Question - "Resolved, That the Carnegie Co. violated the rights of its workingmen."

Brief for the affirmative:

A. F. CROSBY and W. J. H. STRONG.

Best references: No. Amer. Rev. CLV. Sept., 1892; Speech of Sen. Palmer, Cong. Rec., 52d Cong., 1st session, p. 6516; R. T. Ely, Labor Movement in America, ch. IV; Geo. Howell, Conflicts of Labor and Capital, ch. II. pt. v. p. 116, ch. III, p. 147; J. D. Weells, Labor Differences and their Settlement, (Economic Tract).

I. Workingmen have rights. - (a). Of forming Trade Unions. (b). Of self protection through organization: Nationalist Sept. 1890, p. 99. (c). To continued employment by good behavior: Sen. Palmer. (d). Of equal partnership with the capitalist: Christian Union, July 16; Weells Econ. Tract. (e). To be treated as Christians and freemen: Golden Rule.

II. The Carnegie Co. violated the workingmen's rights by an arbitrary reduction of wages. - (a). When the Co. was prosperous owing to new machinery: Pub. Opinion, July 9. (b). It refused to explain its actions: No. Amer., p. 361. (c). It did not allow the workmen any voice in the matter Ibid p. 371. (d). It refused arbitration: Ibid.

III. The Company sought to break up the Amalgamated Asso'n. (a). Though it was necessary for the men's welfare. (b). The Co. would not re-engage men members of the Ass'n: N. Y. Herald, July. (b). Frick deliberately planned to fight the Ass'n, for the reduction of wages did not warrant such a fight: Ibid, July 3, July 16. (d). The Ass'n did not seek to dictate terms: Ibid, July 10.

IV. The Company used Pinkerton men unjustifiably. - (a). The men behaved in an ideal way in the conduct of the lockout: Her., July 1. (b). Frick engaged Pinkerton before the conferences with the workmen were broken: No. Amer. Rev., p. 359. (c). Pinkerton's men were not the representatives of law and order: Sen. Voorhees, Jul. 9. (d). The workmen defended their homes against an armed army of 300, threatening anarchy: Sen. Stewart, July 8.

V. The Company forced the introduction of non-union men. This was not fair to its workmen. - (a). Who had built up the town: No. Amer., p. 373. (b). Whose homes were there. (c). Who had contracted through the Ass'n to work for a certain time there: Ibid, 356. (d). The Co, broke our highest law - the moral law.

Brief for the Negative.

I. W. HOWERTH and A. P. STONE.

Best general references: North American Review for Sept. 1892; Public Opinion for July, August, and Sept., 1892; Files of the daily newspapers; The Nation for July and August.

I. The Carnegie Co. is justifiable in reducing wages. - (a). New machinery had been introduced. (b). The price of steel had declined: Cong. Record, Aug. 16, 1892. (c). The profits of the Co. were not unreasonably high: N. Y. Herald, July 15, 1892. (d). The workingmen were receiving very high wages: Nation, July 14, 1892. (e). Less than one-tenth of the employees were affected by the reduction: Public Opinion, Aug. 6, 1892, p. 422. (f). Improved facilities for production helped to compensate for the reduction.

II. The introduction of non-union men is justifiable. - (a). The fight was against unjust demands. (b). Union men had forfeited the confidence of the Co. (c). To comply with their demands would have been suicidal; Nation, Aug. 11, 1892, on Tyranny of Labor. (d). Less than one-third of the employees were union men: Pres. Weike's testimony before Cong. Committee.

III. The Company is justifiable in employing Pinkerton detectives. - (a). Capital has a right to protect itself. (b). The property of the Co. was in immediate danger of destruction. (c). The Co. had reason to believe in the dilatoriness of the local authorities: N. Y. Herald, July 8, 1892. (d). The Pinkertons are engaged in a lawful occupation and are reliable and trustworthy: Nation, July 28, 1892, p. 60, also N. Y. Herald, July 23, 1892. (e). The legal right to employ them is undeniable: George Ticknor Curtis in No. Am. Review for Sept. (f). They were engaged for defense, not for attack. (g). Their reception shows the necessity of force.