Page images
PDF
EPUB
[graphic]

Pailway

Conductor

THE M.C.B. ASSOCIATION

RECOMMENDS A

KNUCKLE OPENER

"Which will throw the knuckle completely open and

operate under all conditions of wear and service.”

THIS RECOMMENDATION EXACTLY DESCRIBES THE OPER. ATION OF THE

T

PITT COUPLER

O make the operation of opening the knuckle by means of a "Kicker" as safe as it has always been by hand it is essential that the "Kickers" should work every time. The failure to do so has been the cause of many serious accidents.

We find many switchmen who, taught by experience, disregard the presence of any "Knuckle-Opener" or "Kicker" and open the knuckle, always, by hand. Thus, in a very practical way is made manifest the necessity for a safe design in a "safety-appliance.'

The Knuckle Opener" in the Pitt Coupler is positive in its operation and pushes the knuckle open to its fullest range of movement either from a fully closed position or from any partially open position regardless of rust.

With the Pitt Coupler the switchmen will never be obliged to reach in-on sudden impulse-at the last moment and when the car is in motion to open the knuckle by hand.

Manufactured Only by

The McConway & Torley Co.

PITTSBURGH, PA.

[blocks in formation]

Whenever any vested wrong is to be righted or any long-standing abuse corrected, those who profit by the wrong or the abuse are prompt to pose as the defenders of property, and to charge the reformers with attacking property rights. This is the historic attitude of those who oppose remedial legislation. The insincerity of the position taken is usually shown by the arguments employed by these self-styled champions of property, and one of the best illustrations of these arguments is to be found in the story of Demetrius, the silversmith. It reads as follows:

"And the same time there arose no small stir about that way. For a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith, which made silver shrines for Diana, brought no small gain unto the craftsmen; whom he called together with the workmen of like occupation, and said, 'Sirs, ye know that by this craft we have our wealth. Moreover, ye see and hear, that not alone at Ephesus but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people, saying that they be no gods, which are made with hands. So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at naught; but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth.' And when they

[merged small][ocr errors]

The silversmith was profiting by the worship of idols; the making of images was the source of his income. He called together those who were engaged in the same occupation, and when all were convinced that Paul's preaching would bring them financial injury they joined in a protest, but they did not give their real reason for opposing Christianity-namely, that it would cause them a money loss, but they pretended a fervent devotion to the goddess Diana. So, to-day, the beneficiaries of bad laws and bad governmental systems are defending their pecuniary interests with arguments that imply great devotion to the public welfare. Having satisfied themselves that the reforms demanded by the people will lessen their power to extort from, and to tyrannize over, the people, these monopolists and their defenders shout "Great is property! Great are the rights of property!" While the issue between the man and the dollar seems to be an acute one, yet in the last analysis there can be no issue between human rights and property rights, for nothing more surely undermines property rights than a disregard for human rights, and nothing brings greater security to property than a scrupulous regard for the natural rights of each hu

man being. But we must always remember that human rights are paramount. In fact, everything depends upon the establishment of the true relation between the individual and dull, inanimate property.

The house and its foundation are indissolubly connected, and we cannot think of one without the other. So, human rights and property rights are indissolubly connected. We cannot think of the one without the other, and as, in the building of a house, we must think of the foundation first and of the house as a superstructure, so in thinking

lieved in the man and the dollar, but that in case of conflict he believed in the man before the dollar. Again, in his message to Congress in 1861, Lincoln said:

"It is not needed or fitting here that a general argument should be made in favor of popular institutions, but there is one point with its connection not so hackneyed as most others, to which I ask a brief attention. It is the effort to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above, labor in the structure of government; it is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capi

[graphic]

MOUNT TACOMA, FROM THE CITY OF TACOMA, THE HEADQUARTERS OF THE TACOMA EASTERN R. R. Courtesy Tacoma Eastern R. R.

of society we must necessarily think of human rights first and of property rights as resting upon human rights. He who talks of property rights as if they could exist without a regard for human rights, speaks as foolishly as one who would attempt to build a house without considering the foundation upon which it is to stand. Lincoln discussed this subject in his own inimitable way. In 1859, in responding to an invitation to attend a birthday dinner given by Boston Republicans in honor of Thomas Jefferson, Lincoln said that the Republican party be

tal; that nobody labors unless somebody else owning capital somehow, by the use of capital, induces him to labor.

"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."

It will be seen that Lincoln believed labor to be prior to and independent of capital, and that he regarded capital as only the fruit of labor. He expressly declared labor to be not only superior to

capital, but deserving of much the higher consideration. If labor is superior to capital and deserving of much higher consideration, is not the human being who stands back of labor more important than either capital or labor? And are not the rights of human beings more important than any rights which attach to property, if indeed, the word "right" can properly be used to describe a quality or characteristic of property?

The question that we have to meet is not really a question between the individual and property, but rather a question between those who own a great deal

assumed as a fundamental proposition that no man can justly lay claim to property except on the ground that he has given to society a benefit equal in value to the property to which he lays claim. If, for instance, an employe of the government receives a certain compensation from the government which acts for all the people, it is upon the theory that he gives to the government a service equivalent in value to the compensation received. If the compensation paid by the government is more liberal than compensation paid by private individuals for similar service, it is on the theory

[graphic][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
« PreviousContinue »