Thursday, May 30, 2013

"The question would be whether they were united in carrying arms for any unlawful purpose..."

"As was to be expected, the demagogues of both parties are trying to win popularity by devising laws against the "Pinkerton men." One Congressman has already introduced a bill making it unlawful for any transportation company doing an inter-state business to transport any body of armed men except those engaged in the military service of the United States, or of a State or Territorial government. The Senate has before it a resolution directing an inquiry "whether any private corporation, company, or organization in the State of Pennsylvania, or other States, has attempted to employ force against any of the people of the said State, or of the United States, in violation of the Constitution of the United States." Curiously enough, this resolution exactly covers the case of the rioters at Homestead. They are confessedly members of an organization in the State of Pennsylvania, and openly avow that they have employed force against some of the people of that State and of the United States, and that they will do it again. As those against whom they employed force were using no force and breaking no law, it is evident that the members of the Amalgamated Association were employing force in violation of Constitution of the United States.

"On the other hand, it is very doubtful if the Pinkerton men sent to Homestead constitute a body of armed men in such a sense as would make it possible to prohibit their movements without violating the Constitution. The question would be whether they were united in carrying arms for any unlawful purpose or with any hostility to any established government. It would be impossible to show this, for the very object of their existence is to support the laws against the attacks of riotous mobs. It will be a very serious matter to enact a general law prohibiting the carrying of arms by a body of men, in the face of the express provision of the Constitution that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. To devise a statute that could not be evaded would be no easy matter, as the Pinkerton men need not enter any State as a body, or carrying their arms; but it is not well to attempt legislation of this kind, even if it is known that it will not be effective, without the very gravest consideration. There is a good deal more involved in it than the issue between the Carnegie Company and its men."

[The Nation A WEEKLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO POLITICS, LITERATURE, SCIENCE & ART VOLUME LIV FROM JANUARY 1, 1892 TO JUNE 30, 1892. NEW YORK THE EVENING POST PUBLISHING COMPANY 1892, (Vol. 55, No. 1412). Pg. 88]

No comments: