the
present holders of the titles and
points whence the title descended and
why it was conferred.
As a “Who’s Who” in the world
of aristocracy it is unparalleled,
Aptly declaring that their honor is
“rooted in dishonor,” Mr. Labou
chere proceeds to tell England some of
the history of its great houses, and
the facts concerning the forbears of
the men who are ruling England
through the House of Lords.
Right, of Lords Denounced.
Just at present there is an agita
tion going on for curbing the House
of Lords as a co-ordinate branch of
the English governing body. Mr.
Labouchere, speaking of this, says
that the people of England are not
nimble witted and are not inclined to
study their institutions from a strict
ly logical point of view. He says
they tolerate the hereditary branch
of the Legislature only because they
are accustomed to it, and rarely, if
ever, pause to inquire into the origin
of an individual’s right to a seat in
the House of Lords, carrying with it
the power to reject or alter legisla
tion which has been passed by the
elected representatives of the people
in the House of Commons.
Declaring that they may learn
something of the way in which mod
ern peerages are conferred Mr. La
bouchere makes the broad statement
that the people of England do not
realize that a large proportion of the
peerages which have descended from
generation to generation were origi
nally created under circumstances
which no one in the present day would
dare approve of, no court condone.
No Epithets too Strong.
Mr. Bright in commenting upon
these hereditary privileges said that
the titles were held by the spawn of
corruption and blunders and wars of
the dark ages. Mr. Labouchere says
that Mr. Bright did not use too strong
language, and that in the present ag
itation which has become a political
issue, looking to the curtailing of the
powers of these hereditary legisla
tors, it is just as well the people
learned a few facts as to how these
titles came to be conferred and that
he feels it his duty to throw a little
light on history.
“Let us take a few illustrations in
proof of this assertion,” says Mr. La
bouchere. “Great Britain, which ex
pelled from the throne the Stuart
dynasty, has tolerated for more than
Itwo centuries after the expulsion of
the legitimate Stuart rulers the rule
of their illegitimate descendants in
the House of Lords.
‘ ‘ The first Dukes of Grafton, Rich
mond, St. Albans and Buccleuch wore
the illegitimate sons of Charles 11.
They were raised to the peerage—
the Duke of Grafton at nine years of
agej the Duke of Richmond at three;
the Duke of St. Albans at six
and the Duke of Buccleuch at four
teen—not for any private merits of
their own, and not for their nobility,
but for the infamy of their birth.
Compliments to Marlborough.
“It is no secret that the first Duke
of Marlborough owed his career in
the first instance to the seduction of
his sister, Arabella Churchill, by
James 11.
‘ ‘ The first Earl of Orkeny was
raised to the peerage for his public
(Continued on Page Seven.)