Is it not because the powerful among us fail to admit that
workers have passed from slavery to equality?

A man owns vast mining properties. He lives in New York and in
Newport. Comfortably, and at a distance, he runs and rules his
mines. He is good-natured enough, kind-hearted. He means well.
He does not see the corpses brought up from the fire-damp. He
does not notice the hollow chests of young children with the
pores of their skin and the pores of their lungs full of coal
dust.

This owner--who rules and draws his profits from Newport--has one
bitter complaint against his striking men. He cannot forgive
them BECAUSE THEY CALL IN A LABOR LEADER FROM CHICAGO TO SETTLE
A LABOR DISPUTE IN PENNSYLVANIA.

Imagining himself most condescending, he expresses willingness to
treat personally and individually with his men. But he will not
tolerate interference "with my business" on the part of the
workmen's agent, whom he calls "an agitator from Chicago."

WHY should he feel so badly about it?

If the Pennsylvania workman is willing to let a NEWPORT man
manage the capitalistic end, should not that Newport man allow a
CHICAGO labor leader to manage the labor end?

Is not one explanation the fact that the owner considers his
workmen, in every possible respect, financially, morally,