In an articlo iu tho Naw York Sun the following sousiblu paragraph up pears : " Tho most efFeutual mothod for removiug tho disputes between capital and htbjr ia by remuving the too provaleut notion that there is ai) ' irropressible conflict' between them. VVhon workinginen aud mnployers ara convinced of the fucl Lhat thore isa natural partnership butweun teem, iu which tho former fiud tho labor, and tha lattor the money to carry on the business, and wbon they fully nppreciato the uecessity of harmony aud eoncord utider that partnership, then strikes or lock-outs will not disturb the ' channels of trade,' or iuterfere with the rights of evcry clasfl of citi.eus." This is the view of all sensible peoplc. Strikes are the legacy of a barbarous age - of tho days when apprentioes were bound - and in no wiso a rerrtedy for the evil they pretend to re:ioh. Many well meaning persons and jouroals have confueed ideas on this subject, and aru continually disoussing and dofending the rihgt of uien to strike. No ono disputes the right, but the expedioncy of sueh a step. Strikes nover bettered any trado ; on the contrary, most have been injured by them. Ceasoless agitation of the question of pay has resulted in neglccting the trade itself. Wagos forced up for a time by combinatious, come down again by degrees when the eornbinations are inaotive, so that tho last end of the strikers is worse than the first. Strikes aio generally originated by envious, dissatisfied men, who, findiug thernsülves falling behiud their comrades in pay, créate distsatisfaction in order to rise to popularity on the topmost w ivo tbtreof. We have always deprecated strikes, and shall raise our voice against them - not because, as has boon insinuated by a silly paper, we are intereetod in reducing thu earnings of our fcllowmen, but because there is no benefit in tho act ; on the contrary, the " greatest evils ensue. We hear eriough in papers nterested in fomenting discord between men and their employers about the jraad success of such and euch a com )ination, but they never teil us how ephemeral it is, or of the misery and sufferings of the families who want when the father is idle, or of the looso habits and falne ideas engenderod which fasten on hitn sometimes for life. Ia this country the workman to day is often the proprietor to-morrow, and we can look back on many in the course of our oxperience who ence artleutly espoused the policy of striking, but now oppose. it becauso of lts fallacy It is a hopuful sign of the times that, with all the demagoguism of the false friends of tho workmen, thoro are so few trades that lend an ear to thcir twaddle, but pursüe the even tenor of their way to prosperity and peace, never dreaming that they are abused and down-trodden. Sdenttfie American.