-^^^n school tiur^r: 
 
 iivN 
 
 )OSt 
 
 llnRARY 
 
 yHIVERSlTY OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 idVEKSIDE
 
 Hith School LiuriirL 
 
 374 a 
 
 ;aN JOSE 
 
 GAL! FORM 1
 
 DEBATERS' HANDBOOK SERIES 
 
 TRADE UNIONS
 
 DEBATERS' 
 HANDBOOK SERIES 
 
 Enlargement of the United States Navy 
 (3d ed. rev. and enl.) 
 
 Direct Primaries (3d ed. rev. and enl.) 
 
 Capital Punishment 
 
 Commission Plan of Municipal Govern- 
 ment (3d ed. rev. and enl.) 
 
 Election of United States Senators (2d ed. 
 rev.) 
 
 Income Tax (2d ed. rev. and enl. ) 
 
 Initiative and Referendum (2d ed. rev. 
 and enl.) 
 
 Central Bank of the United States 
 
 Woman Suffrage (2d ed. rev.) 
 
 Municipal Ownership 
 
 Child Labor 
 
 Open versus Closed Shop (2d ed.) 
 
 Employment of Women 
 
 Federal Control of Interstate Corporations 
 
 Parcels Post 
 
 Compulsory Arbitration of Industrial Dis- 
 putes 
 
 Government Ownership of Railroads 
 
 Compulsory Insurance 
 
 Conservation of Natural Resources 
 
 Free Trade vs. Protection 
 
 Reciprocity 
 
 Trade Unions 
 
 Other titles in preparation 
 
 Each volume, one dollar net
 
 ^=^^^c^^0 6^4^ 
 
 Debaters^ Handbook Series 
 
 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 ON 
 
 TRADE UNIONS 
 
 COMPILED BY 
 EDNA D.^'^ULLOCK 
 
 MINNEAPOLIS 
 
 THE H. W. WILSON COMPANY 
 
 1913 
 
 4432 
 
 387
 
 39^
 
 EXPLANATORY NOTE 
 
 Out of the wealth of literature on trade unions, a limited 
 selection for reprinting is planned to serve: i. as a gen- 
 eral historical, descriptive and critical exposition of the sub- 
 ject, 2. as the foundation for arguments on the benefits of 
 trade unions to their members and to society. 
 
 Advanced students of the subject may see no need of the 
 general literature of so time-worn a subject, and no room 
 for argument on what appears to be a one-sided topic. It 
 should be remembered, however, that in many parts of our 
 country, particularly where agriculture is the chief industry, 
 trade unionism is absolutely unknown to the people, except 
 through newspaper publicity given when some outrage of 
 public welfare is charged against unionism. With a view 
 to making this handbook useful to people whose sole knowl- 
 edge has come from such sources, no blindly partisan litera- 
 ture has been reprinted. The publications of the American 
 Federation of Labor and the National Association of Manu- 
 facturers are listed in the bibliography, and may be had by 
 corresponding with the officers of those organizations. 
 
 The bibliography is designed to be comprehensive enough 
 to be of use to advanced students of the subject as well as 
 to the general public and the debater. 
 
 An earlier number of the Debaters' Handbook Series on 
 the Open versus the Closed Shop contains an extensive 
 bibliography. Duplication of reprints contained in the earlier 
 number has been avoided. 
 
 September, 1912.
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 Brief ix 
 
 Bibliography 
 
 Bibliographies xi 
 
 General References 
 
 a. Historical and Descriptive xi 
 
 b. Laws and Court 'Decisions xix 
 
 Affirmative References xxi 
 
 Negative References xxiii 
 
 Introduction i 
 
 General Discussion 
 
 Funk and Wagnalls Standard Encyclopedia. Trade Unions 5 
 
 Gladden, Washington. Labor Question 12 
 
 American Federation of Labor. Declarations 17 
 
 Mussey, Henry Raymond. Trade-Unions and Public Policy 
 
 Atlantic 18 
 
 Robins, Raymond. Political and Legal Policies of the 
 
 American Federation of Labor City Club Bulletin 26 
 
 Industrial Unionism Independent 49 
 
 International Trade Union Statistics 
 
 New York Labor Bulletin 52 
 
 Gompers, Samuel. Labor's Struggle for the Right to Organ- 
 ize Outlook 54 
 
 Laughlin, J. Laurence. Hope for Labor Unions 
 
 Scribner's IMagazine 60 
 
 Laws and Court Decisions 
 
 Contempt of Samuel Gompers Current Literature '/'^ 
 
 Boyle, James. Organized Labor and Court Decisions. .Forum 80 
 Incorporation of Trade Unions Independent 97
 
 viii CONTENTS 
 
 Wheeler, Everett P. What Organized Labor Ought to Have 
 .' Independent lOO 
 
 Affirmative Discussiox 
 
 Reynolds, James Bronson. Benefits of Labor Unions 107 
 
 Prescott, William B. Services of Labor Unions in the Set- 
 tlement of Industrial Disputes 
 
 Annals of the American Academy no 
 
 Bemis, Edward W. Ethical Side of Trade Unionism 
 
 Independent 1 16 
 
 Portenar, A. J. Xenio ^le Impune Lacessit. .. .Independent 122 
 
 Warne, Frank Julian. Programme of the Labor Unions .... 
 Metropolitan Magazine 128 
 
 Brooks. John Graham. Trade Union and Democracy 
 
 Outlook 143 
 
 Gladden, Washington. Reason for the Unions .... Outlook 145 
 
 Negative DisclsSion 
 
 Fay, Charles Norman. Value of Existing Trade-Unionism 
 
 Atlantic Monthly I57 
 
 Eliot, Charles W. Labour Unions .... Cassier's Magazine 176 
 Clarkin, Franklin. Daily Walk of the Walking Delegate 
 
 Century 188 
 
 Stickley, Gustav. Guild Stamp and the Union Label 
 
 Craftsman 201 
 
 Wherein They Fail Independent 20Q 
 
 Laughlin, J. Laurence. Unions Versus Higher Wages .... 
 
 Journal of Political Economy 212 
 
 Baker, Ray Stannard. Trust's New Tool McClure's 225 
 
 Grant, Luke. Walking Delegate Outlook 244 
 
 Gladden, Washington. Case Against the Union . . . Outlook 254
 
 BRIEF 
 
 Resolved, That trade unions, as they now exist, are, on 
 the whole, beneficial to society in the United States. 
 
 Introduction 
 
 I. The welfare of the laboring classes is inseparable 
 from that of the nation, because: 
 
 a. They include a vast majority of the people. 
 
 b. They are necessary to the industrial and social 
 
 activities of the nation. 
 II. Labor's struggle for recognition and better conditions. 
 
 a. The serf. 
 
 b. The guilds. 
 
 c. The factory system. 
 
 d. The trade union. 
 
 III. Relation of laboring classes to capital, 
 
 a. Organized labor. 
 
 b. Organized capital. 
 
 Affirmative 
 
 The affirmative believes that trade unions are, on the 
 whole, beneficial, because: 
 
 I. Modern conditions make organization necessary, for 
 
 a. The old relation of master and servant has disap- 
 
 peared, making collective bargaining imperative. 
 
 b. Capital is aggressively organized. 
 
 II. Trade unions have secured for all laborers: 
 
 a. Recognition of the laborer's right to a living wage. 
 
 b. Higher wages. 
 
 c. Shorter hours of labor. 
 
 d. Better and safer places in which to work. 
 
 c. Recognition of right to compensation for loss of 
 earning capacity due to the nature or accident of 
 employment. 
 
 f. Increased stability of employment.
 
 X BRIEF 
 
 III. Trade unions are a personal benefit to individual la- 
 borers, for 
 
 a. Greater efficiency is attained through union re- 
 
 quirements of personal efficiency. 
 
 b. Association with fellow workmen encourages the 
 
 development of the social conscience. 
 
 c. Provision for the emergencies of sickness, accident 
 
 and death is made. 
 
 Negative 
 
 The negative believes that trade unions have not been 
 beneficial to the people of the United States, because: 
 I. They seek to limit the freedom of contract through 
 
 a. Coercion of employers. 
 
 b. Intimidation of non-union workmen. 
 
 c. Interference with public comfort or necessity. 
 II. They discourage efficiency, for 
 
 a. Many of them have no efficiency test for member- 
 
 ship. 
 
 b. They maintain few trade schools. 
 
 c. They limit the number of apprentices, thus making 
 
 room, artificially in a given trade for inferior 
 
 workmen. 
 d^ They exact equal pay for good and poor workers. 
 e. They limit the amount of work a laborer may do in 
 
 a given time, gaged by the attainment of the 
 
 slower laborers. 
 III. They are injurious to the public welfare, for 
 
 a. They encourage lawlessness, as instanced by the 
 
 violent behavior of strikers and labor leaders. 
 
 b. They arouse the enmity of labor for capital. 
 
 c. They openly advocate methods that are illegal, as 
 
 instanced by the secondary boycott. 
 
 d. They discriminate against and frequently mistreat 
 
 non-union laborers, of whom there are many 
 more in the country than there are of union la- 
 borers. 
 
 e. They paralyze industry and cause great losses, 
 
 through strikes and boycotts. 
 
 f. They restrict the output, thus tending unduly to 
 
 keep up the cost of commodities.
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 A star () preceding: a reference indicates that the entire article 
 or a part of it has been reprinted in this volume. 
 
 A dagger (t) preceding a reference indicates that the entire 
 article or a part of it has been reprinted in the Debaters' Hand- 
 book on the Open versus the Closed Shop. 
 
 Bibliographies 
 
 Harvard University. Guide to Readings in Social Ethics and 
 
 Allied Subjects. 1910. 
 Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political 
 Science. 22: 1-112. Ja.-F. '04. Trial Bibliography of Ameri- 
 can Trade Union Publications. George E. Barnett, ed. 
 Marot, Helen. Handbook of Labor literature. 1899. Free Li- 
 brary of Economics and Political Science. Philadelphia. 
 True, E. L Labor Problem: a Bibliography, Wisconsin Free 
 
 Library Commission. 
 United States. Library of Congress ^Division of Bibliog- 
 raphy. Select list of Books, with References to Periodi- 
 cals, on Labor, Particularly Relating to Strikes. 1903. 
 For sale by the Superintendent of Public Documents, Wash- 
 ington, D. C. Ten cents. 
 
 United States. Library of Congress Division of Bibliog- 
 raphy. Select List of References on Boycotts and Injunc- 
 tions in Labor Disputes. 191 1. 
 
 For sale by the Superintendent of Public Documents, Wash- 
 ington, D. C. Ten cents. 
 
 General References 
 
 a. Historical and Descriptive. 
 
 Books, Pamphlets and Documents 
 
 Adams, Thomas Sewall, and Sumner, Helen L. Labor prob- 
 lems. Chapter VL Strikes and Boycotts. Macmillan. 1905. 
 
 Addams, Jane. Newer Ideals of Peace. Chapter V. Group 
 Morality in the Labor Movement. Macmillan. 1907. 
 
 Alden, Percy. Democratic England. Macmillan. 1912. 
 Published originally in the Chautauquan.
 
 xii BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 American Federation of Labor.. Declarations upon Which 
 it Appeals to Working People. 
 
 Ashley, W. J. Adjustment of Wages: a Study in the Coal and 
 Iron Industries of Great Britain and America. Longmans. 
 1903. 
 
 Bliss, W. D. P. ed. New Encyclopedia of Social Reform, un- 
 der the heading Trade Unions. 
 
 Bolen, George L. Getting a Living. Macmillan. 1903. 
 
 Bullock, Charles Jesse, comp. Selected Readings in Eco- 
 nomics. Chapter XIX. Some Aspects of the Labor Prob- 
 lem. Ginn. 1907. 
 
 Burke, William Maxwell. History and Functions of Central 
 Labor Unions. Columbia University Studies in History, 
 Economics and Public Law. 12: 1-125. 1899. 
 
 Carlton, Frank Tracy. History and Problems of Organized 
 Labor. Heath. 191 1, 
 Bibliography at the end of each chapter. 
 
 Commons, John R., ed. Trade Unionism and Labor Prob- 
 lems. Ginn. 1905. 
 
 Commons, John R. and Others., eds. Documentary History 
 of American Industrial Society. 10 Vols. Clark. 1909. 
 
 Cook, Joseph. Labor. Boston Monday Lectures. Chapter X. 
 Are Trades Unions a Nursery of Socialism? Houghton. 
 1880. 
 
 Crosby, Oscar T. Strikes: When to Strike and How to 
 Strike. Putnams. 1910. 
 
 Dole, Charles Fletcher. Spirit of Democracy. Chapter 
 XXVII. The Labor Unions. Crowell. 1906. 
 
 Eliot, Charles William. Future of Trades-Unionism. Put- 
 nam's. 1910. 
 
 Ely, Richard T. Labor Movement in America, pp. 34-166. 
 Labor Organizations. Crowell. 1886. 
 
 *Funk and Wagnalls Standard Encyclopedia. Trade Unions. 
 
 Gilman, Nicholas Paine. Methods of Industrial Peace. Chap- 
 ter VII. Aims and Methods of Trade-Unionism. Hough- 
 ton. 1904. 
 
 Gladden, Washington. Applied Christianity, pp. 38-52. Is 
 Labor a Commodity? Houghton. 1898. 
 
 *Gladden, Washington. Labor Question. Pilgrim Press. 191 1.
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY xiii 
 
 Gladden, Washington. Social Facts and Forces. Chapter II. 
 
 The Labor Union. Putnam's. 1897. 
 Gompers, Samuel. Labor in Europe and America. Harper. 
 
 1910. 
 Hapgood, Norman. Industry and Progress. Chapter II. La- 
 bor. Yale University Press. 1911. 
 Harrison, Frederic. National and Social Problems, pp. 297- 
 
 Z22. Trades-Unionism. Macmillan. 1908. 
 
 Contains a bibliography. 
 Hollander, J. H., and Barnett, G. E. Studies in American 
 
 Trade-Unionism. Holt. 1905. 
 Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Politi- 
 cal Science. 24: 105-248. Mr.-Ap. '06. Finances of Ameri- 
 can Trade Unions. A. M. Sakolski. 
 Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political 
 
 Science. 24: 609-750. S.-O. '06. National Labor Federations 
 
 in the United States. William Kirk. 
 Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political 
 
 Science. 25: 491-604. N.-D. '07. Apprenticeship in American 
 
 Trade Unions. James M. Motley. 
 Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political 
 
 Science. 26: 507-618. N.-D. '08. Beneficiary Features of 
 
 American Trade Unions. James B. Kennedy. 
 Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political 
 
 Science. 28: 237-334. '10. Trade Union Label. Ernest R. 
 
 Spedden. 
 McCabe, David A. Standard Rate in American Trade Unions. 
 
 Johns Hopkins Press. 1912. 
 Mitchell, John. Organized Labor. American Book and Bible 
 
 House. 1903. 
 National Education Association. Proceedings, 1910: 265-75. 
 
 Trade Unions and Industrial Education. W. B. Prescott. 
 Nearing, Scott. Social Adjustment, pp. 246-51. Labor Unions. 
 
 Macmillan. 191 1. 
 New International Yearbook. See annual volumes under the 
 
 heading Trade Unions. 
 New York. Labor, Department of. Bulletin. 42: 392-10. S. 
 
 '09. International Trade Union Statistics. 
 Pearson, Paul M. ed. Intercollegiate Debates, being Briefs 
 
 and Reports of Many Intercollegiate Debates. Chapter XI. 
 
 Are Labor Unions Beneficial? Hinds and Noble. 1909.
 
 xiv BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Peters, Rev. John P. ed. Labor and Capital. Putnam's. 1902. 
 
 Pigou, A. C. Principles and Methods of Industrial Peace. 
 Macmillan. 1905. 
 
 Powderly, T. V. Thirty Yez^rs of Labor. Excelsior Publish- 
 ing House, Columbus, Ohio. 1891. 
 
 Robbins, E. Clyde. Selected Articles on the Open versus the 
 Closed Shop. H. W. Wilson Company. 191 1. 
 Bibliography. Preface, pp. 13-20. 
 
 Sons of the American Revolution. California Society. Pro- 
 ceedings. 1907: 37-86. Speeches at the Banquet of Octo- 
 ber 19, 1907, on "The Spirit of Seventy-six in its Relation 
 to Modern Strikes and Boycotts." 
 
 Squier, Lee Willing. Old Age Dependency in the United 
 States, pp. 55-66. Benefit Features of Labor Organiza- 
 tions. Macmillan. 1912. 
 
 Streightoflf, Frank Hatch. Standard of Living Among the 
 Industrial People of America. Houghton. 1911. 
 
 Taussig, Frank W. Principles of Economics. 2 Vols. Chapter 
 II, V. 2. Trade-Unions. Macmillan. 1911. 
 
 United States. Industrial Commission. Report on Labor Or- 
 ganizations, Labor Disputes and Arbitrations, and on 
 Railway Labor. Volume 17 of the Commission's Report. 
 1901. 
 
 United States. Labor, Bureau of. Annual Report of the Com- 
 missioner. Strikes and Lockouts, v. 3, 10, 16. 1888, 1894, 
 1901. 
 
 United States. Labor, Bureau of. Bulletin. 9: 1-103. Ja. '04. 
 Labor Unions and British Industry. A. Maurice Low. 
 
 United States. Labor, Bureau of. Bulletin. 10: 1-8. Ja. '05. In- 
 fluence of Trade Unions on Immigrants. Carroll D. 
 Wright. 
 
 United States. Labor, Bureau of. Bulletin. 12: 699-848. My. 
 '06, Benefit Features of British Trade Unions. Walter E. 
 Weyl. 
 
 Webb, Sidney, and Webb, Beatrice. History of Trade Un- 
 ionism. Longmans, 1894. 
 Bibliography, pp. 479-543, vol. I. 
 
 Webb, Sidney, and Webb, Beatrice. Industrial Democracy. 
 1902. 
 
 Wright, Carroll D. Battles of Labor. G. W. Jacobs. 1906.
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY xv 
 
 Magazine Articles 
 
 American Economic Association Quarterly. 3d. Series. 10: i- 
 387. O. '09. The Printers; a Study in American Trade 
 Unionism. G. E. Barnett. 
 
 Annals of the American Academy. 24: 316-30. S. '04. Political 
 Action and Trade-Unionism. W. McArthur. 
 
 Annals of the American Academy. 25: 67-86. Ja. '05. Miners' 
 Union: Its Business Management. Frank Julian Warne. 
 
 Annals of the American Academy. 26: 721-89. N. '05. British 
 and American Trade Unionism. William English Wall- 
 ing. 
 
 *Annals of the American Academy. 27: 521-30. My. '06. Serv- 
 ices of Labor Unions in the Settlement of Industrial Dis- 
 putes. William B. Prescott. 
 
 Annals of the American Academy. 27: 638-45. My. '06. Or- 
 ganization amongst Working Women. Lillian D. Wald. 
 
 Atlantic. 78: 687-97. N. '96. Trade Unions in the United King- 
 dom. John M. Ludlow. 
 
 Atlantic. 109: 441-6. Ap. '12. Trade-Unions and Public Policy. 
 Henry Raymond Mussey. 
 
 Chautauquan. 39: 225-7. My. '04. "Americanization" by Labor 
 Unions. John R. Commons. 
 Reprinted from the World To-Day. October, 1903. 
 
 Chautauquan. 62: 247-54. Ap. '11. Labor Movement in Amer- 
 ica. John R. Commons. 
 
 *City Club Bulletin. 2: 279-92. F. 17, '09. Political and Legal 
 Policies of the American Federation of Labor. Raymond 
 Robins. 
 
 Contemporary Review, yy. 105-16. Ja. '00. Socialism in the 
 United States. Ambrose Pare Winston. 
 
 Contemporary Review. 82: 516-25. O. '02. Labor Organiza- 
 tions in the United States. Carroll D. Wright. 
 
 Contemporary Review. 92: 678-89. N. '07. Trade Unionism in 
 Germany. E: Bernstein. 
 
 Engineering Magazine. 23: 90-6. Ap. '02. Possibilities of a 
 New Trades Unionism. Percy Longmuir. 
 
 Engineering Magazine. 34: 401-13. D. '07. Rising Industrial 
 Problem; the New Apprenticeship. George Frederic Strat- 
 ton.
 
 xvi BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Forum, ii: 205-14. Ap. '91. Trade-Unionism and Utopia. W. 
 H. Mallock. 
 
 Forum. 13: 765-70. Ag. '92. Churches and Labor Unions. John 
 P. Coyle. 
 
 Forum. 24: 579-90. Ja. '98. Incorporation of the Working- 
 Class. Hugh McGregor. 
 
 P'orum. 30: 737-51. F. '01. American Trade-Unions and Com- 
 pulsory Arbitration. W. McArthur. 
 
 Gunton. 22: 59-64. Ja. '02. Labor Unions and Labor Contracts. 
 D. L. Cease. 
 
 Hampton. 26: 217-30. F. '11. San Francisco of the Closed 
 Shop. Frederick Palmer. 
 
 Harper's Weekly. 48: 204-6. F. 6. '04. Proposed Solutions of 
 the Labor Problem. John Keith. 
 
 Independent. 54: 1383-4. Je. 5, '02. Industrial Unionism. 
 
 Independent. 55: 159-60. Ja. 15, '03. Labor Unions and Pro- 
 fessional Classes. 
 
 Independent. 55: 1408-9. Je. 11, '03. Trades Unions and the 
 "Premium Plan." 
 
 tindependent. 55: 1640-1. Jl. 9, '03. Trade Union Postulates. 
 
 Independent. 58: 935-8. Ap. 2-], '05. Cap Maker's Story. Rose 
 Schneiderman. 
 
 Independent. 68: 11 12-5. My. 26, '10. Employer and the Labor 
 Union. Marcus M. Marks. 
 
 Journal of Political Economy. 15: 88-107. F. '07. Labor in the 
 Packing Industry. Carl William Thompson. 
 
 Journal of Political Economy. 15: 470-88. O. '07. Socialistic 
 Tendencies in American Trade Unions. John Curtis Ken- 
 nedy. 
 
 McClure. 23: 43-57. My. '04. Reign of Lawlessness; Anarchy 
 and Despotism in Colorado. Ray Stannard Baker. 
 
 McClure. 24: 41-52. N. '04. Parker and Roosevelt on Labor, 
 Ray Stannard Baker. 
 
 McClure. 24: 126-93. D. '04. Rise of the Tailors. Ray Stan- 
 nard Baker. 
 
 McClure. 27: 25-35. My, '06. Lesson in Labor: Story. Richard 
 Washburn Child. 
 
 Nation. 76: 186-7. Mr- 5. '03. Negro and the Trade Unions. 
 
 Nation. 91: 515-6. D. i, '10. Negro and the Unions,
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY xvii 
 
 Nineteenth Century. 52: 732-45. N. '02. Industrial Troubles in 
 
 America. Benjamin Taylor. 
 Nineteenth Century. 53: 290-8. F. '03. Working Man's View 
 
 of Trade Unions. James G. Hutchinson. 
 North American Review. 165: 431-43. O. '97. Another View 
 
 of the Union Label. Starr Hoyt Nichols. 
 North American Review. 174: 30-45. Ja. '02. Consolidated 
 
 Labor. Carroll D. Wright. 
 North American Review. 181: 603-15. O. '05. Public and the 
 
 Coal Conflict. Henry Edward Rood. 
 North American Review. 188: 372-82. S. '08. Labor Unions in 
 
 the Presidential Campaign. Henry White. 
 Outlook. 72: 670-3. N. 22, '02. Trust Problem: the "Socialistic 
 
 Basis." 
 Outlook. 73: 721-3. Mr. 28, '03. Question of a Maximum 
 
 Wage: Symposium. 
 Outlook. 75: 397-405. O. 17, '03. Trials of a Labor Editor. 
 
 Joseph R. Buchanan. 
 Outlook. 75: 894-900. D. 12, '03. Labor Politics. Joseph R. 
 
 Buchanan. 
 Outlook. 80: 183-6. My. 20, '05. Why American Labor Unions 
 
 Keep Out of Politics. William English Walling. 
 Outlook. 84: 470-6. O. 27, '06. Restrictions by Trade Un- 
 ions. John R. Commons. 
 Outlook. 84: 878-83. D. 8, '06. Newboy's Labor Union and 
 
 What It Thinks of a College Education. Robert W. 
 
 Bruere. 
 Outlook. 84: 926-31. D. 15, '06. Wometi in Trade Unions. 
 
 Florence Kelley. 
 Outlook. 84: 1073-6. D. 29, '06. Labor Press. Charles Stelzle. 
 Outlook. 85: 25-9. Ja. 5, '07. Trade Unions and Politics. John 
 
 Graham Brooks. 
 Outlook. 97: 267-70. E. 4, '11. Labor's Struggle for the Right 
 
 to Organize. Samuel Gompers. 
 Outlook. 97: 543-7. Mr. II, '11. Which Is To Be Master? J. O. 
 
 Fagan. 
 Overland Monthly. 38: 119-24. Ag. '01. Labor Organizations. 
 
 Charles A. Murdock. 
 Political Science Quarterly. 16: 1 14-41, 222-47. Mr.-Je. '01. 
 
 Chicago Building Trades Dispute. Ernest L. Bogart.
 
 xviii BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Political Science Quarterly. 19: 193-223. Je. '04. Trusts and 
 
 Trade Unions. Mabel Atkinson, 
 Political Science Quarterly. 22: 385-400. S. '07. Attitude of 
 
 the State Toward Trade Unions and Trusts. Henry Rog- 
 ers Seager. 
 Political Science Quarterly. 24: 57-79. Mr. '09. Unionism in 
 
 the Iron and Steel Industry. John A. Fitch. 
 Quarterly Journal of Economics. 15: 248-70. My. '01. Chicago 
 
 Building Trades Conflict of 1900. 
 Quarterly Journal of Economics. 20: 59-85. N. '05. Types of 
 
 American Labor Unions: The 'Longshoremen of the 
 
 Great Lakes. John R. Commons. 
 Quarterly Journal of Economics. 20: 419-42. My. '06. Types 
 
 of American Labor Unions: The Musicians of St. Louis 
 
 and New York. John R. Commons. 
 Quarterly Journal of Economics. 24: 39-84. N. '09. American 
 
 Shoemakers, 1648-1895: A Sketch of Industrial Evolution. 
 
 John R. Commons. 
 Review of Reviews. 35 : 84-7. Ja. '07. Year's Activity of Labor 
 
 Unionism. Victor S. Yarros. > 
 
 Scribners' Magazine. 24: 495-508. O. '03. Some Phases of 
 
 Trade Unionism. Walter A. Wyckoflf. 
 Scribners' Magazine. 38: 627-33. N. '05. Hope for Labor 
 
 Unions. J. Laurence Laughlin. 
 Spectator. 105: 376-7. S. 10, '10. Collective Bargaining. 
 Survey. 23: 101-7. O. 16, '09. National Women's Trade Union 
 
 League. Mary McDowell. 
 Survey. 24: 337-8. My. 28, '10. Roxbury Carpet Factory 
 
 Strike. Elizabeth G. Evans. 
 Survey. 26: 253-5. My. 6, '11. Strike at Muscatine, Iowa. Ger- 
 trude Barnum. 
 Survey. 27: 976-88. O. 7, '11. England's Revolutionary Strike: 
 
 the Transportation Workers. Graham Taylor. 
 Westminster Review. 165: 401-14. Ap. '06. History, Use and 
 
 Abuse of Trade Unions. D. Wright Biddulph. 
 World To-Day. 12: 21 1-4. F. '07. Labor Press. William Res- 
 
 telle. 
 World To-Day. 17: 1085-7. O. '06. Trade Unions in Politics. 
 
 Thomas Sewall Adams.
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY xix 
 
 World's Work. 5: 202:^-7. Ja. '03. What the British Unionists 
 
 Saw: Mr. Moseley's British Commission on Their Tour. 
 
 M. G. Cunniff. 
 World's Work. 6: 3790-4. Ag. '03. Building Trades Employers 
 
 and the Unions. William English Walling. 
 W^orld's Work. 7: 4092-8. N. '03. Labor Union Conquest of 
 
 the United States. William Z. Ripley. 
 World's Work. 8: 4755-8. My, '04. Can Labor Unions be 
 
 Destroyed? William English Walling. 
 World's Work. 15: 10157-8. Ap. '08. Plan for Grading Union 
 
 Labor. Frank Jermin and Fenton H. Duflf. 
 World's Work. 22: 1485 1-5, 14966-72; 23: 107-14. S.-N. '11. 
 
 Labor Leader's Own Story. Henry White. 
 
 b. Laws and Court Decisions 
 Books, Pamphlets and Documents ' 
 
 Eaves, Lucile. History of California Labor Legislation. Uni- 
 versity of California, 1910. 
 
 Groat, George Gorham. Attitude of American Courts in La- 
 bor Cases. Columbia University Studies in History, Eco- 
 nomics and Public Law. Vol. 42. Chapters 8-1 1. Unionism. 
 1911. 
 
 Huebner, Grover Gerhard, comp. Blacklisting. 1906. Wiscon- 
 sin Free Library Commission. Comparative Legislation 
 Bulletin, No. 10. 
 
 Huebner, Grover Gerhard, comp. Boycotting. 1906. Wiscon- 
 sin Free Library Commission. Comparative Legislation 
 Bulletin. No. 9. 
 
 Jevons, Walter Stanley. State in Relation to Labour. Ed. 3. 
 Chapter 4. Trades Union Legislation, Macmillan, 1894. 
 
 Stimson, F. J. Handbook to Labor Law of the United States. 
 Scribner. 1896. 
 
 Clark, Lindley D. Law of the Employment of Labor. Macmil- 
 lan. 191 1. 
 
 Magasine Articles 
 
 American Industries. 12: 7-11. Jl. '12. Gompers Contempt 
 Case Reaffirmed.
 
 XX BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Annals of the American Academy. 32: 75-81, Jl. '08. Attitude 
 of Labor Towards Governmental Regulation of Industry. 
 Samuel Gompers. 
 
 Annals of the American Academy. 36: 87-103. Jl. '10. Use and 
 Abuse of Injunctions in Trade Disputes. Jackson H. Ral- 
 ston. 
 
 Annals of the American Academy. 36: 103-18. Jl. '10. Use and 
 Abuse of Injunctions in Trade Disputes. Charles E. Lit- 
 tlefield. 
 
 Annals of the American Academy. 36: 127-36. Jl. '10. Use 
 and Abuse of Injunctions in Tra'de Disputes. James A. 
 Emery. 
 
 Century. 76: 91 1-6. O. '08. Writ of Injunction as a Party 
 Issue. Seth Low. 
 
 Charities and the Commons. 15: 588-90. F. '06. Labor Vote in 
 Philadelphia's Political Upheaval. Henry Johns Gibbons. 
 
 Charities and the Commons. 21 : 1046-8. Mr. 6, '09. Labor 
 Unions and the Boycott. John Martin. 
 
 *Current Literature. 46: 127-32. F, '09. Contempt of Samuel 
 Gompers. 
 
 *Forum. 42: 535-51. D. '09. Organized' Labor and Court De- 
 cisions. James Boyle. 
 
 *Independent. 54: 3038-9. D. 18, '02. Incorporation of Trade 
 Unions. 
 
 Independent. 66: 11-3. Ja. 7, '09. What Organized Labor 
 Ought to Have: a Reply to Mr. Gompers. Everett P. 
 Wheeler. 
 
 Journal of Political Economy. 18: 129-38. F. '10. Labor Un- 
 ions and the Anti-Trust Law: a Review of Decisions. C. 
 J, Primm. 
 
 McClure. 31: 665-80. O. '08. Battle Against the Sherman Law: 
 How Capital and Labor Combine to Safeguard the Trust 
 and Legalize the Boycott. Burton J. Hendrick. 
 
 McClure. 32: 25-32. N. '08. What Organized Labor Wants: An 
 Interview with Samuel Gompers. George Kibbe Turner. 
 
 McClure. 33: 201-9. Je. '09. Judicial Decisions as An Issue in 
 Politics. William Howard Taft. 
 
 Nation. 78: 407-8. Je. 23, '04. Trade-Unions and the Law.
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY xxi 
 
 Nation. 80: 346-70. My. 4, '05. Check to Union Tyranny: the 
 Decision of the Supreme Court in the Case of Lochner 
 versus New York. 
 
 Nation. 86: 365-6. Ap. 25, '08. Legislative Demands of Or- 
 ganized Labor. 
 
 Nineteenth Century. 51: 233-52. F. '02. Should Trade Unions 
 Be Incorporated? Clement Edwards. 
 
 Outlook. 69: 1 13-4. S. 14, '01. Incorporation of Trades-Unions. 
 Carroll D. Wright. Joseph R. Buchanan. 
 
 Outlook. 74: 307-9. Je. 6, '03. Should Unions Incorporate? 
 
 Outlook. 81: 540-1. N. '05. Illegal Picketing. 
 
 Outlook. 88: 631-5. Mr. 21, '08. Trusts and Trade Unions. 
 Philip S. Post, jr. 
 
 Outlook. 97: 847-9. Ap. 22, '11. Case of the Danbury Hatters. 
 
 Political Science Quarterly. 22: 611-22. D. '07. Legal Status of 
 Trade Unions in the United Kingdom. H. R. Seager. 
 
 Review of Reviws. 27: 200-1. F. '03. Labor Unions and the 
 Law; the Recent Taff Vale Decision in England. A. Mau- 
 rice Low. 
 
 Survey. 27: 1432-4. D. 30, '11. Organized Labor and the Law. 
 Samuel McCune Lindsay. 
 
 Washington Law Reporter. 36: 822-48. O. 25, '08. Supreme 
 Court Decision in the Buck's Stove and Range Case. 
 
 Yale Review. 19: 144-58. Ag. '10. Unionism and the Courts. 
 George Gorham Groat. 
 
 Affirmative References 
 Books, Pamphlets and Documents 
 
 fAmerican Economic Association. Publications. Series 3, 4: 
 
 172-80. '03. Union and the Open Shop. Henry White. 
 fAmerican Economic Association. Publications. Series 3, 4: 
 
 189-206. '03. Problems of Organized Labor. Discussion: 
 
 Samuel P. Donnelly, John E. George, John A. Hobson, 
 
 Frank O'Connor, E. Dana Durand. 
 fAmerican Economic Association. Publications. Series 3, 4: 
 
 211-47. '03. Trade Union Ideals. G: E. McNeill, Frank K. 
 
 Foster. 
 American Federation of Labor, 801-809. G. Street, N. W. 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 Price list of publications sent on request.
 
 xxii BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 American Federation of Labor. Executive Council. Text Book 
 of Labor's Political Demands. 1906. 
 
 Fox, Jay. Trade Unionism and Anarchism. Mother Earth 
 Publishing Association. New York. 
 
 Reynolds, James Bronson. Benefits of Labor Unions, (in 
 Peters, J. P. ed. Labor and Capital, pp. 55-61). 
 
 Trant, William. Trade Unions, their Origin and Objects, In- 
 fluence and Efficacy, ed. 14. American Federation of La- 
 bor. 1907. 
 
 Magazine Articles 
 
 American Economic Review. 1: 463-72. S. 'ii. Organized La- 
 bor's Attitude Towards Industrial Efficiency. John R. 
 Commons. 
 
 Atlantic Monthly. 104: 289-302. S. '09. Brotherhoods and Ef- 
 ficiency. William J. Cunningham. 
 
 Congressional Record. 42: 3866-70. Mr. 23, '08. Interview Be- 
 tween Hon. J. G. Cannon, Speaker of the House of Rep- 
 resentatives, and a Committee of Seven, Representing Na- 
 tional and International Trade and Labor Unions and Or- 
 ganizations of Farmers. 
 
 Contemporary Review. 81: 113-28. Ja. '02. Do Trade Unions 
 Limit Output? Clement Edwards. 
 
 Engineering Magazine. 20: 560-6. Ja. '01. Uses and Abuses of 
 Organization Among Employers and Employees, George 
 Nicol Barnes. 
 
 Engineering Magazine. 25: 641-6. Ag. '03. Future and Trades- 
 Union Hostility. John B. C. Kershaw. 
 
 Gunton's Magazine. 21: 538-51. D. '01. Employers and Labor 
 Unions. 
 
 Independent. 52: 1055-8. My. 3, '00. Ethical Side of Trade 
 Unionism. Edward W. Bemis. 
 
 Independent. 54: 2228-30. S. 18, '02. Dictation by the Unions. 
 John Mitchell. 
 
 flndependent. 56: 1069-72. My. 12, '04. Open Shop Means 
 Destruction of the Unions. William English Walling. 
 
 tinternational Review. 11: 28.S-300. Jl. '05. New Peril for the 
 Trade .Union. John Graham Brooks. 
 
 Journal of Political Economy. 15: 345-64. Je. '07. Trade- 
 Union Point of View. R. F. Hoxie.
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY xxiii 
 
 Metropolitan. 31: 346-56, D. '09. Programme of the Labor 
 Unions. Frank Julian Warne. 
 
 Outlook. 73: 706-8. Mr. 23, '03. Trade-Unionism and the In- 
 dividual. 
 
 Outlook. 73: 715-20. Mr. 28, '03. Efficiency of Union Labor. A. 
 J. Boulton. 
 
 Outlook. 77: 1 1-4. My. 7, '04. Danger of Trades-Unions. 
 
 Outlook. 77: 41 1-4. Je. 18, '04. Church and the Trade-Union in 
 Agreement. George Hodges. 
 
 *Outlook, 84: 669-74. 17. '06. Trade Union and Democracy. 
 John Graham Brooks. 
 
 Outlook. 88: 821-3. Ag. 11, '08. Letters from a Workingman: 
 Spies in the Shop. By an American Mechanic. 
 
 *Outlook. 97: 497-502. Mr. 4, '11. Reason for the Unions. 
 Washington Gladden. 
 Reprinted in The Labor Question, Chapter 2. 
 
 Outlook. 97: 827-32. Ap. 15, '11. Cross-Lights and Counter- 
 claims. Washington Gladden. 
 Reprinted in The Labor Question, Chapter 4. 
 
 Outlook. 98: 766-8. Ag. 5, '11. Labor Unions and Class Con- 
 sciousness. Theodore Roosevelt. 
 
 Political Science Quarterly. 17: 369-80. S. '02. Do Trade Un- 
 ions Limit Output? John Martin. 
 
 Putnam's Monthly. 3: 62-7. O. '07. Organized Labor. Cardinal 
 Gibbons, 
 
 Survey. 26: 757-9. Ag. 26, '11. Labor Leader and Family Re- 
 habilitation. Oscar Leonard. 
 
 World's Work. 5: 2742-7. N. '02. Human Side of the Labor 
 Unions. M. G. Cunniflf. 
 
 Negative References 
 
 Books, Pamphlets and Documents 
 
 fAmerican Economic Association. Publications. Series 3, 4: 
 
 183-9. '03. Free Shops for Free Men. W. H. Pfahler. 
 fAmerican Economic Association. Publications. Series 3, 4: 
 207-8. '03. Problems of Organized Labor. Discussion: Del- 
 mar E. Hawkins, William Z. Ripley. 
 American Industries. 30 Church Street, New York. 
 
 Published in the interests of the National Association of Man- 
 ufacturers.
 
 xxiv BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Drew, Walter. The Boycott. National Association of Manu- 
 facturers. 
 
 Drew, Walter. Real Problem of the Eight Hour Day. Na- 
 tional Association of Manufacturers. 
 
 George, Henry, jr. Menace of Privilege, pp. 156-72. Dangers 
 of Unionism, Macmillan. 1905. 
 
 Holdom, Jesse. Legal and Historical Progress of Trade Un- 
 ions. National Association of Manufacturers. 
 
 Holt, Henry. On the Civic Relations. Chapter XX. Trade- 
 Union Coercion, Chapter XXI, Labor and the Law, Chap- 
 ter XXII, Remedies on Trial. Houghton. 1907. 
 
 National Association of Manufacturers of the United States. 
 170 Broadway, New York. 
 Anti-trade-union literature will be mailed upon request. 
 
 Van Cleave, James W. Americanism, the True Solution of the 
 Labor Problem, National Association of Manufacturers. 
 
 Magazine Articles 
 
 American Industries. 12: 12-7. Jl. '12. Union Grip on New 
 York Newspapers. 
 
 tAnnals of the American Academy. 36: 321-31. S. '10. Trade 
 Agreements. Ethelbert Stewart. 
 
 tAnnals of the American Academy. 36: 373-80. Work of 
 Employers' Associations in the Settlement of Labor Dis- 
 putes. James W. Van Cleave. 
 
 Atlantic Monthly. 90: 794-801. D. '02. Trade Union and the 
 Superior Workman. Ambrose P. Winston. 
 
 t Atlantic Monthly. 94: 433-9. O, '04. Closed Shop, C. J. Bul- 
 lock. 
 
 Atlantic Monthly. 104: 302-15. S. '09. Authority and Efficiency 
 in Railroad Management. James O. Pagan, 
 
 Atlantic Monthly. 104: 469-76. O. '09. Trade-Unions and the 
 Industrial Worker. Jonathan Thayer Lincoln. 
 
 Atlantic Monthly. 109: 758-70. Je. '12, Value of Existing 
 Trade-Unionism. Charles Norman Fay. 
 
 Cassier's Magazine. 23: 434-40. Ja. '03. Labour Unions, 
 Their Good Features and Their Evil Ones. Charles W. 
 Eliot. . 
 
 Century. 65: 317-9. D. '02. Workingman's Right.
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY xxv 
 
 Century. 67: 298-304. D. '03. Daily Walk of the Walking 
 Delegate. Franklin Clarkin. 
 
 Century. 67: 657-61. Mr. '04. United Workman: a Satire. Al- 
 bert Bigelow Paine. 
 
 Century. 83: 151-2. N. '11. Blind Leaders of Labor. 
 
 Century. 84: 149-50. My. '12. Labor-Unions not Omnipotent. 
 
 Charities and the Commons. 17: 788-90. F. 2, '07. Case of 
 Labor Against Its Traitors. Graham R. Taylor. 
 
 Craftsman. 13: 375-84. Ja. '08. Guild Stamp and the Union 
 Label. Gustav Stickley. 
 
 Gunton's Magazine. 24: 471-84. Je. '03. Misuse of Organiza- 
 tion. 
 
 Harper's Weekly. 47: 1902-4, 1940-1, 2062-4, 2094-6. N. 28-D. 
 26, '03. Strangle-Hold of Labor. John Keith, 
 
 Harper's Weekly. 48: 204-6, F. 6, '04. Proposed Solution of 
 the Labor Problem. John Keith. 
 
 Harper's Weekly. 48: 1422, 1424. S. 17, '04. Labor as a Power 
 in Politics. John Keith. 
 
 Harper's Weekly. 51: 908-10. Je. 22, '07. How the West Dealt 
 with One Labor Union; the Industrial Workers of the 
 World. Barton W. Currie. 
 
 Independent. 53: 1998-9. Ag. 22, '01. Repudiation of Contracts 
 by Trade Unions. 
 
 *Independent. 53: 2128-30. S. 5, '01. Wherein They Fail. 
 
 Independent. ^5: 1493-7. Je. 25, '03. Sympathetic Strike: a 
 Warning to Labor. John S. Stevens. 
 
 Independent. 66: 682-5. Ja. 28, '09. Nemo Me Impune Laces- 
 sit. A. J. Portenar, 
 
 Independent, 72: 388-90, F, 22, '12. Violence in Labor Dis- 
 putes. Harry Orchard. 
 
 Journal of Political Economy. 14: 129-42. Mr. '06. Unions 
 Versus Higher Wages. J. Laurence Laughlin. 
 
 Journal of Political Economy. 15: 149-65. Mr. '07. Trade- 
 Union Programme of "Enlightened Selfishness". John 
 Cummings. 
 
 McClure. 21: 451-63. S. '03. Capital and Labor Hunt Together; 
 Chicago the Victim of the New Industrial Conspiracy'. 
 Ray Stannard Baker. 
 
 McClure. 22: 30-42. N. '03. Trust's New Tool: the Labor 
 Boss. Ray Stannard Baker.
 
 xxvi. BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 McClure. 22: 366-78. F. '04. Corner in Labor: What is Hap- 
 pening in San Francisco. Ray Stannard Baker. 
 
 McCIure. 23: 279-92. Jl. '04. Organized Capital Challenges 
 Organized Labor: the New Employers' Association Move- 
 ment. Ray Stannard Baker. 
 
 Nation. 75: 394. N. 20, '02. Enemies of Society. 
 
 Nation. 76: 453-4- Je. 4, '03. Unionism and Mob Rule. M. C. 
 
 Nation. 78: 265-6. F. '04. Remedies Against Unions. 
 
 Nation. 83: 70-1." Jl. 26, '06. Trade Union Violence. 
 
 Nation. 84: 402. My. 2, '07. Truly Undesirable Citizens. 
 
 Nation. 92: 334. Ap. 6, '11. Labor Unions and Efficiency. 
 
 North American Review. 149: 413-20. O. '89. Tyranny of 
 Labor Organizations. Austin Corbin. 
 
 North American Review. 179: 178-93. Ag. '04. Present Crisis 
 in Trades-Union Morals. Jane Addams. 
 
 North American Review. 176: 409-21. Mr. '03. Rights and 
 Methods of Labor Organizations. Albert S. Bolles. 
 
 North American Review. 178: 571-81. Ap. '04. Industrial Lib- 
 erty, not Industrial Anarchy. Henry Loomis Nelson. 
 
 North American Review. 189: 771-5. My. '09. Crisis in Union- 
 ism. Henry White. 
 
 Outlook. 74: 275-7. My. 30, '03. Do Unions Restrict Earnings? 
 Symposium. 
 
 Outlook. 74: 410-5. Je. 13, '03. Efficiency of Unions from an 
 Employer's Standpoint. 
 
 Outlook. 83: 108-9. My. 19, '06. Lawlessness and Labor Un- 
 ions: the Western Federation of Miners. 
 
 Outlook. 83: 675. Jl. 28, '06. Labor Unions and Crime. 
 
 Outlook. 84: 615-21. N. 10, '06. Walking Delegate. Luke 
 Grant. 
 
 Outlook. 89: 134-5. My. 23, '08. An Intolerable Tyranny: the 
 Street Car Strike in Chester, Pennsylvania. 
 
 Outlook. 97: 465-71. F. 25, '11. Case Against the Labor Un- 
 ion. Washington Gladden. 
 Reprinted In The Labor Question, Chapter I. 
 
 Outlook. 98: 12-3. My. 6, '11. Murder is Murder: the Los 
 Angeles Times Explosion. Theodore Roosevelt. 
 
 Overland, New Series. 42: 403-6. N. '03. Unionized City. Guy 
 Raymond Halifax.
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY xxvii 
 
 Overland, New Series. 43: 506-9. Je. '04. Dangers of Union- 
 ism. Guy Raymond Halifax. 
 
 Popular Science Monthly. 8: 586-95. Mr. '76. Functions of 
 Association in Its Relations to Labor. William B. Weeden. 
 
 Popular Science Monthly. 33: 361-8. Jl. '88. Fallacies in the 
 Trades Union Argument. J. B. Mann. 
 
 World's Work. 4: 2661-7. O. '02. Labor Union Restriction of 
 Industry. M. G. Cunniff.
 
 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 TRADE UNIONS 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 It is difficult for the average American to bring a dis- 
 passionate and unprejudiced judgment to bear on the subject 
 of trade unions. The fierce and bitter struggle between la- 
 bor and capital has made partisans of a majority of those 
 who have even a superficial knowledge of the subject. 
 
 Working people, on the one hand, begin to realize that 
 no forward step will be taken in their behalf unless they 
 demand it with sufficient unity and forcefulness to compel a 
 hearing. Only through organization can they hope to better 
 their condition and only through wisely directed organiza- 
 tion, at that. 
 
 The capitalist class, on the other hand, like the feudal 
 barons, having gotten an advantage, regards this control 
 over the eflforts of laborers as a vested right one which is 
 not to be relinquished except through compulsion by an 
 overwhelming force directed against it. At present, almost 
 all the advantage is with capital, which has laws, courts, 
 officials and legislatures at its service. The one chief advan- 
 tage of labor that of the natural, human tendency to syrn- 
 pathize with the under dog is frequently nullified by the 
 violent actions of organized labor. 
 
 History bears eloquent testimony to the need of the la- 
 boring classes for organization. Scarcely an inch of their 
 upward way but has been won by violence, and collective ac- 
 tion. Mere clamor has done little for them: the burning of 
 hay ricks, the pike and liberty cap, bread riots, the strike, 
 the boycott, the concerted action of workmen through trade 
 unions have been the instruments of progress. No matter
 
 2 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 what degree of vulnerability one may see in the trade unions 
 as they now exist, no student of the subject can gainsay 
 their claim to having forced from capital most of the cur- 
 rently recognized rights of labor. 
 
 In a popular government, such as is supposed to exist in 
 the United States, labor has, if it would but use it, a remedy 
 in the ballot for many of the unfair advantages taken of it 
 by capital. The leading universal labor organization, the 
 American Federation of Labor, has been averse to definite 
 political action. It is also averse to strikes, and officially, 
 to deeds of violence. 
 
 The plain private citizen is frequently puzzled by antip- 
 odal facts. He recalls the confession of Harry Orchard in 
 the Moyer-Haywood aflfair, and the admitted guilt of the 
 McNamaras at Los Angeles; he reads about the strike in the 
 Lawrence textile mills, and learns of the shocking condition 
 of laboring people there, and it is small wonder that his 
 sympathies are divided, and his judgment as to what is his 
 attitude toward labor and capital undefined. 
 
 The student, who carefully traces the history of the on- 
 ward sweep of democracy, and who surveys conditions in the 
 United States, will probably arrive at the following general 
 conclusions: 
 
 1. Organization, both of labor and of capital, is neces- 
 sary and beneficial, provided that the object of such organiza- 
 tion, in whole or in part, is to facilitate legitimate relations 
 between them, and to promote the general welfare. 
 
 2. The general welfare requires that the great mass of 
 our people should have decency and comfort rather than 
 that an insignificant part of them should have insolent lux- 
 ury. 
 
 3. Government will have to adjust the relations between 
 labor and capital so as to secure: 
 
 To labor, 
 
 a. A minimum living wage, healthful conditions of labor, 
 comfortable housing, and reasonable leisure. 
 
 b. Education that will insure greater efficiency. 
 
 c. Adjustment of difficulties with employers without ex- 
 pensive recourse to biased courts.
 
 TRADE UNIONS 3 
 
 d. Suitable provisions for the emergencies of accident, 
 sickness, old age and other forms of dependency. 
 
 To capital. 
 
 a. A reasonable return on the actual investment in any 
 well conducted and sagaciously planned business. 
 
 b. Immunity from ill-advised activity of organized labor, 
 detrimental to business, and. from violence. 
 
 c. Speedy and inexpensive settlement of difficulties with 
 labor. 
 
 To the public. 
 
 Security from the disastrous effects, on the one hand, of 
 financial disturbances due to the action of organized labor, 
 and, on the other, from the oppression of working classes, 
 with its inevitable reaction upon society. 
 
 4. The attainment of these ends of social justice should 
 become a part of the religion of all true Americans. 
 
 Edna D. Bullock.
 
 GENERAL DISCUSSION 
 
 Funk and Wagnalls Standard Encyclopedia of the World's 
 Knowledge. 24: 283-8. 
 
 Trade Unions. 
 
 Trade unions, in the United States, where labor unions is 
 a more commonly used name, are of later growth and of 
 much less importance than in Europe. This is due to the 
 comparatively late industrial development of the United 
 States, the continual influx of new laboring classes, and the 
 high degree of prosperity of the American workingman. 
 Among early labor organizations were the famous Caulkers' 
 Club of Boston, organized for political purposes in the first 
 quarter of the i8th century, and the union of bakers which 
 declared a strike in New York City (1742). Composed of 
 members of different trades, and all in New York state were 
 various workmen's societies. 
 
 Altho there were various workmen's societies at the be- 
 ginning of last century, the year 1825 saw the real beginnings 
 of the movement for the organization of labor with Robert 
 Owen's Free Inquiry, the publication in New York of the 
 Workingman's Advocate, quickly followed by the Daily Sen- 
 tinel and Young America. Between 1827 and 1837, beginning 
 in Philadelphia, the unions ceased being secret societies, and 
 worked for free schools, a ten hour day, and the passage of 
 laws giving laborers liens on their work for wages, forbid- 
 ding imprisonment for debt, and repealing the conspiracy 
 and combination statutes which barred labor organizations 
 from cooperative effort and collective bargaining. In New 
 York state a Workingman's Convention at Syracuse in 1830 
 nominated a candidate for governor, and secured abolition 
 of imprisonment for debt. In 1832 a convention of dele- 
 gates in the Massachusetts state-house declared for the ten 
 hour day. Twenty-one trade societies united in 1833 to form
 
 6 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 the General Trades' Unions of New York City, and in the 
 next year general unions were formed in Boston, in Phila- 
 delphia, and in Baltimore, where in '1835 the United Hand- 
 Loom Weavers' Trade Association was organized. In 1840 
 the movement won its first great victory; ten hours was de- 
 clared a legal day for the employees in the navy-yards of 
 the United States government. In 1840-42 the Journeyman 
 Bootmakers of Boston were tried for conspiracy to force 
 workmen into their union; the state Supreme Court re- 
 versed the lower court, and Chief-Justice Lemuel Shaw in a 
 famous opinion declared the intention of the Association not 
 illegal. The strength and brains of the movement at this 
 time is sufficiently suggested by the mention of such names 
 as Robert Owen, Albert Brisbane, George Riploj-, Charles 
 A. Dana, Theodore Parker, Wendell Phillipps and W. L. 
 Garrison all connected with the New England Working- 
 man's Association (1845), and all more or less intimately 
 disciples of Fourierism, which was effectively proclaimed by 
 Brisbane in the popular and influential New York Tribune. 
 Between 1850 and i860, many of the large unions of the 
 country were formed. The National Typographical union 
 was organized in 1852 at Cincinnati, and in 1869 it changed 
 its style from 'National' to 'International' to include print- 
 ers in Canada. The National Trade Association of Hat- 
 Finishers of the United States was formed in 1854, and in 
 1868 a schism from it organized the Silk and I'ur Mat Fin- 
 ishers' Trade Association; the Sons of Vulcan organized in 
 1858, and in 1876 with two other unions formed the Amal- 
 gamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers; and in 1859 
 were formed the Iron Molders' Union of North .America and 
 the Machinists' and Blacksmiths' Union of North .America, 
 which in 1877 became the Mechanical Engineers of the United 
 States. At the close of this transition period, in i860, there 
 were in the country more than a score of national trade 
 unions. 
 
 The period since i860 is the important one in the history 
 of American labor organizations. It is to be noted that in 
 1868 the Federal government made eight hours a working 
 day for its employees, thus following up the order of 1840 
 for a ten-hour day in Federal navy-yards. There was, in
 
 TRADE UNIONS 7 
 
 the early part of this period especially, an oft repeated at- 
 tempt to join all the trades in a national organization. A 
 National Labor Union, working for an eight-hour day, met 
 in Baltimore in 1866 at the call of the presidents of different 
 trade unions. It held a number of Conventions and in the 
 Presidential election of 1872 supported Charles O'Connor, 
 who received 30,000 votes. The panic of 1873 and the indus- 
 trial depression immediately before and after brought many 
 brotherhoods and unions to financial straits, especially as 
 low dues and small benefits were the rule up to that time. 
 This period (1860-75), marked by attempts to form general 
 trade unions, all unsuccessful except that of the Knights of 
 Labor, was a time of successful organization of special un- 
 ions, particularly of railroad men. Other national unions 
 dating from this same period are the Cigar-makers' National 
 (1864), the Bricklayers' and Masons' International (1865), 
 and the National Union of Horseshoers (1875). 
 
 The first successful general organization in the United 
 States was the Knights of Labor. Great concentration of 
 power and lack of trade autonomy is the most marked char- 
 acteristic of the Knights of Labor. 
 
 In the period after 1875 there were again many attempts 
 to organize laboring men of different trades in one union or 
 order. In 1874 there had been an attempt to revive the Na- 
 tional Labor Union. Branches of an 'international labor un- 
 ion' in seventeen states worked for an 'amalgamated' union 
 of all laborers about 1877; and in 1878-80 the American 
 Typographical Union tried to form a Continental Federation 
 of Trades. The trade- (or labor-) union plan as contrasted 
 with the absence of trade autonomy in the Knights of La- 
 bor, was growing in importance; and in November, 1881, 107. 
 delegates (representing, it was claimed, 250,000 workmen) 
 met in Pittsburgh and formed the Federation of Organized 
 Trades and Labor Unions of the United States and Canada, 
 which at a convention in Baltimore in December, 1887, re- 
 vised its constitution -and took the name American Federa- 
 tion of Labor. The Federation was not originally hostile 
 to the Knights of Labor, but urged that the local assembly 
 of the Knights, through the Federation, should work in har- 
 mony with the local unions, and admitted representatives
 
 8 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 of both to its congress. But the trade unions distrusted 
 the Knights, because the Knights did not promote or even 
 allow trade autonomy. The Federation, on the other hand, 
 believed firmly in trade autonomy, and was a union of the 
 workers of a single craft. Newly-formed national trade 
 unions, therefore, naturally allied themselves with the Ameri- 
 can Federation, and thus preserved independent jurisdiction 
 and a few of them remained nominally independent also. 
 The American Federation claims jurisdiction over the na- 
 tional trade unions only when a dispute arises between dif- 
 ferent unions. Besides this opposition between the Federa- 
 tion and the Knights, there was a certain rivalry of propa- 
 gandism. The Federation, in spite of its early wishes to 
 harmonize with the Knights, refused to recognize double 
 organization in any trade, because such organization made 
 trade autonomy impossible; and as the Knights of Labor 
 had no objection to dual organization and continually formed 
 'assemblies' -in localities and in trades where 'unions' had 
 already been organized, there resulted new opposition. On 
 May 17, 1880, there was a conference in Philadelphia be- 
 tween representatives of the Knights of Labor and of the 
 national trade unions. The treaty proposed by the unions 
 and rejected by the Knights became a common platform for 
 all the opponents of the Knights of Labor. The main points 
 of this treaty were: that the Knights of Labor should not 
 initiate any person or form an assembly in any branch of 
 labor which had a national or international organization 
 without the consent of the organization affected; that the 
 Knights should not admit members who worked for less 
 than union wages, or 'scabbed' (that is, worked through a 
 strike), or embezzled the funds of a union; that, where the 
 Knights had organized an assembly duplicating an existing 
 union, the charter of such an assembly should be revoked 
 and its members should join the union; that the Knights 
 should revoke the commission of any organizer who at- 
 tempted to disband a trade union; that there should be no 
 interference by the Knights with trade unions on strike; 
 and that the Knights should not issue labels competing with 
 those issued by trade unions. If this plan had been adopted 
 by the Knights of Labor, they would (to quote Professor
 
 TRADE UNIONS 9 
 
 William Kirk) 'have become the central reform bureau of 
 the labor movement'. 
 
 The question of dual organization came up in 1889 and 
 in 1891, but in 1894 the Federation decided not to meet or 
 confer with the Knights until they 'declared against dual 
 organization in any one trade.' 
 
 The contest between the Federation and the Knights and 
 the contrast between the two is clearly shown by their 
 theory and practice in regard to the union label, to coopera- 
 tion, to strikes and boycotts, to the reduction of working 
 hours, and to politics and legislation. ' 
 
 In theory strikes were deprecated b}' the early assem- 
 blies of the Knights of Labor; but in 1882, after the order 
 had ceased to be secret, rules were adopted for the support 
 of strikes. The boycott was considered a less dangerous 
 weapon than the strike by the Knights, and it has already 
 been pointed out that the federal power of the General As- 
 sembly with its control over an inter-trade organization 
 made the boycott a rarely efficient tool for the Knights of 
 Labor. The Federation of Labor cannot make a boycott 
 effective in the same way, tho its constituent trade unions 
 (national or international) have the power, but only each 
 within its own trade organization. The Western (or Amer- 
 ican) Labor Union, like the Knights of Labor, used its con- 
 trol of diflfcrent trade organizations to promote sympathetic 
 strikes which were uniformly unsuccessful, and which great- 
 ly lessened the prestige and influence of the central organi- 
 zation. The Federation has been fortunate in having no 
 power to call a sympathetic strike, and its weakness in call- 
 ing or controlling any strike has made it less ready to 
 recommend coercion, altho in theory it has considered 
 strikes as necessary and valuable means of promoting the 
 welfare of organized labor. 
 
 Both the Knights and the Federation have worked for 
 the reduction of the hours of labor; and the Knights of 
 Labor have been able and willing to take part in politics, 
 and to promote legislation for the betterment of labor con- 
 ditions. The American Labor Union resembled the Knights 
 of Labor in this respect and outdid them; in 1902 it ex-
 
 lo SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 pressed sympathy with 'international socialism' and adopted 
 the entire platform of the American socialist party. 
 
 The American Labor Union collected a general defense 
 fund from its entire membership. The Knights of Labor 
 provide for voluntary contributions to a general fund, and 
 allow district or local assemblies to control their own funds. 
 
 The benefit system is less developed than in English 
 trade unions, and is less general. It has been most fully 
 evolved in America in the Cigar Makers' Union and in the 
 railroad unions. The influence of organized labor is clearly 
 to be seen in the* growing frequency of radical state legisla- 
 tion on the subject of employers' liability; and everything 
 notablj' the attitude of the 'House of Governors' in Septem- 
 ber, lyii points to new and more radical legislation on this 
 subject in the near future. Mention should be made also 
 of the many pension schemes for employees adopted by 
 many great corporations, especially railroads. 
 
 With the organization of trade unions in the United 
 States, associations of employers have been formed and 
 since 1895 there has been a National Association of Manu- 
 facturers which may be considered a rough parallel to the 
 American Federation of Labor. The Stove Founders' Na- 
 tional Defense Association (formed in 1886 after thirteen 
 years of organization for purposes of trade) includes more 
 than one-fifth of all the American stove manufacturers, em- 
 ploying more than one-half the men in that industry. It 
 fought the Iron Molders' Union until 1891, and then agreed 
 to arbitrate questions arising between it and the union. 
 (Jthcr national employers' associations are those of the 
 metal trades, of lake transportation, of machine construction, 
 of publishing and printing (American Newspaper Publishers' 
 Association, 1900), marble trade and structural builders' 
 trades, and ready-made clothing. A Citizens' Industrial As- 
 sociation of America has many national and local sub-asso- 
 ciations. Besides there are various local associations of 
 employers. 
 
 The American .\nti-Boycott Association, a powerful op- 
 ponent of one of the methods of the trade unions, pushed 
 the famous case (Loewe v. Lawler) against the Hatters' 
 Union (supported by the American Federation of Labor)
 
 TRADE UNIONS ii 
 
 for its boycott of Loewe and Company, hat manufacturers 
 of Danbury, Conn. This case was carried to the Federal 
 Supreme Court, and the boycott was declared illegal under 
 the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. The labor organizations have 
 made a strong effort to secure the passage of a federal law 
 forbidding the use of funds appropriated in this act in the 
 prosecution of trade unions; and of a bill to limit the mean- 
 ing of conspiracy as applied to the action of unions. A 
 similar decision in regard to boycotts was rendered in the 
 Bucks Stove and Range Company case; and, as this decision 
 was not rendered until the stove company had agreed to 
 operate a closed shop (i. e. employ only union men) one of 
 the company's stockholders, C. W. Post, an able opponent 
 of the closed shop, asked for an injunction against this 
 agreement. The injunction is still the most powerful 
 weapon against the excesses of trade unionism, and is itself 
 liable to be used in excess; in 1910 injunctions were issued 
 against picketing (in the metal workers' strike in Los Ange- 
 les), against a sympathetic strike (in the shirt waist-makers' 
 strike in New York), and against a strike for the closed 
 shop (in the New York City cloak-makers' strike). Statute 
 law is usually more favorable to labor organizations than 
 judicial decisions, but it forbids picketing in Alabama, and 
 boycotting in Alabama, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana and Texas. 
 Laws forbidding an employer to require a pledge not to join 
 a labor union have been passed in several state legislatures 
 and by the United States Congress for railroads under the 
 inter-state commerce commission, and have been declared 
 unconstitutional by the state courts of Illinois, Kansas, Mis- 
 souri, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Illinois, Montana, Ore- 
 gon, Tennessee, and (1910) Massachusetts make it unlawful 
 for employers to advertise for help during a strike without 
 stating that there is a strike. Most of the states protect 
 union trade-marks or labels, and a few require that all pub- 
 lic printing must bear the union label. A Nebraska statute 
 requires union labor on all state work, and a Kentucky law 
 (1910) penalizes the employment of men on public works 
 more than eight hours a day except in emergency.
 
 12 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 Labor Question, pp. 96-113. 
 
 Washington Gladden, 
 
 The danger of the hour, as it appears to me, is that our 
 captains of industry will array against themselves the gath- 
 ering might of resistless democracy and be trampled in the 
 dust. It would be far better for them, and for the common 
 man, and for all the rest of us, if they would keep the lead- 
 ership of industry. Leadership they can have if they have 
 wit to claim it and sense enough to exercise it leadership 
 but not lordship. Industrial democracy wants leaders, but 
 not autocrats; and large rewards and precious not billions 
 of dollars, but blessing and honor are waiting for those 
 who have the vision and the courage for this high service. 
 
 Industrial democracy means giving the wage-workers, 
 through collective bargaining, a voice in the determination 
 of their share in the joint product. It does not mean the 
 domination of the business by the men and the subjugation 
 of the employer, though this is the employer's apprehension, 
 and this is the notion that sometimes gets into the working 
 man's head. Mr. Kier Hardie, M. P., for whom I have great 
 respect, spoke only the other day of the prospect that the 
 working class was about to become the ruling class. Par- 
 don, Mr. Hardie, but in democracy there are no ruling 
 classes. We c^ll no man master, not even the walking 
 delegate. And inverted feudalism, with the common man 
 on top, would be no whit better than the old fashioned sort 
 with the common man under foot. We will have neither of 
 them. You are not going to tyrannize over us, Mr. Kier 
 Hardie, with your labor organizations, and we do not believe 
 that you really want to do any such thing. You are going 
 to stand by our side, with power in the industrial realm to 
 assert and maintain your rights as men, and with a sense of 
 Justice in your breasts that will enable you to fully recognize 
 the rights of your capitalist employer; and we arc going to 
 work together, all classes men of capital, men of organizing 
 talent, men of skill, men of brains and men of brawn to 
 build a real commonwealth. 
 
 So shall we realize our democracy. It has never been 
 anything more than the skeleton of a democracy; so long as
 
 TRADE UNIONS 13 
 
 industry is feudalistic it cannot be. But when the common 
 man is emancipated and called into partnership by the cap- 
 tains of industry, we shall have a real democracy. No super- 
 human vision is needed to discern the fact that the confu- 
 sions and corruptions of our political democracy are largely 
 due to the disorganizing influence of this industrial feudal- 
 ism, in constant contact with it, and continually thrusting 
 its alien conceptions and ideals into the political arena. 
 When industry is fairly democratized it will be much easier 
 to reform our politics. 
 
 The relinquishment of autocratic power is not apt to be 
 a welcome suggestion; the cases are few in which it is sur- 
 rendered without a deadly struggle. But within the last gen- 
 eration we have seen the feudal rulers of Japan resigning 
 their power and entering heartily into the life of the com- 
 monwealth, with great honor to themselves and great profit 
 to their nation. It is not incredible that many of our own 
 captains of industry will discern the wisdom of a similar 
 sacrifice. Indeed, there are those among them to whom this 
 solution of the labor problem seems altogether feasible. 
 
 The late William Henry Baldwin, Jr., whose biography 
 has been so admirably written by Mr. John Graham Brooks, 
 was a type of the class of employers to whom the democrati- 
 zation of industry is the way of life and peace. As a rail- 
 way superintendent and president he had large experience in 
 dealing with men, and all the positions taken in this chapter 
 were' held by him with the utmost firmness. Speaking of 
 the extension of collective bargaining, he says: "The advan- 
 tages of this system are very obvious in that it is a system 
 founded on an intelligent treatment of each question at 
 issue, and encourages education, and, as far as we can see 
 today, is the most advanced method and liable to produce 
 the best results. Collective bargaining and voluntary arbi- 
 tration are possible, however, only when the employer 
 recognizes the right of the employed to have a voice in the 
 fixing of wages and terms of employment. If these billions 
 of capital have to be organized to protect themselves against 
 disputing rivalries, do not the laborers working for these 
 organizations have the same need of combination? Do they 
 not need it for the same reasoji? Is capital exposed to cut-
 
 14 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 throat competition in any greater degree than labor is 
 exposed to it? How can capital have the face to ask for 
 combination in order to free itself from a murderous compe- 
 tition, when labor suffers every whit as much from the 
 same cause?'' 
 
 "I have heard Baldwin," his biographer goes on, "very 
 eloquent on this subject. The deepest thing in fiim was his 
 sense of justice. He felt it like an insult that the more 
 powerful party should stoop to ask such odds against the 
 weaker and more defenceless party." "We men at the top," 
 says Baldwin, "must have combination, we must have our 
 representatives and 'walking delegates'. We have everything 
 that powerful organization can ask, with the ablest lawyers 
 to do our bidding. Labor, to protect its rights and stand- 
 ards needs organization, at least as much as we need it. 
 For capital to use its strength and skill to take this weapon 
 from the working men and women is an outrage. I need, 
 as an emploj-er, an organization among my employees, be- 
 cause they know their needs better than I can know them, 
 and they are, therefore, the safeguard upon which I must 
 depend in order to prevent me from doing them an injus- 
 tice." 
 
 This is getting right at the nerve of the whole matter. 
 No wiser, braver, saner words were ever spoken. The labor 
 question will be speedily settled when such a spirit of justice 
 and fair plaj-, such a recognition of the elementary rights 
 of manhood, gets possession of the hearts of employers. Of 
 the habit of mind that cannot concede so much as this, one 
 can say nothing better than that it is unsportsmanlike. We 
 give even the wild creatures a chance for their lives; and so 
 long as the industrial struggle continues, the chivalrous em- 
 ployer will not insist that his employees shall go into the 
 contest with their hands tied behind them. 
 
 Beyond this question of personal honor between em- 
 ployer and employee is one that touches very deeply the 
 foundations of their social structure. "If capital refuses to 
 labor what capital asks and takes for itself, what are the 
 final consequences of that injustice? How. in the long run, 
 is labor to take this defeat of what it believes to be its 
 rights? Those capitalist managers, really hostile to the
 
 TRADE UNIONS 15 
 
 unions, said to him in excuse that the unions checked and 
 hindered the development of business prosperity. Baldwin 
 had his answer: 'Even if that is true, it is better to get rich 
 at a somewhat slower pace than to make millions of wage- 
 earners lose faith in your justice and fairness.' " 
 
 Is it too much to expect that our captains of industry 
 will. give sober heed to words like these, spoken by one of 
 their own number? 
 
 It is not, however, necessary to assume that the demo- 
 cratization of industry will prove any serious obstruction to 
 the healthy growth of business. If the trade-unions have 
 often shown themselves to be tyrannical and greedy, we 
 must remember that they have been fighting, thus far, in an 
 arena where belligerent rights were denied them; it is not 
 to be wondered at that they have sometimes taken unfair 
 advantages. When their rights are fully recognized, better 
 conduct may be looked for. So long as they are treated as 
 enemies it is not logical to ask them to behave as friends. 
 
 It would be interesting to study the origin of those 
 trade-unions which have made trouble for employers. The 
 cases are not all alike, but in many instances something 
 like this has happened: some dissatisfaction on the part of 
 the men has shown itself, and it becomes known to the em- 
 ployer that steps are being taken for the organization of a 
 union. At once his displeasure is manifested. He feels 
 that the action is hostile to his interest; his entire attitude 
 toward it is unfriendly from the start. It becomes well un- 
 derstood among the men that those who join the union are 
 exposing themselves to the ill will of the employer; that 
 those who refuse to join may expect his favor. Thus the 
 interests of the men are divided, and the non-unionist con- 
 tingent is fostered by the manager as a force to check and 
 defeat the unipnists in the event of a struggle. Under such 
 circumstances bad temper is generated on both sides, and 
 the relations of all parties are badly strained. The manager 
 refuses to recognize the union; that, he insists, would be an 
 injustice to the loyal men who have refused to join it. If a 
 imion with such a history should prove to be a refractory 
 and disturbing element in the business, it would not be a 
 miracle.
 
 l6 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 Suppose, now, that when the first signs of an uprising 
 among the men appear, the employer, instead of treating it 
 with suspicion or hostility, welcomes it. Suppose he goes 
 out among the men and says to them what Baldwin would 
 liave said: "Certainly, men, you must organize. I mean to 
 treat you fairly, but I do not want you to be dependent 
 upon my favor; I insist that you shall have the power to 
 stand for your own rights. And I want all the men in this 
 shop to join this union, and I expect the union to be my 
 friend. This is not my business, not your business, it is our 
 business. I shall study your interest and you will study 
 mine; we will consult together about it all the while; I think 
 we can make it go together. If you ask me for what I 
 cannot give, I shall tell you so. And I hope you will learn 
 to believe that I am telling you the truth. I shall stand 
 for my rights if you are mean and unreasonable, and you 
 will stand for yours, if you think I am unjust, but if we 
 must fight we stand on the level and fight fair. I hope there 
 will be no fighting." 
 
 Now it is possible that a grpup of American workingmen 
 could be found who would make trouble for an employer 
 who took that attitude and consistently maintained it, but I 
 do not believe that there are many such groups. It would 
 be visionary to expect that any method which man could 
 devise would wholly remove friction and discontent, and a 
 strong and firm hand would often be needed in carrying 
 out such a purpose as this, but one may confidently predict 
 that peace and prosperity are made nearer by this approach 
 than on the lines of industrial feudalism. 
 
 It will be observed also that such a line of policy elimin- 
 ates the question of the closed shop. If the employer wishes 
 all of his employees to belong to the union, and makes it 
 clear that union men are favored, the reason for a closed 
 shop practically disappears. The employer's reason for an 
 open shop is need of a force at hand to fight the union; 
 when he makes the union his ally instead of his enemy, 
 non-unionism becomes both to him and to his men a neglig- 
 ible quantity. 
 
 The man who takes up a purpose of this kind, whether 
 he is proprietor or general manager, cannot be guaranteed
 
 TRADE UNIONS 17 
 
 an easy job. It will not be possible for him to turn it over 
 to subordinates; he will have to keep close to it himself. It 
 will call for labor, for self control, for faith in men, for all 
 the best qualities of mind and heart. 
 
 American Federation of Labor. 
 
 A Few of Its Declarations Upon Which It Appeals to All 
 
 Working People to Organize, Unite, Federate, and 
 
 Cement the Bonds of Fraternity. 
 
 1. The abolition of all forms of involuntary servitude, 
 except as a punishment for crime. 
 
 2. Free schools, free text-books, and compulsory educa- 
 tion. 
 
 3. Unrelenting protest against the issuance and abuse of 
 injunction process in labor disputes. 
 
 4. A workday of not more than eight hours in the 
 twenty-four hour day. 
 
 5. A strict recognition of not over eight hours per day 
 on all federal, state, or municipal work and at not less than 
 the prevailing per diem wage rate of the class of employ- 
 ment in the vicinity where the work is performed. 
 
 6. Release from employment one day in seven. 
 
 7. The abolition of the contract system on public work. 
 
 8. The municipal ownership of public utilities. 
 
 9. The abolition of the sweat-shop system. 
 
 10. Sanitary inspection of factory, workshop, mine, and 
 home. 
 
 11. Liability of employers for injury to body or loss of 
 life. 
 
 12. The nationalization of telegraph and telephone. 
 
 13. The passage of anti-child labor laws in states where 
 they do not exist and rigid defense of them where they have 
 been enacted into law. 
 
 14. Woman suffrage coequal with man suffrage. 
 
 15. Suitable and plentiful play grounds for children in all 
 cities. 
 
 16. The initiative and referendum and the imperative 
 mandate and right of recall.
 
 i8 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 17. Continued agitation for the public bath system in all 
 cities. 
 
 18. Qualifications in permits to build, of all cities and 
 towns that there shall be bathrooms and bathroom attach- 
 ments in all houses or compartments used for habitation. 
 
 19. We favor a system of finance whereby money shall 
 be issued exclusively by the government, with such regula- 
 tions and restrictions as will protect it from manipulation 
 by the banking interest for their own private gain. 
 
 20. We favor a system of United States government 
 postal savings banks. 
 
 The above is a partial statement of the demands whicli 
 organized labor, in the interest of the workers aye, of all 
 the people of our country makes upon modern society. 
 
 Atlantic. 109: 441-6. April, 1912. 
 
 Trade-Unions and Public Policy: Democracy or Dynamite? 
 Henry Raymond" Mussey. 
 
 Only a prophet, or the son of a prophet, would undertake 
 as yet to forecast the ultimate results of the McNamara 
 case, but it is clear that organized labor has been dealt a 
 staggering blow. The brave talk of leaders of that move- 
 ment is in part a mere whistling to keep up courage, and ifi 
 ].>art the result of failure to understand the situation, which 
 from their point of view is about as bad as possible. For a 
 generation the leaders of the .American Federation of Labor 
 have been advocating purely 'trade' policies, collective bar- 
 gaining, the joint agreement, the union or 'closed' shop, the 
 control of apprentices, the direct and indirect restriction of 
 output, with the strike and boycott always in reserve as pos- 
 sible weapons. Direct political action they have eschewed, 
 aiid a separate labor party has been anathema to them. The 
 McXamara case represents the complete bankruptcy of the 
 trade policy. 
 
 The reason for this failure is simple. In the present 
 state of industry and the law, the employer is stronger than 
 his men. The law protects his property, and if he is willing 
 to fight out the issue, he wins, in any legally conducted
 
 TRADE UNIONS uj 
 
 struggle, with the aid of hunger and the courts. If labor 
 conditions are bad and if the means of information are un- 
 usually good, public opinion may sometimes bring even a 
 recalcitrant employer to terms; but, under ordinary condi- 
 tions, one who is determined to fight to a finish can defeat 
 his men if they keep within the law. Unionists have not 
 recognized this fact, and have not recognized that American 
 employers in general, despite lip-service to the principle of 
 labor organization, do, not believe in trade-unions. This 
 lack of discernment has led unionists to a futile and disas- 
 trous reliance on 'trade' policies. 
 
 If the employers had been conciliatory, all might have 
 been well; but they have preferred, on the whole, to fight 
 the men's organizations, and in a long series of labor con- 
 flicts, running back to the great Homestead strike twenty 
 years ago, have carried on successful war against them. 
 During recent years, while the men have been struggling 
 vainly for the closed shop, employers have been pursuing 
 the union-smashing policy with increasing vigor and success. 
 
 In .the course of the struggle, the unions have sometimes 
 gained their ends by persuasion. Failing that, some of their 
 members have resorted to threats and intimidation. Thence 
 the transition has been easy to brickbats, and thence to 
 dynamite. Facilis descensus Avenio. Whether a strike can 
 succeed in the face of stubborn opposition, if force and the 
 possibility of force be eliminated, is a question at least open 
 to grave doubt. In any case neither leaders nor rank and 
 file have set their faces resolutely against every manifesta- 
 tion of violence. They could not do so; for though they 
 may not have recognized it consciously, a background of 
 potential violence was almost an essential condition to the 
 successful pursuit of trade policies in the face of determined 
 opposition from employers buttressed by the law. 
 
 In view of these conditions, the public has looked with 
 some indulgence upon a certain degree of lawlessness, feel- 
 ing that the men often had a good cause, and that the strike 
 was a necessary means of obtaining justice. The logical 
 result of such indulgence now stands revealed in the Mc- 
 Namara affair, and public opinion recoils in horror from what 
 it has itself helped to create. What does it all mean? We
 
 20 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 may well have reached a turning-point in our industrial and, 
 perhaps, in our political life. 
 
 For the unionist it means a profound searching of heart 
 and, perhaps, a change of leadership. It is unnecessary to 
 discuss the charges of incompetency and bad faith so freely 
 hurled at Mr. Gompers and his associates in this unhappy 
 affair. Given the American employer as he is, these leaders 
 are now shown to have been guiding labor into a cul-dc-sac 
 whence it could escape only by using force. The weapon of 
 violence is now struck from its hand, and it must find a new 
 one. Shall it be actual revolution or political action? The 
 setond alternative appears more probable, provided the 
 courts leave open the possibility of progressive legal action. 
 
 Labor, it is to be hoped, will now see that the whole 
 power of society will be exerted to repress the private use 
 of force, will see that that way lies no salvation, will see 
 that the old leaders have been unconsciously encouraging 
 violence, and will, therefore, turn definitely from those lead- 
 ers and their counsels and strike out in the new paths of 
 direct political action, just as labor has done in England 
 with such marked success. The Socialist party may well be 
 ,the residuary legatee of the McNamara case, or we' may 
 possibly see an entirely new labor party. In either case, 
 the result would be almost wholly desirable; for the labor 
 movement would be proceeding along lines where results, 
 though slow, would in time be possible of realization, be- 
 cause the rights and grievances of labor could be presented 
 effectively at the bar of public opinion. Labor cannot get 
 its progressive rights by its own unaided struggles. Such 
 attainment involves a progressive change in ideas, laws, and 
 institutions that can come about only as a result of in- 
 formed public discussion. The difficulty with the trade pol- 
 icy is that it involves such discussion only between the two 
 parties directly interested. 
 
 If the McNamara case should lead to a distinctly politi- 
 cal labor movement, thoughtful persons might well rejoice. 
 Such a. movement would undoubtedly be democratic, radical, 
 probably socialistic; it would have comparatively small re- 
 gard for property rights, and comparatively great regard 
 for personal human rights; it would certainly cause mem-
 
 TRADE UNIONS 21 
 
 bers of the American Liberty and Property League to lie 
 awake nights over its unsafe notions; it would do much 
 blundering politically unless it were unexpectedly well led; 
 it would probably advocate some economically impossible 
 measures; and it would exercise a tremendous influence for 
 good in our political, legal, and economic development. 
 Under our two-party system of non-representative govern- 
 ment we lack the machinery for getting at the facts neces- 
 sary for intelligent public judgment of many important 
 questions, and we have no proper organization to formulate 
 and express such judgment. A labor party might well be 
 of service in both the formation and the expression of sound 
 public opinion. 
 
 To turn from the labor group, what will be the attitude 
 of the public in view of the astonishing revelations and 
 reticences of the Los Angeles trial? 'The public,' so-called, 
 includes the farmers, the artisans in small places, the smaller 
 tradesmen everywhere, and to some extent the large ones 
 as well, the salaried and professional classes, in so far as 
 they are not closely attached to large employers in a word, 
 it includes all those who are not directly parties to the 
 struggle, those who are not employers or employees in 
 organized trades, or in industries where men work in large 
 masses. Heretofore, this public, brought up in a tradition 
 of ultra-individualism, has viewed suspiciously the combina- 
 tion of workmen in frank recognition of a class-interest; it 
 has resented the invasion of the 'individual liberty' of the 
 non-union workman by the union-shop policy; it has listened 
 sympathetically to the employer's complaints of interference 
 with the efficiency of his business; and it has reprobated the 
 attack on civilization involved in the use of brickbats and 
 dynamite, though it has rightly been unwilling to believe 
 that any considerable proportion of union men favored the 
 use of such weapons. On the other hand, it has had an 
 uneasy consciousness that somehow the employer was get- 
 ting undue power, and it has been inclined to give the 
 union the benefit of the doubt as the only agency offering 
 in any way to redress the balance; it has felt that so long as 
 the methods used were not too outrageous, some allowance
 
 22 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 ought to be made, because in the industrial world, save on 
 the Fourth of July, all men are not free and equal. 
 
 To a public in this frame of mind have come the Mc- 
 Namara revelations. It has the confession of leaders in one 
 union to two dynamite outrages; it has reason to believe that 
 men in this same organization have been responsible for a 
 long scries of similar events; it has seen the leaders of 
 organized labor rushing to the defense of these now self- 
 confessed dynamiters; and now that the confession has 
 come, it sees the leader of them all with nothing better to 
 oflfer than the excuse that he has been cruelly deceived, and 
 it finds itself wondering whether the whole labor move- 
 ment is not "run primarily for the benefit of a coterie of 
 more or less lawless leaders. 
 
 In this new frame of mind, the public will doubtless be 
 inclined to endure with far less equanimity than hereto- 
 fore the inconvenience, suflfering, and danger brought upon 
 it by strikes, and to demand more insistently that employees 
 patch up their differences with their employers without 
 blowing society into bits with dynamite. Moreover, as the 
 employer is usually the one who invokes the law, and the 
 worker, so far as the public is informed, the one who places 
 the dynamite, it is led to the conclusion that the employer, 
 after all, was right in fighting these lawless organizations, 
 as it now thinks them. Both the facts and the logic under- 
 lying this conclusion are confused, but the resulting state of 
 mind contains possibilities of no less grave danger on that 
 account, and it throws on employers a tremendous responsi- 
 bility. 
 
 The American employer has on the whole been opposed 
 to trade-unions. He recognizes the right of labor to or- 
 ganize, but it must not make trouble about wages, it must 
 not 'interfere' with the management of the shop or the condi- 
 tions under which labor is carried on; it must not do any of 
 the things for which, primarily, unions come into existence. 
 So long as this simple condition is complied with, the em- 
 ployer favors the organization of his workers otherwise 
 not. As a result of the McNamara affair, employers' union- 
 smashing organizations are likely to find their hands 
 strengthened in the righteous work upon which they are en-
 
 TRADE UNIONS 23 
 
 gaged, and are likely to push on with it. Let a union over- 
 step the law ever so little, and they will pounce down upon 
 it; the successful pursuit of trade policies will be even more 
 nearly impossible in the next decade than it has been in the 
 past. 
 
 A secondary effect may well be more considerate treat- 
 ment by employers of their workers individually. They 
 have won a great victory; they have labor down; they can 
 afford to be magnanimous. Workmen's compensation, the 
 installation of devices for sanitation and safetj', welfare 
 work of all kinds, these and other similar lines of action 
 they may take up with even greater enthusiasm than here- 
 tofore. The employer is beginning to find that such work 
 in the long run pays in dollars and cents. Furthermore, he 
 lionestly wants to do something for his employees. The 
 things he wants to do are useful and will improve the con- 
 dition of the laborer, but they will not solve the labor prob- 
 lem. The solution of that problem is just the task the 
 employer must now set himself. . 
 
 He can solve it temporarily by repression. Pittsburg has 
 solved ifc for twenty years in that fashion, and today she, 
 sleeps on a volcano. Let the men of the American Manu- 
 facturers' Association and their like have their way, as they 
 probably can do in the existing state of the public mind, 
 and we shall have peace in the labor world peace without 
 justice, and dynamite at the end; for dynamite is the weapon 
 of the man who feels that he can get justice in no other 
 way. If employers wish such results on a nation-wide 
 scale, let the repressive policy go on. 
 
 The labor-smashers, with their narrow vision, cannot be 
 expected to see in the labor movement anything more than 
 a sordid struggle for higher wages and shorter hours, com- 
 bined with meddling interference with shop-rules by an 
 ignorant and irresponsible walking delegate; the workers 
 themselves for the most part may see it from the same 
 point of view; but the situation demands a broader vision. 
 Is it too much to expect broad-minded employers to catch 
 a glimpse of the idea that the old labor movement, with 
 all its blundering, represented a struggle toward the demo- 
 cratization of industry? That movement may have been
 
 i4 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 stupid, it may have hampered the efficiency of production, 
 it may have contained elements that necessitated its destruc- 
 tion, but the fundamental moving spirit in it was socially 
 right, for it was the spirit of democracy. Even the de- 
 mand for 'recognition' of the union, the bete iioir of Amer- 
 ican employers, with its concomitants of the closed shop 
 and exclusion of the non-unionist, was at bottom democratic, 
 for it meant that the men themselves demanded a share in 
 determining pay and conditions of work. The battle for 
 democracy in industry is lost for the present. Will the em- 
 ployer be wise enough to recognize that the wrong has 
 triumphed because the right directed its attack unwisely? 
 Will he realize that this hour of triumph gives him oppor- 
 tunity unexampled for public injury or for public service? 
 
 In the slow growth of real democracy, perhaps the most 
 difficult problem at present facing us is the democratizing 
 of industry, the reconciling of economic efficiency through 
 large-scale production with non-autocratic management, 
 making industry responsive to the needs and wishes of the 
 men who work in it, and of the public whom it serves. 
 This has given rise to the labor problem and the trust 
 problem. The business man has been blindly struggling 
 for what he considered his rights in both relations, that is, 
 trying to maintain the status quo. Only a handful of con- 
 cerns in the country are making any serious attempt at 
 genuinely democratic organization. The old oligarchical ar- 
 rangement looks so much simpler and easier, the men, in 
 general, are so ill-fitted to participate intelligently in store 
 and factory management, and the old system appears on its 
 face so much more efficient, that few employers have the 
 imagination or the courage to try anything fundamentally 
 new. Instead, they insist on 'running their own business,' 
 and trying to keep their men contented by means of welfare 
 work, pensions, and similar improvements that leave con- 
 trol of important matters in the hands of the employer. 
 Consequently no progress is made toward the solution of 
 the real problem, which is to make the employer's business 
 not simply his business, but that of every man concerned in 
 carrying it on, and of the public that is served by it. Un- 
 less the employer can now be brought to realize that his
 
 TRADE UNIONS 25 
 
 failure to face this problem is a fundamental cause of the 
 McNamara affair and all it represents, and unless he can be 
 brought to undertake the solution of the problem, it must be 
 confessed that the prospect for the immediate future is not 
 rosy. 
 
 It is idle to believe that the employer could for lonfe ride 
 victorious on the backs of a race of conquered workmen. 
 Civilization has progressed too far for that, and revolution 
 would quickly shatter such a society in pieces. But society 
 cannot and will not endure, as the alternative to this, the 
 breakdown of civil order and the creation of anarchy when- 
 ever employer and workman cannot come to terms. 
 
 It may be said, then, that the only escape is through 
 socialism, public ownership and operation of the social in- 
 dustries. But merely to make industry public is to offer no 
 guarantee of democracy within industry. Wages, hours, and 
 conditions of work may be determined from above just as 
 much as in privately-owned industry. Witness the New 
 York street-cleaners' strike. Through the weeks of that 
 strike nothing was more evident than the inability of the 
 men to get their side of the case heard. The case may have 
 been weak, but in any decently organized industry there 
 ought to be a chance for a fair presentation of grievances, 
 a full discussion of them, and a settlement that represents 
 more than the mere fiat of some individual. Public employ- 
 ment offers no guarantee of any such thing; like private 
 employment it is usually undemocratic. The solution must 
 be worked out by adjusting the relations between employer 
 and employed in public and private industry alike, and not 
 by merely making private industry public. 
 
 From all this one definite conclusion seems to emerge. 
 Orderly social progress at present is conditioned on em- 
 ployers' recognizing that their business is no longer their 
 own, that its social responsibilities outweigh their individ- 
 ual rights in it, that they must serve the public so well that 
 it will be satisfied with their administration, and must for- 
 ward as rapidly as they can the process of democratization 
 within industry itself so as to secure from their workers 
 the necessary measure of cooperation in public service. 
 Only by this means can they retain their leadership in the 
 
 443S
 
 26 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 world of industry. They seem for the moment to have 
 triumphed over the dynamiters. Would they make that 
 triumph real? Let them accept the necessary condition. 
 They must make their choice shall it be democracy or 
 dynamite? 
 
 City Club Bulletin. 2: 279-91. February 17, 1909. 
 
 Political and Legal Policies of the American Federation of 
 Labor. Raymond Robins. 
 
 The American Federation of Labor is the national feder- 
 ation of the organized workingmen in America. There were 
 several other groups preceding its organization in the his- 
 tory of the labor movement in this country, but today, and 
 for some twenty j'ears past, the American Federation of 
 Labor, with Mr. .Samuel Gompcrs as its president, has been 
 the national bo^y representing the union wage earners of 
 the United States. Of much more recent date, but in a 
 similar capacity and degree, the National Association of 
 Manufacturers with Mr. James W. Van Cleave as its presi- 
 dent, is the national body representing organized capital in 
 the United States. The forces represented by these two 
 organizations are in fundamental opposition, and in the con- 
 flict that is in progress between them the issue has reached 
 the Supreme Court of the United States on one aspect, and 
 is now on appeal to the court of last resort in the District 
 of Columbia upon another. These two militant groups that 
 stand facing each other in the industrial struggle in this 
 country are composed, as any large group of individuals will 
 always be, of men that are honest and men that arc not so 
 honest, of men that are wise and men that are not so wise, 
 and man for man they might not differ greatly in private 
 morals or personal character. Yet, they are divided definite- 
 ly and are in vital and bitter opposition as the result of a 
 fundamental conflict in idea and purpose, and if we are to 
 reach a sound social judgment upon the merits of this great 
 struggle, we must understand this fundamental idea and pur- 
 pose that inspires and dominates each group. 
 
 The National Association of Manufacturers is organized,
 
 TRADE UNIONS 27 
 
 financed and controlled for the purpose of maintaining prof- 
 its for the few from the labor of the many in the industrial 
 undertakings of the United States. The American Federa- 
 tion of Labor is organized, financed and controlled for the 
 purpose of securing and maintaining individual welfare, 
 manhood and citizenship values for laborers in the indus- 
 trial undertakings of the United States. There are, in the 
 nature of things, a great many subsidiary issues, but this is 
 the fundamental division. The vigorous opposition to child 
 labor, to overtime and underpay for women, to dangerous 
 machinery and to insanitary workshops by organized labor; 
 and the indifference to all these conditions by organized cap- 
 ital, with similar divisions upon questions of employers' lia- 
 bility and old age pensions, are but natural and inevitable 
 outgrowths of the fundamental idea and purpose dominating 
 each group. 
 
 Here it would be well to remember that this struggle did 
 not begin yesterday. Laborers had definitely organized in 
 certain trades in the United States as early as 1806. By the 
 middle of the last century organization among laborers in 
 many crafts was well advanced. That it is only within the 
 last generation that the labor question has bulked large in 
 the problems of our national life, is due to two great in- 
 fluences in the history of our development as an industrial 
 people the one, the western frontier; the other, the per- 
 sonal relations between master and workman. 
 
 Until nearly the close of the last century, there was a 
 more or less easy outlet for the surplus laborers of the 
 L^nited States. The great frontier was constantly relieving 
 the centres of population from the pressure of too abundant 
 labor, and whenever labor conditions tended to grow intol- 
 erable, workingmen went west. This frequent movement 
 across the Alleghenies forced employers to consider the 
 wages and working conditions of laborers in relation to 
 such free opportunity, and it operated to insure such condi- 
 tions as were tolerable in nearly all the trades. There is 
 much interesting testimony written into the records and dis- 
 cussions of chambers of commerce and employers' clubs 
 upon this important element in fixing the cost of labor. 
 Side by side with the development of free opportunity in the
 
 28 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 West was a second influence operating to ameliorate the 
 conditions of the industrial struggle. For nearly a century 
 the personal relations between master and workman, em- 
 ployer and employe, were direct, many times friendly, and 
 nearly always humane. This relationship yet remains in 
 isolated cases, but it is interesting now only for its past in- 
 fluence upon the industrial problem, and as a survival of a 
 system that is rapidly passing away. As the corporation has 
 advanced in the control of industrial capital, an impersonal, 
 non-human, non-moral, and many times non-resident 
 responsibility, has been slowly substituted for the old 
 friendly, not to say fratenjal, relationship between mas- 
 ter and workman. The old sense of personal obligation 
 has ceased to exist between employers and employes in 
 many of the basic industries of the nation. Living, friendly 
 employers have been transformed into cold, metalic capital, 
 but the laborer remains as he was. He cannot be divorced 
 from his labor; with body, brain and heart, as citizen, hus- 
 band and father, he is all on the job wherever his labor is 
 applied. The loss of this living and sympathetic reaction 
 from employers is responsible in no small degree for the 
 intensity and bitterness of the present industrial struggle. 
 Thus it will appear that the closing of the outlet for surplus 
 laborers towards the West came hand in hand with the 
 steady advance of corporate control of industrial capital, 
 and that both have united in the last decade to make the in- 
 dustrial struggle increasingly inevitable and increasingly in- 
 tense. 
 
 It now remains to consider a change in leadership and 
 methods that has taken place within each group under the 
 pressure of the struggle. In the employers' group there 
 have always been two types of men. One, the employer 
 who by nature was reasonable and fair, and the other, the 
 employer known as a 'labor skinner.' This latter type was 
 never satisfied with the terms nor the results of the conflict 
 between organized capital and organized labor as fought 
 out on the industrial field. The reason is not far to seek. 
 It is historically true that laborers made steady gains in con- 
 ditions and wages so long as the contest between capital 
 and workingmen was carried on by arbitration and trade
 
 TRADE UNIONS 29 
 
 agreement. Organized laborers did not make these gains 
 by reason of their superior ability or education. The time 
 and place of these contests and settlements were usually 
 chosen by the employers. A committee of plain men, often 
 poorly educated, met around a table with the chosen repre- 
 sentatives of capital, and there discussed wages, hours, and 
 shop conditions with the ablest masters of industry in the 
 land. And, generally there were from one to three keen 
 lawyers present representing capital, paid for the purpose of 
 objecting, disputing and contending against every clause in 
 the agreement that involved a little more cost to capital. 
 Any person in this room who has been present on such an 
 occasion can recall the picture as I have described it. 
 
 Humanity, motherhood and childhood, a fair standard of 
 living for American homes, the right to a wife and to chil- 
 dren brought up under decent conditions all these are de- 
 mands fundamentally strong in the minds of the whole 
 American people. It is very difficult for a group of living 
 men to be wholly selfish when talking face to face. We be- 
 come ashamed of our greed and indifference under such 
 conditions. Thus it was that organized laborers made their 
 advances on the industrial field by reason of the great hu- 
 man values and the essential justice involved in their claims, 
 together with the silent yet powerful influence of public 
 opinion. These results were so unsatisfactory to the 'labor 
 skinners' among the employers of the country that they 
 determined to reorganize and abandon the methods of con- 
 ference, discussion of differences, and collective bargaining 
 in the industrial conflict. As early as 1886, there were 
 formed groups of organized capital, the executive manage- 
 ment of which definitely opposed arbitration and the trade 
 agreement, and sought to force the settlement of industrial 
 disputes by conspiracy legislation and extensions of the writ 
 of injunction. This move by organized capital is of first 
 importance in understanding the legal and political policy of 
 the American Federation of Labor. The first article of faith 
 of these associations of capital is, 'We won't treat with 
 organized laborers'; and the second is like unto it, 'We 
 won't allow any walking delegate to interfere with our 
 business.'
 
 30 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 Since organization among laborers is a natural and com- 
 mon right, and is made increasingly necessary by the pres- 
 sure of the industrial struggle, and since the walking dele- 
 gate or shop steward or shop woman, is simply the repre- 
 sentative of the laborers in the enforcement of the terms of 
 their contract, it is a little difficult to see how it can be the 
 business of capital alone, when 'our business' has to do with 
 the livelihood and living conditions of many laborers. But 
 this was the way they thought and this was the way they 
 talked. These associations of capital raised large 'war 
 funds,' hired able counsel, and sought out favored positions 
 before legislatures and the courts. Driven from the indus- 
 trial field of arbitration and trade agreement by the steady 
 advance of public opinion and the increasing intelligence of 
 organized laborers, these associations of organized capital 
 have deliberately set up their guns in legislative lobbies and 
 friendly courts, and have begun to shell organized labor 
 with conspiracy laws secretly lobbied through legislatures, 
 injunctions without notice, and affidavit imprisonments with- 
 out trial-by-jury, through ignorant or prejudiced judges, _ 
 
 It is interesting to note that while these associations of 
 capital fear the awakening of the political consciousness of 
 6rganized laborers and their combination into an eflfective 
 political force, they have adopted the very method that will 
 insure this result. Ignorant of the fundamental character of 
 the labor movement, indifferent to the graphic lessons of cur- 
 rent history in Australia and England, in stupid arrogance 
 and childlike defiance, they have set up their fortifications 
 on the political field. 
 
 Let us now consider briefly the change in leadership and 
 methods that has taken place within the group of organized 
 laborers. Here again we find an internal struggle between 
 two types for leadership of the group. The conflict from 
 the beginning of organization has been between political 
 labor leaders, and industrial organizers and trade adminis- 
 trators in the real sense. The political labor leaders have 
 sought to use the industrial struggle for partisan political 
 advantage and for personal gain. They have been sheltered 
 and financed by both political party organizations, and when 
 things were dull in politics, have now and again trafficked
 
 TRADE UNIONS 31 
 
 in their influence over laborers for the advantage ot rival 
 organizations of capital. Leaders of this type as they be- 
 came known in the labor movement, were classified as 'labor 
 skates,' and have been uniformly more powerful in their 
 words than in their deeds. Nevertheless, they have fre- 
 quently betrayed the workers, sometimes for personal gains, 
 and sometimes through ignorance of the real ends of organ- 
 ization among laborers. In the councils of organized la- 
 borers there has ever been a contest for control between the 
 political and industrial leaders of the workingmen. It is 
 necessary here to make an important distinction. Political 
 action by organizations of laborers for partisan political pur- 
 poses, or for personal preferment for their leaders is one 
 thing, and political action for an industrial purpose in re- 
 sponse to adverse industrial legislation, or prejudiced judi- 
 cial interpretation, is a very different thing. The Knights of 
 Labor went to pieces on the rock of political action that was 
 partisan or personal in its expression or motive. The Amer- 
 ican Federation of Labor is today, and for some twenty-six 
 years has been presided over by a man who rose to leader- 
 ship in the national councils of organized laborers as the 
 representative of the industrial organizing and trade admin- 
 istrative group, as against the political group in the labor 
 movement of the United States. For a quarter of a century 
 President Gompers has labored unceasingly against countless 
 efforts to inject partisan and personal politics into the pro- 
 gram of the American Federation of Labor. The extraor- 
 dinary growth of the American Federation of Labor from a 
 few thousand 'rebels' from the Knights of Labor, to a paying 
 membership of over 1,600,000 union men, has been largely 
 due to its definite and consistent adherence to an industrial 
 'program as distinguished from the political programs that 
 have disrupted the other national organizations of laborers 
 in this country. 
 
 It is interesting to reflect that the development of the 
 organizations of capital has given control to its worst men 
 and methods, while the development of the organizations of 
 laborers has given control to their best men and methods. 
 This directly opposite working out of men and methods in 
 the two groups, doubtless reflects the fundamental difference
 
 32 SKLFXTED ARTICLES 
 
 in the main idea and purpose of each. Profit seeking for the 
 few leads to the triumph of narrow, selfish and arbitrary 
 men, just as the seeking of individual human values for the 
 many gives leadership to broadminded, sympathetic and 
 democratic men. 
 
 We can now survey the field. We can see the organiza- 
 tion of militant capital, seeking profit values from industry 
 for the few, with its citizens' alliances, trade, employers' and 
 manufacturers' associations culminating in the National As- 
 sociation of Manufacturers, with its war fund of $1,500,000, 
 attorneys, detective and press bureaus, legislative lobbies, 
 blacklists and injunctions; face to face with the organization 
 of militant laborers, seeking human and citizenship values 
 from industry for the many, with their local and interna- 
 tional unions, city and state federations, culuminating in the 
 American* Federation of Labor with its 1,600,000 members, 
 strike benefits, labor papers and unfair lists. 
 
 Let us now consider two conflicts between these forces, 
 one in the equity court, the other in the legislature, and both 
 in the State of Illinois, within the last five years. 
 
 The printers' organization known as the International 
 Typographical Union, is one of the most highly skilled and 
 conservative of the trade organizations of the world. In 
 1905 this union sought to establish the eight hour day in all 
 the printing shops of this country. This move was defended 
 by the officers of the union not only on the ground that eight 
 hours was a reasonable work-day, but also on the ground 
 that as it had been established largely in Australia and Eng- 
 land and in some of the larger shops of the United States, 
 to make the eight-hour day universal would prevent unfair 
 competition by those shops in which the greed of capital 
 sought to maintain a working day of nine or ten hours. It . 
 was a struggle between the fair working day that would 
 leave enough time and energy for the human and citizenship 
 values of the printer, and the anti-social working day that 
 leaves the printer insufficient time or energy for his duties as 
 a citizen, husband and father. The demand was granted in 
 many shops, but in some cities organized capital in the print- 
 ing trades preferred to fight the demand. The Chicago Ty- 
 pothetae was one of these organizations. A bill was filed in
 
 TRADE UNIONS 33 
 
 ihc chancery division of the Superior Court of Cook County 
 containing the usual allegations of conspiracy, boycott, co- 
 ercion and violence against the members and officers of 
 Tj'pographical Union No. 16, the local organization of the 
 journeyman printers of this city. Judge Holdoni, sitting as 
 chancellor, issued an injunction against Local No. 16 of the 
 International Typographical Union, its officers and members, 
 restraining them among many other things from certain acts 
 in the language following: 
 
 From organizing or maintaining any boycott against said com- 
 plainants or any of them. 
 
 From attempting to Induce customers or other persons to ab- 
 stain from working for or accepting work from said complainants 
 or any of them. 
 
 Upon affidavits alleging various violations of the prohibi- 
 tions of this injunction, Edwin R. Wright, president, and John 
 C. Harding, secretary, for Local No. 16, both well known 
 citizens of this city, each having been honored with impor- 
 tant public trusts, the one by a Republican governor of the 
 state, and the other by a Democratic Mayor of this city, 
 were summarily sentenced to prison, and the local union 
 was fined $1,000. In cominenting upon this decision Mr. 
 Harding said: 'The injunction was doubtless sought with 
 the intent that it should be disobeyed. In the exercise of 
 our necessary and legal duties as officers of the union, we 
 could not help but disobey this writ. It seems to have been 
 sought for the purpose of imprisoning the officials of the 
 union ^'ithout due process of law, to the end that the work 
 of the union should become disorganized, and the printers 
 frightened into submission and the abandonment of their 
 just demands.' Public opinion became so aroused over this 
 sentence, that its enforcement was abandoned, and neither 
 the imprisonment nor the judgment of fine was ever execut- 
 ed. There is no statute in the laws of Illinois that makes 
 the peaceful soliciting of one workingman by another not to 
 work for an employer an illegal act. Nor is there any stat- 
 ute that makes the exercise of public opinion upon indus- 
 trial conditions in the form of the direct boycott an illegal 
 act. Both actions are believed to be within the constitu- 
 tional guarantees of the federal and state constitutions, and 
 both are deemed necessary for the effective functioning of 
 public opinion in behalf of fair working conditions by all
 
 34 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 men in the labor movement, and by all authoritative students 
 of social problems in this country and in England. 
 
 Now for the legislative lobby. This afternoon, as you 
 gentlemen sit in your chairs, the worker in Illinois, man or 
 woman, engaged in a dangerous trade is less well protected 
 by law than if he or she were working in Finland. You may 
 remember a discussion held at this club upon the merits of 
 a proposed bill then pending in the legislature for the pro- 
 tection of workers in dangerous trades in the state of Illinois. 
 In that discussion a union' man, president of an organization 
 of woodworkers in this city, made the following statement: 
 
 Having worked In the woodworking industry for the past twen- 
 ty years, I think I know something about tlie danger of wood- 
 working machinery. It is not alone that men are lo.sing their 
 limbs, but the fact is universally recognized that a mechanic who 
 works on a shaper finds it difficult to get a job if he has all his 
 fingers, because the foreman won't think he has had sufficient 
 experience. 
 
 The passage of that bill as here discussed was advocated 
 by the organized laborers of this state, and by many other 
 organizations interested in the social welfare of the people 
 of Illinois. Organized capital in the form of the Illinois 
 Manufacturers' Association opposed this bill. Mr. John M. 
 Glenn, secretary for the association, appeared at Springfield 
 to block its passage and circulars containing false statements 
 were sent out over the state by the association. This cam- 
 paign carried on by the peculiar methods of the Illinois 
 Manufacturers'Association was successful, and 'the protected 
 machinery bill' was defeated in the legislature. Thanks to 
 organized capital, wc have suffered two more years of the 
 harvest of industrial cripples in this State. 
 
 Now, if organized capital goes into politics for industrial 
 purposes, what will organized labor be forced to do? If or- 
 ganized laborers are prevented from protecting the lives and 
 limbs of the workers, and are denied the exercise of free 
 speech and free press in their efforts to secure the eight 
 hour day, by the power of organized capital using the politi- 
 cal and judicial functions of the whole people in tJie interest 
 of profits for a few, what must be the inevitable answer of 
 the organized workers? And when organized laborers do go 
 into politics, will it be from desire, or from the necessity to 
 protect their lives and liberties forced upon them by organ- 
 ized capital? Organized laborers cannot afford competent
 
 TRADE UNIONS 35 
 
 lobbies in the legislatures nor the more expensive lawyers 
 before the courts. Neither can they afford the time for long 
 legal battles. While organized capital may wait complacent- 
 ly for the outcome of extended legal battles, organized la- 
 borers will starve. 
 
 By the methods which I have set forth, organized capital 
 has for the last ten years made a systematic and sustained 
 attack upon the wages and working conditions of the la- 
 borers of this country. The nature of this attack, using as it 
 does all the forms of law, and covered as it has been by a 
 very skillful censorship of the press for organized capital is 
 the great advertiser as well as the great employer caused 
 many thoughtful men of labor and many other men and 
 women interested in the social welfare of our people indepen- 
 dent of any personal association with organized laborers, to 
 fear that it might operate to change the form of labor organ- 
 izations in this country. I say, 'change the form of labor 
 organizations,' for it is at once utterly ignorant and childish 
 to speak of destroying the organization of labor. It is pos- 
 sible to force great social currents into new channels some- 
 times subterranean and dangerous to the ancient foundations 
 of social order but it is impossible permanently to dam up 
 the waters of progress in the modern world. 
 
 Such was the condition of the industrial struggle in this 
 country when out of the clear, as it were, there came down 
 from the Supreme Court of the United States on the 3d of 
 last February a decision in the case of Loewe vs. Lawlor, 
 known throughout the industrial world today as the 'Dan- 
 bury hatters' case.' This decision sustained the general doc- 
 trine which the organized capital of the country has sought 
 to establish, to the end that any really effective action by 
 the organized laborers of the country in combination to pro- 
 mote the welfare of the workers, is in the nature of a con- 
 spiracy against property rights and a violation of the pro- 
 hibition in the Sherman anti-trust law against combinations 
 in restraint of trade. For the purposes of the penal provi- 
 sions of this statute a trade union is a trust. Perhaps the 
 union men here present did not know that they were trust 
 magnates, and that President Gompers is the greatest trust 
 magnate in the United States.
 
 36 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 Thus a law passed nineteen years ago for the purpose of 
 protecting the people from the trust control of commodities, 
 while powerless for the purpose for which it was passed, has 
 become at last a deadly weapon in the hands of these same 
 trusts for breaking up the organizations of laborers in the 
 interstate trades. Its gums are toothless when it bites on oil 
 combines, railroad combines or steel combines seeking profit 
 of millions a year, but its teeth are sharp and cut deep into 
 the life arteries of labor organizations seeking to protect 
 human values for the individual laborers of the country. 
 This decision found that the United Hatters of North Amer- 
 ica, one of the oldest organizations of laborers in the world, 
 when seeking to bring all hat factories under the trade 
 agreement and union shop conditions was a conspiracy, and 
 that when they told each other through their trade journal 
 that Mr. Loewe was making hats under anti-social and im- 
 fair conditions, and for the welfare of their brother and sis- 
 ter workers they should not wear Loewe's hats, that such 
 publication was a combination in restraint of trade. Under 
 this decision Loewe may collect triple damages against the 
 union or against the individual members of the union, wheth- 
 er they participated in the strike, whether they knew of the 
 publication of the 'unfair' notice or not. This decision is 
 chiefly remarkable for its extraordinary finding in the fol- 
 lowing language of the chief justice, who said in delivering 
 the opinion of the court: 
 
 That the conspiracy or combination was so far progressed that 
 out of eighty-two manufacturers of this country engaged in the 
 production of fur hats, seventy had accepted the terms and ac- 
 ceded to the demand that the shop should be conducted In accord- 
 ance, so far as conditions of employment are concerned, with the 
 will of the American Federation of I^abor. 
 
 Thus in conflict with the whole trend of modern opinion 
 upon both social gains and industrial peace, the Supreme 
 Court finds tliat the fact of a trade agreement in seventy 
 out of a possible eighty-two factories is material evidence of 
 a conspiracy in restraint of trade. Passing over the ignor- 
 ance of the court regarding trade agreements manifest in its 
 suggestion that the American Federation of Labor ever 
 made any shop requirements for any trade, it is clear that 
 the court holds a point of view regarding the social aspect 
 of organizations among laborers, which is a survival of the
 
 TRADE UNIONS 37 
 
 individualist system of production, a system that has been 
 dead all over western civilization for a generation. Fair- 
 minded employers have given convincing testimony to the 
 value of trade agreements between organized laborers and 
 themselves, not only in maintaining industrial peace, but in 
 preventing the baneful competition of sweatshop products 
 with goods made under fair working conditions. Government 
 officials, national and state, have borne witness to the benef- 
 icent power of organized laborers in aiding the enforcement 
 of school, facfory, sanitary and health regulations. Enlight- 
 ened ministers of the Gospel and teachers of morals have 
 testified to the inherent strength of the union among laborers 
 in strengthening and defending the morality of the individ- 
 uals within the organization. Upon this high consideration 
 for the social, welfare, let me submit a case in point, that 
 will illustrate the moral significance of this very organiza- 
 tion that the Supreme Court has found to be 'a conspiracy in 
 restraint of trade.' 
 
 In a city on the Atlantic coast are two hat factories with- 
 in two blocks of each other. In one of these factories the 
 girls in the trimming department are organized as a local 
 of the United Hatters of North America. In the other fac- 
 tory the girls in the trimming department are not organized. 
 A little over a year ago the foreman of the floor where the 
 trimmers work in the unorganized factory insulted one of 
 the girl trimmers. She stood her ground and told him in 
 plain language what she thought of him. She was discharged 
 for insubordination. " This girl wrote to the owner of the fac- 
 tory and had a registry receipt purporting to be signed by 
 him. She never received any reply, and was out of work 
 for some weeks. Some months after this incident a similar 
 insult was oflFered to a girl by the foreman on the trimming 
 floor of the organized factory. The girl who was 'shop wom- 
 an' on that floor for the United Hatters of North America 
 went to this foreman and said, 'You cut that out. We 
 won't stand for anything like that in this shop.' He replied, 
 'You go to h 1! What have you got to do with it anyhow?' 
 She answered, 'I've got a whole lot to do with it, and if you 
 don't go to that little girl and apologize I will call a shop
 
 38 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 meeting right now.' He repied, 'If you do, I'll lire you.' 
 She said, 'No you won't either!' 
 
 Then this little woman who is less than five feet tall, 
 'called shop,' and 170 odd girls laid down their work. She 
 told the girls what the trouble was, and they agreed that 
 they would starve before they would go back to work if the 
 foreman didn't apologize to the little foreign girl he had in- 
 sulted. Here the ger^,eral superintendent came into the con- 
 troversy, and after a conference in the office the foreman 
 was discharged, and that little woman is still shop woman on 
 that trimming floor, and there isn't any foreman in that 
 factory who thinks he can insult a girl while she is at work 
 just because she is a foreigner and poor. Now I submit that 
 the organization of laborers known as the United Hatters of 
 North America had more power on that trimming floor, not 
 only to preserve fair wages and hours, but to' preserve indi- 
 vidual virtue and the hope and fidelity of the home for poor 
 and sorely tempted working girls, than all the churches and 
 universities within the limits of that city. Yet this is the 
 organization that, in extending its benefits to other workers 
 in other factories, is condemned as 'a conspiracy in restraint 
 of trade!' 
 
 This decision awakened the leaders of organized labor 
 from one end of the country to the other. Here was judicial 
 recognition of an industrial war doctrine of organized capi- 
 tal that, if maintained and established would outlaw all eflfec- 
 tive organization among the laborers of this country, and 
 operate to make unfair working conditions national in the 
 United States. The Executive Council of the American Fed- 
 eration of Labor called a conference at the City of Wash- 
 ington to consider the effects of the decision and to plan 
 the wisest action for the organized laborers of the United 
 States. It met on the i8th day of March, and was the larg- 
 est gathering of representative labor men ever assembled in 
 this country except at a national convention of the American 
 Federation of Labor. What did they do? Did they resolve 
 to go into politics in behalf of the Democratic Party? They 
 did not resolve that way, and what is more to the point, they 
 did not act that way. Among the men there present were 
 Republicans, Democrats, Hearstites, Socialists and Independ-
 
 TRADE UNIONS 39 
 
 ents. They decided on a policy. What was this revolution- 
 ary policy? It was first to go before the proper committees 
 of Congress and advocate an amendment to the Sherman 
 anti-trust law. It was to appeal to the same authority that 
 had passed the law nineteen years before and say: 'On the 
 record of the discussions upon this act it appears that this 
 law was passed to curb the greed of the great trusts that 
 were seeking to control the commodities necessary to the life 
 of the people. This law has been now so interpreted, that 
 while powerless for its original purpose, it can be made most 
 injurious to the welfare of the organized laborers of the 
 country, and we ask you to amend it so that it shall conform 
 to the purpose for which it was enacted into law.' If Con- 
 gress should amend the act, then the matter was at an end; 
 if Congress should fail or refuse, then each political party 
 convention was to be urged to adopt a plank in its platform 
 favoring these demands, and the party and candidates that 
 should comply were to be supported at the polls by the rec- 
 ommendations of the American Federation of Labor. This 
 plan was carried out to the letter. 
 
 Was this a revolutionary or unreasonable policy for free 
 men in a' free country? A memorial of these demands was 
 submitted to Congress. The President of the United States 
 sent a special message to Congress recommending an amend- 
 ment of the Sherman anti-trust law. The memorial and the 
 message of the President were buried in committees, and 
 the proposals were never permitted to reach discussion on 
 the floor of the House. This Congress was largely Republi- 
 can in membership. The responsible leaders in the House 
 stated with cynical indiflference that they were responsible for 
 the measures that were passed and for the measures that 
 were not passed. Still the American Federation of Labor 
 took no partisan stand. They hoped that the party of Lin- 
 coln, when assembled in national convention, would consider 
 favorably the well-being of the organized laborers of the 
 country and would adopt a plank in the national platform 
 promising the needed relief. Mr. Gompers appeared before 
 the resolutions committee of the Republican convention and 
 advocated the adoption of provisions set forth in a proposed 
 plank. These provisions in every substantial particular were
 
 40 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 rejected by the resolutions committee of the Republican con- 
 vention, and their report was adopted by the convention. 
 Mr. Gompers then went before the resolutions committee of 
 the Democratic convention in Denver, and in all substan- 
 tial particulars the provisions rejected by the Republican 
 convention were adopted by the Democratic convention. 
 The Democratic platform and all candidates who agreed to 
 abide by its provisions were recommended for election by 
 the people by the executive council of the American Federa- 
 tion of Labor. 
 
 Now I shall assume that it is unnecessary for me to show 
 that the result of the recent national election has small im- 
 portance in determining the outcome of the industrial strug- 
 gle in this country. The futile and stupid claims of those 
 critics who suggest that organized laborers have entered 
 politics, have been defeated and that the contest is over, de- 
 serve no consideration before this audience, I am sure. It 
 is well to remember, however, that industrial organization 
 among the laborers of this country has been in process for 
 over a century, and that industrial organization is not 
 yet complete. No intelligent person had any expectation 
 that party ties and the great lines of political division in na- 
 tional politics could be wiped out by an industrial issue in a 
 six months' campaign. It is true, however, that in certain 
 states there was an extraordinary change in the votes of the 
 organized laborers. This is common knowledge to those 
 who look behind the headlines and analyze the actual re- 
 turns. It is also true that the industrial issue in the last 
 campaign was of sufficient importance to induce the Presi- 
 dent of the United States to make the welfare of organized 
 laborers a leading subject in his campaign letters, and to 
 induce the candidates for president of both great parties to 
 finish their campaign speaking with the 'labor issue' as the 
 central theme. President-elect Taft went so far as to pro- 
 claim himself a better friend of organized laborers than was 
 President Gompers himself. He will have ample oppor- 
 tunity to establish his claims in this particular to the satis- 
 faction of the laborers who voted for him before the next 
 presidential election. 
 
 Within a few days after this election the national con-
 
 TRADE UNIONS 41 
 
 vcntion of the American Federation of Labor was convened 
 in the City of Denver. President Gompers submitted a re- 
 port as national executive officer of the organized laborer^ of 
 the United States vi^hich had been prepared before the result 
 of the campaign was known. Nothing could better indicate 
 the non-partisan and enduring quality of the industrial policy 
 of organized laborers than the fact that this report with its 
 recommendations written before the election, should have 
 been adopted unanimously without the change of a word in 
 a great national convention of laborers, after the results of 
 that election had passed into history. I quote the following 
 extracts from this report as the most illuminating as well as 
 authoritative statement upon the subjects discussed: 
 
 The decision of the Supreme Court in the Hatters' case in- 
 volves every wage worker of our country, men and women, white 
 or black, who associate themselves permanently or temporarily to 
 protect or advance their human rights. 
 
 I have already pointed out that the life-long environment of 
 men may pervert their judgment, and that the environment of 
 the respected gentlemen who compose the Supreme bench has been 
 such that they, have not been brought into practical and personal 
 contact with industrial problems; that, on the contrary, their as- 
 sociations have largely been with business and financial men; 
 that naturally a man absorbs most of his point of view from his 
 environment; that it is, therefore, quite understandable that the 
 justices of the Supreme Court should have little knowledge of 
 modern industrial conditions, and less sympathy with the efforts 
 of the wage workers to adapt themselves to the marvelous revolu- 
 tion which has taken place in industry in the past quarter of a 
 century. 
 
 The ownership of a free man Is vested in himself alone. The 
 only reason for the ownership of bondmen or slaves is the own- 
 ership of their labor power by their masters. Therefore it follows 
 that if free men's ownership of themselves involves tlieir labor 
 power, none but themselves are owners of their labor power. If 
 a free man by choice or by reason of his environment sells his la- 
 bor power to another and is paid a wage in return tlierefor, this 
 wage is his own. This proposition is so essentially true that it 
 Is the underlying idea upon which is based the entire structure of 
 private property. To question or to attempt to destoy the princi- 
 ple enunciated involves the entire structure of civilized society. 
 
 The free man's ownership of himself and his labor power im- 
 plies that he may sell it to another or withhold it; that he may with 
 others similarly situated sell their labor power or withhold it; that 
 no man has even an Implied property right In the labor of another; 
 that free men may sell their labor power under stress of their 
 needs, or they may withhold it to obtain more advantageous re- 
 turns. Any legislation or court construction dealing with the 
 subject of organizations, corporations or trusts which curtail or 
 corner the products of labor can have no true application to the 
 association of free men' In the disposition or withholding of their 
 labor power. 
 
 The attempt to deny to free men. by injunction or other proc- 
 ess, the right of association, the right to withhold their labor 
 power or to induce others to withhold their labor power, whether 
 ^these men be engaged in an industrial dispute' with employers, or
 
 42 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 whether they be other workmen who have taken the places ot 
 those engaged in the original dispute, is an invasion of man's 
 ownership of himself and of his labor power, and Is a claim of 
 some form of property right in the workmen who have tal^en the 
 places of strikers or men locked out. 
 
 If the ownership of free men is vested in them and in them 
 alone, they have not only the right to withhold their labor power, 
 but to induce others to make common cause with them, and to 
 withhold theirs that the greatest advantage may accrue to all. It 
 further follows that if free men may avail themselves of the law- 
 ful right of withholding their labor power, they have the right to 
 do all lawful things in pursuit of that lawful purpose. And neith- 
 er court injunctions nor other processes have any proper applica- 
 tion to deny to free men these lawful, constitutional, natural and 
 inherent rights. 
 
 In the disposition of the wages returned from the sale of labor 
 power, man is also his own free agent. He may purchase from 
 whomsoever he will, or he may give his patronage to another. 
 What he may do with his wages in the form of bestowing or with- 
 holding his patronage, he may lawfully agree with others to do. 
 
 No corporation or company has a vested interest in the pat- 
 ronage of a free man. Free men may bestow their patronage 
 upon any one or withhold it, or bestow It upon another. And this, 
 too, whether in the first Instance the business concern is hostile 
 or friendly. 
 
 To claim that what one man may lawfully do when done by 
 two or more men becomes unlawful or criminal, Is equal to as- 
 serting that nought and nought makes two. 
 
 * . 
 
 Injunctions as issued against workmen are never applied to, 
 or issued against, any other citizen of our country. These in- 
 junctions are an attempt to deprive citizens of our country, when 
 they are workmen, of the right of trial by jury. They are an 
 effort to fasten an offense upon workmen who are Innocent of 
 any illegal act. They are issued in trade disputes to make out- 
 laws of men who are not even charged with doing things in viola- 
 tion of any law of state or nation. These Injunctions issued in 
 labor disputes are an indirect assertion of a property right in 
 men, when these men are workmen engaged in a legitimate effort 
 to protect or to advance their natural rights and Interests. 
 
 The writ of injunction, beneficent in Its original purpose., has 
 been perverted from the protection of property and property 
 rights, and extended to the invasion of personal rights and human 
 freedom. 
 
 It is an exhibition of crass ignorance for any one to assert 
 that we seek to abolish the writ of injunction. The fundamental 
 principles upon which injunctions may rightfully be issued are 
 tor the protection of property and property rights only. 
 
 He who seeks the aid of an injunction must come into court 
 with clean hands. There must be no other adequate remedy at 
 
 The Injunction must never be used to curtail or invade per- 
 sonal rights. 
 
 It must never be used in an effort to punish crime. It must 
 never be used as a means to set aside trial by jury. 
 
 Yet injunctions a.s issued against workmen are used for all 
 these purposes, and are never used or issued against any other 
 citizen of our country for such purposes, and not even against 
 workmen unless they are engaged in a labor dispute. Such in- 
 junctions have no warrant in law, and are the result of judicial 
 usurpation and judicial legislation, which usurp the place of con- 
 gressional legislation and are repugnant to constitutional guaran- 
 tees.
 
 TRADE UNIONS 43 
 
 Here we have the political and legal policies of tHe Ameri- 
 can Federation of Labor. Upon examination they will ap- 
 pear a necessary resistance to the efforts toward the indus- 
 trial servitude of laborers as sought by organized capital and 
 the natural extension of human rights under the development 
 of our industrial democracy. 
 
 Since this report was adopted, there has been another 
 decision of national importance in this controversy. The 
 Supreme Court of the District of Columbia upon a motion 
 alleging contempt, and charging the violation of a writ of 
 injunction granted in the Buck's Stove & Range case, has 
 sentenced President Samuel Gompers, Vice President John 
 Mitchell, and Secretary Frank Morrison to prison. The 
 original writ of injunction in this case forbade Gompers, 
 Mitchell and Morrison among many other things: 
 
 * * From Interfering in any manner with the sale of the 
 product of the complainant's factory or business by defendants, 
 or by any other person, firm or corporation. 
 
 * * From publishing, or otherwise circulating, whether in 
 writing, or orally, any statement, or notice, of any kind or char- 
 acter whatsoever, calling attention of the complainant's customers, 
 or of dealers or tradesmen, or the public, to any boycott against 
 the complainant, its business or its product, or that the same 
 are, or were, or have been declared to be "unfair," or that it 
 should not be purchased or dealt in or handled by any dealer, 
 tradesman, or other person whomsoever, or by the public, or any 
 representation or statement of like effect or import, for the pur- 
 pose of, or tending to any injury to or interference with the com- 
 plainant's business or with the free and unrestricted sale of Its 
 product. 
 
 * From printing, issuing, publishing or distributing through 
 the mails, or in any other manner any copy or copies of the 
 American Federationist, or any other printed or written news- 
 papers, magazine, circular, letter, or other document or instru- 
 ment whatsoever, which shall contain or in any manner refer to 
 the name of the complainant, its business or its product in the 
 "We Don't Patronize," or the "Unfair" list of the defendants, or 
 any of them, their agents, servants, attorneys, confederates, or 
 other person or persons acting in aid of or in conjunction with 
 them, or which contains any reference to the complainant, its 
 business or product in connection with the term "unfair" or with 
 the "We Don't Patronize" list, or with any other phrase, word 
 or words of similar import. 
 
 In discussing the matter of this alleged contempt, the 
 counsel for the defendants, Judge Alton B. Parker, for many 
 years chief justice of the highest court of the State of New 
 York, in argument in open court said as follows: 
 
 But it was not so much this particular holding that seemed 
 to labor a most serious injury, although of course its purpose 
 was to. contest that in the courts; it was a feature of the order 
 which was not discussed in the opinion which aroused the in-
 
 44 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 dignation, 'and, I may say, just indignation, in my judgment, of 
 the labor leaders throughout the country. 
 
 I am here to say that I believe that if the question had ever 
 been presented to the Judge, that particular feature of the order, 
 and discussed before the judge, I believe it never would have 
 been entered, and it will be my contention here today in part 
 that so much of the order if that is the meaning of it and I 
 am afraid it is that so much of the order as lays upon any one, 
 Mt. Gompers or any one else, a command that they shall not 
 discuss that decision, that there shall be no longer freedom of 
 speech, that they shall not tell their organizations about it, 
 about what has happened and what the court has decided, prac- 
 tically that they shall not go to Congress and ask for legislation 
 relieving them from what they regard as an improper law, that 
 they shall not write editorials about it, I shall contend before 
 your honor before I finish that that part of the order is abso- 
 lutely void. It offends against the constitution of the United 
 States, that section of the constitution which attempts to prevent 
 the abridgment of the liberty of the press and of free speech. 
 If an act of Congress attempted to establish by statute the re- 
 sult which has been attempted here by order and the question 
 were presented to the court, the court would say, you need pay 
 no attention to It, it Is wholly void; and so a decree of court 
 which offends against the constitution is likewise wholly void, 
 and need not be obeyed, for when the question of Its enforcement 
 comes up It would be precisely the same thing as an attempt to 
 enforce a law of Congress which was declared unconstitutional, 
 and both would be void. Each represents separate and distinct 
 departments of the government, and neither has any power not 
 conferred by the constitution, or as against the rights given by 
 the constitution. 
 
 In his report as president of the American Federation of 
 Labor, submitted and adopted at the last national conven- 
 tion in Denver, referring to this case in the matter of the 
 original writ of injunction, Mr. Gompers said: 
 
 If all the provisions of the Injunction are to be fully carried 
 out, we shall not only be prohibited from giving or selling a copy 
 of the proceedings of the Norfolk convention of the American 
 Federation of I^abor, either a bound or unbound copy, or any 
 copy of the American Fcderationist for the greater part of 1907, 
 and part of IHOS, either bound or unbound, but we, as an execu- 
 tive council, will not be permitted to make a report upon this 
 subject to the Denver convention. 
 
 It is impossible to see how we can comply fully with the 
 court's injunction. Shall we be denied the right of free speech 
 and free press simply because we are workmen? Is It thinkable 
 that we shall be compelled to suppress, refuse to distribute and 
 kill for all time to come the official transactions of one of the 
 great conventions of our Federation? 
 
 Now it is the American Federation of Labor and the Amer- 
 icon FcdcrationUt which are enjoined from the exercise of the 
 right of free speech and the liberty of the press. In the future 
 it may be another publication, and this Injunction will then be 
 quoted as a sacred precedent for future and further encroach- 
 ments upon the rights and liberties of our people. The conten- 
 tion of labor with the Buck's Stove and Range Co. sinks into 
 comparative insignificance contrasted with the great principles 
 which are at stake. Is it imaginable that inasmuch as the con- 
 stitution of our country guarantees to every citizen the r^ht of 
 free speech and free press, and forbids the Congress of our gov-
 
 TRADE UNIONS 45 
 
 ernment from enacting any law that shall in any way abridge, 
 invade or deny the liberty of speech and the freedom of press, 
 that a court by the issuance of an injunction can invade and 
 deny these rights? 
 
 There is no disrespect on my part to the judge or the court 
 when with solemn conviction I assert that this invasion is un- 
 warranted. The wrong has grown from the precedent set by 
 previous injunction abuses, and the judge in this instance has 
 but extended the process. The suppression of freedom of the 
 press is a most serious undertaking, whether in autocratic Russia 
 or in tlie republic of the United States. It is because the present 
 injunction and the contempt proceedings thereunder suppress free 
 speech and free press that I feel it my duty to enter a most em- 
 phatic protest. 
 
 For Uges it has been a recognized and an established principle 
 that the publisher shall be uncensored in what he publishes, 
 though he may be held personally and criminally liable for what 
 he utters. If what is published is wrong, or false, or seditious, 
 or treasonable, it is within the power of the courts to punish 
 him by applying the ordinary process of law. If what is pub- 
 lished is libelous, the civil and criminal laws may be invoked. 
 The right to freely print and speak has grown up through cen- 
 turies of freedom. It has its basis in the fundamental guarantees 
 of human liberty. It has been advocated and upheld by the 
 ablest minds. Tremendous sacrifices have been made in its es- 
 tablishment. These rights must not, cannot and will not be com- 
 placently surrendered they must not be forbidden by a court's 
 injunction. 
 
 Passing over the many other unjudicial characteristics of 
 the opinion of the court sentencing Gompers, Mitchell, and 
 Morrison to jail for contempt in violating this injunction, I 
 quote the following illegal and despotic finding in the lan- 
 guage of Mr. Justice -Wright, who in delivering this sentence 
 said: 
 
 I place the decision of the matter at bar distinctly on the 
 proposition that were the order confessedly erroneous, yet it must 
 be obeyed. 
 
 Here we have the full limit of judicial usurpation ex- 
 pressly stated and upheld. Should this- interpretation of 
 judicial authority be finally maintained, constitutional liberty 
 will have ceased to exist in this Republic. 
 
 Let us pause for a moment to consider independently 
 this matter of the boycott. Such use of the power of public 
 opinion has rather an honorable place in the history of this 
 Republic. It was the courageous application of the boycott 
 that precipitated the Revolution of 1776. Some people of 
 Boston would not use tea that carried a stamp which was 
 the symbol of British tyranny. The boycott was one of 
 the weapons of the great anti-slavery struggle, and was 
 used with great force and effect against the slave power in 
 the United States. From the birth of this nation as a free
 
 46 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 people, until this hour, the boycott has been a lirst force in 
 our civilization. Shall it be linally denied to those organiza- 
 tions hghting for the citizenship values of human labor in 
 the industrial processes of the nation? 
 
 Why do the organized 'labor skinners' in this country 
 hate the boycott so bitterly? It stops the sales of their anti- 
 social products! It makes public opinion effective and 
 materializes it into dollars and cents. It gets the public 
 conscience 'on the job' through the purchasing power of the 
 public. Just as King George had to repeal his stamp acts 
 when the sales of British tea fell ofT, just so organized cap- 
 ital must repeal its anti-union edicts when the products of 
 its factories are refused by the buying public. 
 
 Why does organized capital seek the extension of the writ 
 of injunction so eagerly? Because it evades the trial by 
 jury! It is a method that juggles away those constitutional 
 safeguards put about every citizen before he shall be ad- 
 judged a criminal in every other process known to our courts. 
 If the injunction is to be used to evade regular trials at law, 
 the right of cross-examination of witnesses and the necessity 
 of a verdict by a jury, and thus put into the keeping of one 
 man the rights and liberties of many men, such a far reaching 
 fact is worthy of the very highest public concern. 
 
 The industrial struggle to thoughtful men and women, is 
 the struggle of this generation. This is an industrial age, 
 and we are an industrial people. All other contests are side 
 issues as it were. Morality, intellect, and health for the 
 individual; politics, religion, education for the community 
 are becoming more and more mere aspects of this supreme 
 conflict. Let us state this in another way. To a young man 
 who lives in a West Side tenement and works for his daily 
 bread as a common laborer, the conditions of his industrial 
 relationship are more powerful than all other influences upon 
 his life. Bad ventilation will weaken his health, long hours 
 will dull his mind, small wages will keep him from mar- 
 riage, and irregularity of employment will break down his 
 morals. Day after day his industrial relationship molds his 
 character in its physical, mental, and spiritual aspects. For 
 him fair working conditions are not a part of his life, they 
 are his life, itself, in all its substantial elements. There are
 
 TRADE UNIONS 47 
 
 certain trades known as the 'tuberculosis trades.' In certain 
 others the worker is known as a member of the 'poison 
 squad.' The control and dominance of industry is the 
 supreme influence of our age. 
 
 Not only is the industrial struggle the first controversy of 
 the age, but it has a quality that no other controversy has 
 ever possessed in an equal degree. It is international. Or- 
 ganizations of laborers are called international unions. In- 
 dustry is not only the big term, it is the universal term in the 
 modern world. Language, custom, religions, form of gov- 
 ernment, and social groups may be Focalized and independ- 
 ent, but the industrial order covers the world. When oil 
 is found in Russia, it affects prices at the wells in Pennsyl- 
 vania. Cotton is planted in India, and its influence reaches 
 the plantations of Carolina. A union is formed in China, 
 and the shock reaches the rice lands of Florida. Capital is 
 moving upon Mexico, and the exploitation of the peon be- 
 comes an issue in the labor market of the United States. 
 
 Surely the membership of the City Club of Chicago, rep- 
 resenting all the people of the city, and as genuinely inter- 
 ested in the real prosperity of Chicago as any other group 
 in this wonderful city, has the right to consider all the as- 
 pects of this great controversy. There are just two possible 
 methods of dealing with our responsibility in the industrial 
 struggle. We may join organized capital in its attack upon 
 organized labor. We may enter into the conspiracy of the 
 industrially censored press and join in the hunt for dividends 
 at any cost. We may aid in withdrawing from laborers the 
 rights of other men and make them an outlawed class in 
 their group associations and undertakings; we can help to 
 enjoin them as conspirators, and then imprison them for 
 exercising the legitimate functions of other persons in the 
 community. If we decide on this method, then the organ- 
 ized laborers will be driven into a class struggle and the 
 Socialist party will reap the harvest of the bitter contest 
 between confiscation and despotism. 
 
 Some years ago an obscure labor leader from Indiana 
 was imprisoned without trial in the 'bull pen' at Woodstock, 
 111. He was charged with many crimes, but he was never 
 brought to trial for any of his alleged offenses. The pur-
 
 48 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 pose of his imprisonment having passed, the strike broken, 
 his accusers did not wish to risk a trial by due process of 
 law. That obscure labor man is today an international char- 
 acter, better known and better loved at more firesides in 
 England, France, and Germany, to say nothing of America, 
 than any man in this room or any man in this town for that 
 matter. He has twice been a candidate for the presidency 
 of the United States, and has received for that high office 
 nearly half a million votes that have been counted. Within 
 the last year he has travelled over this country in a special 
 train from California to Massachusetts. Was it a wise social 
 policy that made Eugene V. Debs a hero and a martyr in 
 the thought of half a million laborers in this country? As 
 a mere method of attack I submit that by its fruits this 
 method can be shown to be false and costly, regardless of 
 its violations of the fundamental law. I submit that this 
 half million will grow into four million votes within a 
 decade, if the right of free speech, free press and collective 
 action is denied the working men in industrial disputes. 
 
 It seems to me that we will be without excuse if we per- 
 mit our common life to suffer a class cleavage in this coun- 
 try. Old England has shown us a more excellent way. Or- 
 ganized capital in that country, never so well organized nor 
 so impersonal and ruthless, as in the United States, began 
 some ten years ago a similar campaign to that of the Na- 
 tional Association of Manufacturers in this country. In 
 1897 Allen vs. Flood was decided by the law Lords in the 
 House of Peers. This decision marked the beginning of an 
 interpretation in the highest court of England of existing 
 statutes and common law doctrines in behalf of organized 
 capital as against organized laborers. This trend in legal 
 decisions was steadily maintained until, the famous TafF Vale 
 decision rendered on the 22d of July, 1901. In other deci- 
 sions between these dates you will find all the doctrines ad- 
 vanced and maintained that are involved in our labor-con- 
 spiracy cases. In three years from the date of this last 
 decision, a great political industrial movement among the 
 organized workers of Great Britain had resulted in a com- 
 plete change of the ministry and the general policy of the 
 government of Great Britain. Within a year from this time
 
 TRADE UNIONS 49 
 
 the Parliament of England passed two measures, which, if 
 enacted by our Congress today would practically remove the 
 American Federation of Labor from the political field in 
 the United States. The most important of these measures 
 was the Trades Dispute Act, a copy of which is submitted 
 for your consideration. 
 
 In the last analysis this government rests upon the peo- 
 ple. Courts, legislatures, executives get their legal authority 
 from this high source. When we appeal from legislators and 
 judges and presidents back to the people, we appeal to the 
 hnal court of last resort in this country. Abraham Lincoln 
 appealed to that court for the Dred Scott decision, and the 
 Dred Scott decision was over-ruled. Charles Sumner and 
 George W. Curtis appealed to it from the fugitive slave law 
 enacted by a Congress under the domination of the slave 
 power, and that law was over-ruled. Mr. Lincoln in discus- 
 sing the Dred Scott decision declared that decision to be 'A 
 portion of a system or scheme to make slavery national in 
 this country'; and I am satisfied that the decision in the 
 Danbury hatters' case is a part of a system or scheme to 
 make scab labor national in this country. 
 
 Slowly this great question is. getting a hearing in our 
 American court of last resort the conscience of the people. 
 We have considered it here today, and other groups great 
 and small will consider it throughout the country, and at 
 last the verdict will come in. That this verdict will be at 
 last for the citizenship values of the many rather than the 
 profit values of the few, who can doubt? The world move- 
 ment of civilization is towards human rights. No man or set 
 of men can stand permanently in the way of this current in 
 the affairs of men. Democracy will capture industry just 
 as it has captured religion and politics. Shall we enlist with 
 the perishing hosts of privilege or with the victorious legions 
 of Democracy? 
 
 Independent. 54: 1383-4. June 5, 1902. 
 
 Industrial Unionism. 
 
 The action of the United Mine Workers in calling out 
 the engineers, firemen and pumpmen from the anthracite col-
 
 50 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 lieries and the prompt obedience to the order is a note- 
 worthy outcome of a new torm of labor unions which the 
 past few years have brought forth. The stationary engineers 
 belong to a skilled occupation, superior to that of the miners, 
 yet in this particular industry they have yielded their sepa- 
 rate trade union to a much more comprehensive organiza- 
 tion, the "Industrial Union." The Industrial Union indicates 
 a new alignment of wage earners toward the new organiza- 
 tion of capital and the new expansion of machinery. Under 
 the older forms of unionism each "trade" was assumed to 
 have a natural boundary, and all who worked at that trade, 
 no matter how widely scattered in different industries, were 
 supposed to have a common interest apart from that of 
 other trades. The engineer is an engineer, whether in a 
 mine, a brewery or a machine shop. True, the Knights of 
 Labor, from which many of the existing trade unions are 
 offshoots, attempted to break down trade lines and to con- 
 solidate all wage earners under the motto, "An injury to one 
 is an injury to all." But the Knights of Labor went to 
 pieces because it carried the principle too far, and tailors, 
 for example, rebelled when their strikes were settled for 
 them by bricklayers and teamsters. 
 
 Now the "Indiistrial Union" is a partial return to the 
 principles of the Knights of Labor. But, instead of amal- 
 gamating all employes, it brings together only those who 
 work in the same industry. This coalescence takes different 
 forms, all the way^ from amalgamation, or subordination, 
 among the Mine Workers and the Printing Trades, to a 
 close federation, among the United Garment Workers, the 
 United Hatters, the Brewery Workmen, the Building Trades 
 and others. The Typographical Union makes contracts for 
 the stcreotypers, altho it has not as yet gained control of the 
 pressmen or photo*-engravers. The United Garment Work- 
 ers in New York conducted last summer, for the first time, 
 a general strike under a central council in which ten or 
 twelve unions took part, covering the entire clothing industry 
 except the Italian women who worked at home. 
 
 This new form of alliance preserves a certain varying de- 
 gree of autonomy for the several trades, but it prevents one 
 trade from stopping an industry >Yithout the consent of the
 
 TRADE UNIONS 51 
 
 other trades. The firemen in the anthracite mines, some 
 six months ago, attempted to break loose from the Mine 
 Workers and to secure a reduction of hours from twelve to 
 eight by independent action, but the Mine Workers threat- 
 ened to supply their places and thus forced them back to 
 work. Now the firemen are joining with the Mine Workers, 
 who, since their contract with the operators has expired, 
 have taken up their demand along with their own. The 
 stronger and more compact unions of skilled workmen resist 
 this movement toward coalition, because they are opposed 
 to making sacrifices for their weaker associates; but in pro- 
 portion as they see unskilled man with machinery taking 
 their places they are awakening to the need of protecting 
 themselves by protecting them. 
 
 The American Federation of Labor, which, because it was 
 based on trade lines, displaced the Knights of Labor, has 
 suffered internal conflict owing to this advance of industrial 
 unionism, and its policy has not been consistent. It refused 
 to protect the engineers when the Mine Workers proposed 
 to absorb them, but latterly it has protected them against 
 the Brewery Workers. By a close vote of the executive 
 council it has recognized a new and independent organization 
 in the Clothing Trade. It has on its hands disputes in sev- 
 eral other industries. These problems of jurisdiction are the 
 most trying and dangerous now before the Federation. At 
 the same time the Federation is forced, in imitation of the 
 trusts, to bring all workmen in an industry into solid array. 
 It has now organized over four hundred "Federal Labor 
 Unions," unions of common laborers and those whose 
 numbers are too small for a local trade union. The Federal 
 Labor Union completes in theory the organization of an in- 
 dustry, and in at least two industries blast furnaces and 
 paper mills these federal unions have become strong enough 
 to make and win demands apart from the older unions of 
 skilled men. Plainly the Federal Labor Union is a long 
 step toward industrial unionism. 
 
 The* Mine Workers' organization includes every employee 
 who works "in or about the mines." This brings under one 
 jurisdiction, not only the engineer, but the skilled miner who 
 works by contract and the unskilled laborer who loads his
 
 52 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 cars. Between these two classes there is almost as distinct 
 a line of aristocracy as between engineers and Mine Workers, 
 and in the anthracite mines apparently this line has not been 
 broken down. The miner works four or five hours by con- 
 tract at blasting down the coal and hires his mine laborer for 
 ten hours by the day, like any employer, to load his cars. 
 Where the Mine Workers' Union is stronger, as in Illinois, 
 this species of sub-contracting is abolished, and the miner 
 and mine laborer are partners for eight hours a day, and 
 they divide their earnings equally. Other mine workers have 
 varying wages according to skill and strength. 
 
 The Industrial Union, from the fact that it subordinates 
 the skilled workman to an organization with often a major- 
 ity of unskilled workmen, tends toward democracy within 
 the union. It levels up the unskilled men, but it protects 
 the skilled men against their competition. 
 
 New York. Labor, Department of. Bulletin. 392-410. Septem- 
 ber, 1909. 
 
 International Trade Union Statistics. 
 
 In the following pages appear the latest statistics avail- 
 able concerning trade unions in the principal countries of 
 the world. The standing of the several countries for which 
 any figures arc available, as to trade union membership, is as 
 
 follows: 
 
 Countrj'. Date. Source of Aggregate 
 Information, membership 
 
 United States and Canada 1908 Estimated 2,500,000 
 
 Great Britain and Ireland Jan. 1, 1908 Government 2,406,746 
 
 Germany (Av'ge) 1908 Unions 2,382,401 
 
 France Jan. 1. 1908 Government 957,102 
 
 Austria 190S Unions 482,274 
 
 New York '. March, 1909 Government 367,093 
 
 Russia 1907 Unions 246,272 
 
 Sweden 1907 Unions 186.226 
 
 Belgium 1907 Unions 181,015 
 
 Australia 1907 Government 130.320 
 
 HunKary 1907 Unions 130,lff2 
 
 Switzerland 1P08 Unions li;9,319 
 
 Denmark 1907 Unions 90,806 
 
 Netherlands Jan. 1, 1909 Unions 57.971 
 
 Norway 1907 Unions 39,070 
 
 Spain March. 1908 Unions 32,612 
 
 New Zealand 1908 Government 27,640 
 
 Finland 1907 Unions 25,197 
 
 Bulgaria 1907 Unions 10,000
 
 TRADE UNIONS 53 
 
 The figures for the United States and Canada are crudely 
 estimated. The figures for Belgium, Denmark, Norway, 
 Spain, Finland and Bulgaria are borrowed from the report 
 for 1907 of the international secretary of trade unions (Ber- 
 lin). Australian figures represent registered unions only. 
 
 The above rough estimate for the United States and Can- 
 ada is arrived at by assuming that the rat.e of increase in the 
 grand total since 1906 has been about the same as that shown 
 in the official figures for the American Federation of Labor 
 and the railway organizations. These latter show an increase 
 of a little over 10 per cent while that allowed for the grand 
 total of all organized labor is a little less when the roun4 
 number of two and one-half millions is taken. 
 
 Whatever the accuracy of the figures it seems certain 
 that in absolute number of trade unionists America, Great 
 Britain and Germany are now quite close together but that 
 all of these three far surpass any other countries. 
 
 American Labor Organisations 
 
 It is impossible to quote figures concerning trade union 
 membership for the United States and Canada separately, 
 most of the general organizations having jurisdiction over 
 both countries and making no separation of the figures for 
 each in their general statistics as published. Nor is it pos- 
 sible to quote complete figures for the two countries together 
 since several organizations publish no figures at all. Finally, 
 in case of some of those which publish figures accuracy is 
 not claimed. But for the great bulk of American trade 
 union membership there are some figures available and 
 these are summarized in the table below. 
 
 American Federation of Labor (average, 190S) 1,586,885 
 
 Railway employees: 
 
 Carmen (June, 1909) 18,522 
 
 Conductors (January, 1909) 38,358 
 
 Kngineers (January, 1909) 56,403 
 
 Firemen (January, 1909) 63,410 
 
 Trainmen (January, 1909) 101,000 
 
 277.683 
 
 Brick layers and masons 68,000 
 
 It is surprising that, in spite of the effects of the industrial 
 depression of 1908, the American Federation of Labor was 
 able to increase its membership from 1,538,9/0 in 1907 to 
 1,586,885 in 1908. This result, however, is due mainly to the
 
 54 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 reinstatement in the Federation of the Brewery Workers' un- 
 ion, 40,000 strong, whose charter had been revoked in 1907. 
 Most unions had a hard struggle to maintain their member- 
 ship, and gains made by some unions were just about suf- 
 ficient to counterbalance the losses of others. 
 
 Fewer charters were issued by the American Federation 
 of Labor in 1908 than in any previous year since 1898, but 
 receipts, $207,655, showed some improvement over 1907, when 
 they had fallen to $I74,330, comparing with $207,815 in 1906. 
 Of the larger unions affiliated with the American Federation 
 of Labor, very few could register any substantial gain in 
 1908. The United Mine Workers of America, the largest 
 of the affiliated unions, had its membership reduced to 252,- 
 500 from 254,900 the previous year, a loss of 2,400 members. 
 The next largest union, the carpenters, decreased from 192,- 
 900 to 179,600, showing a loss of 13,300 members comparing 
 with a gain of 17,000 made in 1907. Organizations that reg- 
 istered gains in 1908 were the garment workers with a mem- 
 bership of 43,900 or a gain of 10,500 over 1907; the machin- 
 ists with a membership of 62,100 gaining 6,100 members; the 
 firemen, with a membership of 17,300 or a gain of 4,800; the 
 painters with 64,800 members or a gain of 2,400. 
 
 The benefits paid to members by national unions in 1906, 
 1907 and 1908 were as follows: 
 
 1906. 1907. IPOS. 
 
 Death benefits $994,974 79 $1,076,060 22 $1,257,244 29 
 
 Death benefits (members' 
 
 wives) 37.900 00 42.575 00 31,390 00 
 
 Sick benefits 663,436 61 712.536 02 593,541 84 
 
 Traveling benefits 59,340 93 58,828 93 61.093 86 
 
 Tool Insurance 5.77109 10,026 86 5,87163 
 
 Unemployed benefits 79,582 70 26,984 29 205,254 81 
 
 Total $1,841,006 12 $1,927,91132 $2,144,395 43 
 
 There was a large increase in 1908 in expenditures on un- 
 employed benefits, which is self-explanatory, an increase also 
 in expenditures for death benefits, while the expenditures on 
 all other benefits decreased. 
 
 Outlook. 97: 267-70. February 4, 1911. 
 
 Labor's Struggle for the Right to Organize. Samuel Gompers. 
 
 Laboring men have been subjected to many relentless pros- 
 ecutions and bitter persecutions in the years gone by when
 
 TRADE UNIONS 55 
 
 making a collective effort to promote their own welfare and 
 prosperity. The most oppressive enactments commenced in 
 England in or about the year 1348, soon after the Black Plague, 
 The Black Plague. cut down the ranks of the laborers particu- 
 larly; it has been estimated that fifty per cent of the laborers 
 perished during that epidemic. This reduction in the supply 
 of workers had the effect of practically doubling the rate of 
 wages, and a statute was passed by Parliament prohibiting 
 laborers from accepting higher wages than they had been re- 
 ceiving before the Black Plague. Another statute was passed 
 going so far as to prescribe what the workers should eat and 
 their clothing; that statute made it a penal offense for a 
 laboring man to eat better food or wear better clothing than 
 the prescribed limitations written in the statute. 
 
 Some two hundred years later the English Parliament, in 
 1563, enacted a statute authorizing justices of the peace to 
 fix the wages of laborers in England, and made it a crime 
 for laboring men to accept higher wages than those pre- 
 scribed by the justice of the peace; and that statute remained 
 in effect and was rigidly enforced for a period of two hun- 
 dred and fifty years, and it was not until the year 1815 that 
 this rigorous and abhorrent statute was repealed, and only 
 then because the justices of the peace were suspected of 
 being too liberal toward the English workers. 
 
 In or about the year 1553 the English Parliament enacted 
 a law making it an "infamous crime" for workingmen to 
 meet for the purpose of discussing the wages they should 
 expect or the hours per day that they would toil; and in 
 1796 a similar statute was re-enacted, making it a crime for 
 workingmen to assemble to discuss the hours of toil, the 
 rates of wages, or any 'question bearing upon their industrial 
 conditions. It was not until 1825 that this legal ban was 
 removed from the workers of England, and even then the 
 organizations that they had established received no legal 
 status; they had no standing in the courts of the nation. 
 It is recorded that as late as 1869 an official of a labor or- 
 ganization, who had embezzled the funds belonging to his 
 organization, was prosecuted for the alleged crime, but the 
 court dismissed the action on the ground that "labor organi-
 
 56 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 zations were unknown to the law of England, and the person 
 committing the theft had not perpetrated a crime." 
 
 Prior to 1824 the law of England treated the workingmen 
 who endeavored to secure an amelioration of their condition 
 with great severity; strikes of any magnitude or duration 
 were almost impossible, as all attempts at organization for 
 such a purpose were prevented, as far as it was possible, by 
 the law against combination which was then in force. The 
 great labor disputes which had taken place previous to that 
 time, and, in fact, for years afterwards, were spasmodic out- 
 breaks of actual industrial revolt against innumerable griev- 
 ances instead of deliberate arrangements and skillfully or- 
 ganized systems for bringing about rational changes in exist- 
 ing industrial conditions. 
 
 The combination laws in operation from 1799 to the time 
 of their repeal in 1825 were extremely stringent in charac- 
 ter; in fact, the preamble of the Act of 1799 strikes the key- 
 note of the industrial legislation of that period, in which it 
 was stated: "Whereas, great numbers of journeymen manu- 
 facturers and workmen in various parts of this kingdom have, 
 by unlawful meetings and combinations, endeavored to ob- 
 tain advance of their wages and to effectuate other illegal 
 purposes; and the laws at present in force against such un- 
 lawful conduct have been found to be inadequate to the sup- 
 pression thereof, whereby it has become necessary that more 
 effectual provision should be made against such unlawful 
 combinations, and for preventing such unlawful practices in 
 the future and for bringing such offenders to more speedy 
 and exemplary justice." 
 
 The Act went further, and declared null and void all 
 agreements "between journeymen rjianu^acturers or work- 
 men for obtaining an advance of wages, or for lessening or 
 altering their hours of labor and for various other stated 
 purposes." Even the Act of 1825 held that it was "unlawful 
 for persons to meet for the purpose of consulting upon and 
 determining the rate of wages or prices which the persons 
 present at such meeting should demand for their work." 
 
 The interpretation of the law was left to the courts, and 
 the judges promptly declared labor combinations to be un- 
 lawful at common law, on the ground "that they were in
 
 TRADE UNIONS 57 
 
 restraint of trade." These decisions led to further and con- 
 tinued agitation on the part of the workmen, and in 1859 a 
 law was enacted providing that workmen should not be held 
 guilty of "molestation" or "obstruction," under the Act of 
 1825, simply because they entered into agreements to fix the 
 rate of wages or the hours of labor, or to endeavor peaceably 
 to persuade others to cease or abstain from work to produce 
 the same results. Again the interpretation of this law by 
 the courts was unsatisfactory to its creators, and in 1867 a 
 royal commission was appointed to inquire into the subject 
 and report upon it td Parliament. The result of this inves- 
 tigation brought forth two Acts in 1871 (i) the Trade Union 
 Act; (2) the Criminal Law Amendment Act. The latter 
 statute repealed the Acts of 1825 and 1859. This new Act 
 made some stringent provisions against employers and 
 against employees in order to prevent alleged coercion, vio- 
 lations, threats, etc. But there was no prohibition against 
 doing or conspiring to do any act on the ground that it was 
 in restraint of trade, unless it came within the scope of the 
 enumerated prohibitions. 
 
 It was thought that by the passage of these two Acts 
 ordinary strikes would be considered legal, providing the 
 prescribed limits were not exceeded. It was generally under- 
 stood that if men undertook a strike they were not in danger 
 of being prosecuted for criminal conspiracy. But in the fol- 
 lowing year Justice Brett held that "a threat of simultaneous 
 breach of contract by men was conduct which the jury ought 
 to regard as a conspiracy to prevent the company carrying 
 on its business." The workmen were sentenced to twelve 
 months' imprisonment. This decision and the severity of 
 the sentence caused a widespread agitation in the country 
 and a great revulsion of feeling, so much so that it resulted 
 in the appointment of another royal commission, which re- 
 ported to Parliament further alterations in the law; and in 
 iS/S the Home Secretary, Mr. R. A. Cross, introduced a bill 
 in Parliament entitled "The Conspiracy and Protection of 
 Property Act." The bill passed and was approved August 
 13, and is known as the "Trade Union Act of 1876." The 
 former picket clauses of the Act of 1871 were retained in the 
 new law, but this important addition was incorporated in
 
 58 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 the Act: "An agreement or combination of two or more 
 persons to do, or to procure to be done, any act in contem- 
 plation or furtherance of a trade dispute between employers 
 and workmen, shall not be punishable as a conspiracy if 
 such act as aforesaid when committed by one person w^ould 
 not be punishable as a crime." And in another section the 
 definition of a trade union is thus stated: "The term 'trade 
 union' means any combination, whether temporary or per- 
 manent, for regulating the relations between workmen and 
 masters, or between workmen and workmen, or between mas- 
 ters and masters, or for imposing restrictive conditions on 
 the- conduct of any trade or business, whether such combina- 
 tions would or would not, if the principal Act had not been 
 passed, have been deemed to have been an unlawful combina- 
 tion by reason of some one or more of its purposes being in 
 restraint of trade." Generally speaking, this Act gave the 
 English workingmen a wider latitude. One of the Trade 
 Union Reports says concerning it: "It has permitted us to 
 do in combination what we are permitted to do as individ- 
 uals, but which we were prohibited from doing in association 
 before that law came into eflfect; it has more particularly 
 established our rights; it has given us certain privileges and 
 restrictions, and at the same time has laid equal privileges 
 and restrictions upon employers." 
 
 In an important test case, "Allen vs. Flood," on Decem- 
 ber 14, 1897, this Act was sustained, and the British work- 
 men believed that the code of industrial warfare was precise- 
 ly' defined so that they could carry on either defensive or 
 offensive operations against employers without subjecting 
 themselves to the penalties of the law. But in June, 1900, 
 the celebrated Taflf-Vale Railway dispute took place, in which 
 a railway company obtained a decision with damages allowed 
 in the sum of $119,842 for the alleged injury done to the 
 railway company by the loss of its business and the extra 
 expense involved arising out of "unlawful and malicious con- 
 spiracy of the defendants." This decision was rendered by 
 Mr. Justice Farwell. An appeal was immediately taken to 
 the Court of Appeals, which held that "there was no section 
 in the Acts of 1871 and 1876 empowering a trade union to 
 sue or be sued, and that if the legislature had intended to
 
 TRADE UNIONS 59 
 
 make that possible the legislature well knew how in 
 plain terms to bring about such a result;" and, further,- the 
 Court of Appeals ruled in conclusion, "As there is no statute 
 empowering this action to be brought against the union in its 
 registered name, it is not maintainable against the Amalga- 
 mated Society of Railway Servants, and these defendants 
 must therefore be struck out, the injunction against them 
 must be dissolved, and the appeal as regards these defen- 
 dants must be allowed with costs here and below," 
 
 From this judgment of the Court of Appeals the Taff-Vale 
 Railway Company appealed to the House of Lords, and in 
 pronouncing the concluding opinion of that Court the Lord 
 Chancellor said: "In this case I am content to adopt the 
 judgment of Justice Farwell, with which I entirely concur; 
 and I cannot find any satisfactory answer to that judgment 
 in the judgment of the Court of Appeals which overruled it. 
 If the legislature has created a thing which can own property, 
 which can employ servants, which can inflict injury, it must 
 be taken, I think, to have impliedly given the power to make 
 it suable in a court of law for injuries purposely done by its 
 authority and procurement. The judgment of the Court of 
 Appeals is reversed, and that of Justice Farwell restored." 
 
 This decision was so startling that it was vigorously de- 
 nounced as a scandalous illustration of "judge-made law," 
 and "a perversion of the intent of Parliament by hostile 
 judicial interpretation." 
 
 The British trade-unionists immediately commenced a 
 campaign to secure the amendment of the Trade Union Acts, 
 by which the legislature should affirmatively and positively 
 declare that the funds of trade unions were not liable for any 
 act of a trade union that was not in itself criminal. The re- 
 sult was that in March, 1906, the Government brought in a 
 bill amending the "Conspiracy and Protection of Property 
 Act" to meet the demands of labor. This bill was passed 
 December 21, 1906, and is known as the "Trades Dispute 
 Act," which, because of its importance and application, I 
 quote. It is as follows: 
 
 An act done In pursuance of an agreement or combination by 
 two or more persons shall, if done in contemplation or further- 
 ance of a trade dispute, not be actionable unless the act, If done 
 without any such agreement or combination, would be actionable.
 
 6o SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 It shall be lawful for one or more persons, acting on their 
 own behalf, or on behalf of a trade union, or of an individual em- 
 ployer or firm, in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dis- 
 pute, to attend at or near a house or place where a person re- 
 sides or works or carries on business or happens to be, if they 
 so attend merely for the purpose of peacefully obtaining or com- 
 munfcating information, or of peacefully persuading any person 
 to work or abstain from working. 
 
 An act done by a person in contemplation or furtherance of 
 a trade dispute shall not be actionable on the ground only that 
 it induces some other person to break a contract of employment, 
 or that it is an interference with the trade, business, or employ- 
 ment of some other person, or with the right of some other per- 
 son to dispose of his capital or his labor as he wills. 
 
 An action against a trade union, whether of workmen or 
 masters, or against any members or officials thereof on behalf 
 of themselves and all other members of the trade union in respect 
 of any tortious act alleged to have been committed by or on 
 behalf of the trade union, shall not be entertained by any court. 
 
 Nothing in this section shall affect the liability of the trustees 
 of a trade union to be sued in the events provided for by the 
 Trades Union Act, 1871, section nine, except in respect of any 
 tortious act committed by or on behalf of the union in contem- 
 plation or in furtherance of a trade dispute. 
 
 Thus the working people of Great Britain secured their 
 
 right to organize and to exercise their activities upon the 
 
 economic field for their own and for the common protection. 
 
 Scribner's Magazine. 38: 627-33. November, 1905. 
 Hope for Labor Unions. J. Laurence Laughlin. 
 
 What, then, are the means adopted by the unions to raise 
 wages? Obviously, it is not possible to predicate in one 
 statement what is true of all unions. There are many dif- 
 fering practical policies in force; and yet it is possible to in- 
 dicate the one common economic principle underlying the 
 action of the majority of the large and influential organiza- 
 tions. To be brief, the practical policy of labor unions is 
 based on the principle of a monopoly of the supply of labor- 
 ers in a given occupation. By combination also the gain of 
 collective bargaining is obtained. Just as manufacturers at- 
 tempt to control the supply and the price of an article, so 
 the unions attempt to fix the rate of wages by controlling 
 the number of possible competitors for hire. It would seem 
 that what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the 
 gander. 
 
 The principle of monopoly, it should be observed, is ef- 
 fective in regulating price only if the monopoly is fairly
 
 TRADE UNIONS 6i 
 
 complete; it must include practically all of the supply. But 
 even under these conditions the price cannot be settled alone 
 by those who control the supply. The demand of those who 
 buy is equally necessary to the outcome. As a rule, the 
 monopolistic seller must set a price which will induce the 
 demand to take off the whole supply. Too high a price will 
 lessen consumption and lessen demand. 
 
 In a similar way, not only must there be an active demand 
 for labor from employers, but to fix the price of labor a un- 
 ion must control practically all of a given kind of labor. 
 Here we find the pivotal difficulty in the policy of the un- 
 ions; and we find clashes of opinion as to the facts. If the 
 union does not contain all the persons competing for the 
 given kind of work, then its theory of monopoly will be a 
 failure in practice. In fact, the unions composed of unskilled 
 laborers, such as teamsters, can never include all the per- 
 sons, near and far, capable of competing for their positions. 
 The principle of monopoly cannot be made to work success- 
 fully in such unions. 
 
 But it will be objected by union leaders that it is their 
 policy to gather every laborer into the union, and thus 
 eventually control all the supply in an invincible monopoly. 
 The unions, however, do not, in fact, admit all comers. 
 Some, such as machinists, admirably demand skill as a pre- 
 requisite of admission; others, such as telegraphers, make 
 the admission of apprentices practically impossible; while 
 others again, like some woodworkers, find difficulty in get- 
 ting apprentices, and consequently urge training in the public 
 schools. In such variety of practice there, nevertheless, 
 emerges the fact that many unions try to create an artificial 
 monopoly by excluding others, and yet try to keep the union 
 scale of wages by preventing in many ways the employment 
 of non-union men. On the other hand, should the unions 
 adopt the plan of admitting all who apply, then all laborers 
 being unionists, the situation would be the same as regards 
 supply as if there were no unions. Could the unions then 
 maintain a "union scale" of wages? Evidently, if the whole 
 supply of laborers is thus introduced into the field of em- 
 ployment, then the rate of wages for all in any one occupa- 
 tion can never be more than that rate which will warrant
 
 62 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 the employment of all that is, the market rate of wages. 
 Although all laborers are included in the unions, they would 
 have the advantages, whatever they may be, of collective 
 bargaining. Yet if the unions really believe that when every 
 laborer is inside the union collective bargaining can of itself, 
 irrespective of the supply, raise the rate of wages, they are 
 doomed to disappointment. Wholly aside from the influence 
 of demand, in order to control the rate of wages, the unions 
 which include all laborers must effectually control immigra- 
 tion and the rate of births. No one, it scarcely need be 
 said, is so ignorant of economic history as to believe that 
 such a control over births can be maintained. There is little 
 hope for higher wages by this method of action. 
 
 In the anthracite-coal regions, for instance, it will be 
 said that strenuous efforts were made to force all the men to 
 join the unions. If not only those on the ground, but all 
 newcomers, are admitted to membership, then not all union- 
 ists can find employment in the mines. At the best, if they 
 can fix the rate of wages which employers must pay those 
 who do work, some will remain unemployed. In such a case, 
 the working members must support the idle which is equiva- 
 lent to a reduction of the wages of those who work or the 
 unemployed must seek work elsewhere. Sooner or later, for 
 men capable of doing a particular sort of work an adjust- 
 ment as a whole between the demand for laborers and the 
 supply of them must be reached on the basis of a market 
 rate. 
 
 Whatever the reasons, the fact is to-day unmistakable 
 that the unions include only a small fraction of the total 
 body of laborers. In spite of the proclaimed intention to 
 include in a union each worker of every occupation, and then 
 to federate all the unions, the unions contain far less than 
 a majority of the working force of the country. To the 
 present time, therefore, the practical policy of the unions is 
 one of artificial monopoly; that is, not able to control the 
 whole supply, the union attempts to fix a "union scale" and 
 maintain only its own members at work. This situation, 
 consequently, means always and inevitably the existence of 
 non-union men, against whom warfare must be waged. Under 
 this system high wages for some can be obtained only by
 
 TRADE UNIONS 63 
 
 the sacrifice of others outside the union. The economic 
 means chosen by the unions, then, to gain higher wages are 
 practicable only for a part of the labor body, and then only 
 provided all other competitors can be driven from the field. 
 The policy of artificial monopoly being, thus, the common 
 principle of a great majority of unions, we may next briefly 
 consider the inevitable consequences of such a policy. 
 
 1. The immediate corollary of the union policy is a war- 
 fare a I'outrance against non-union mei^. , This hostility 
 against brother workers is excused on the ground that it is 
 the only means of keeping up the "union scale" of wages. 
 Although an artificial monopoly is unjust and selfish, and 
 certain to end in failure, the unions have doggedly adhered^ 
 to it so far as to create a code of ethics which justifies any 
 act which preserves the monopoly. This is the reason why 
 a non-union mian seeking work is regarded as a traitor to 
 his class, when tlr reality he is a traitor to an insufficient 
 economic principle. As a human being he has the same 
 right to live and work as any other, whether a member of a 
 union or not. The arrogance of unionism in ruling on the 
 fundamentals of human^iberty, the assumption of infallibility 
 and superiority to institutions which have-been won only by 
 centuries of political sacrifice and effort, is something super- 
 nal something to be resented by every lover of liberty. 
 Unionism, if unjust to other men, cannot stand. 
 
 2. Since the "union scale" of an artificial monopoly is 
 clearly not the market rate of wages, the maintenance of the 
 former can be perpetuated only by limiting the supply to 
 the members of the union. The only means of keeping non- 
 union men from competition is force. Consequently, the 
 inevitable outcome of the present policy of many labor or- 
 ganizations is lawlessness and an array of power against the 
 state. Their policy being what it is, their purposes can be 
 successfully carried out only by force, and by denying to 
 outsiders the privileges of equality and liberty. Sometimes 
 the means of enforcing their unenacted views is known as 
 "peaceful picketing"; but this is only a mask for threats of 
 violence. In fact, intimidation of all kinds up to actual mur- 
 der has been employed to drive non-union competitors out 
 of the labor market. Picketing, boycotts, breaking heads.
 
 64 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 slugging, murder all outrages against law and order, against 
 a government of liberty and equality are the necessary con- 
 sequences of the existing beliefs of unionists, and they can- 
 not gain their ends without them. So long as the unions 
 adhere to their present principles so long will they be driven 
 to defy the majesty of the law, and work to subvert a proper 
 respect for the orderly conduct of government. 
 
 The dictum of a few men in a union has been set above 
 the equality of men before the law. The union lays down 
 an ethical proposition, and by its own agencies sets itself to 
 apply it at any and all cost. This is a method of tyranny 
 and not of libertj'. The right of the humblest person to be 
 protected in his life and property is the very cornerstone of 
 free government. It means more for the weak than for the 
 strong. Therefore the opinions of a loosely constituted 
 body, representing a limited set of interests, should not and 
 v/ill not be allowed to assume a power greater than the 
 political liberty for all, rich or poor, which has been a 
 thousand years in the making. By the abuses of unionism 
 there has been set up an imperium in itnpcrio one inconsis- 
 tent with the other. One or the other must give way. Which 
 one it shall be no one can doubt. The dictum of rioters will 
 never be allowed by modern society to eradicate the benef- 
 icent results which have issued from the long evolution of 
 civil liberty. If the platform of the unions is opposed to the 
 fundamentals of law and progress, it must yield to the 
 inevitable and be reconstructed on correct principles of eco- 
 nomics and justice. 
 
 3. The labor leaders, finding themselves opposed by the 
 strong forces of society, have at times made use of politics. 
 They have sought to influence executive action in their favor. 
 Mayors of cities are under pressure not to use the police to 
 maintain order when strikers are intimidating non-union men. 
 More than that, since the presence of soldiers would secure 
 safety from force to non-union workers, union leaders have 
 urged governors, and even the President of the United 
 States, to refrain from sending troops to points where dis- 
 orderly strikes are in operation. Not only the police and 
 the soldier)', but even the courts, when used solely to enforce 
 the law as creAted by the majority of voters, have been con-
 
 TRADE UNIONS 65 
 
 spicuously attacked as the enemies of "organized labor." The 
 hostility of these agencies in truth is not toward labor, or its 
 organization, but toward the perverse and misguided policy 
 adopted by the labor leaders. 
 
 The entry of unions into politics, in general, is a sign of 
 sound growth. It is, at least, a recognition that the only 
 legitimate way of enforciTig their opinions upon others is 
 by getting them incorporated into law by constitutional 
 means. And yet legislation in favor of special interests will 
 be met by the demand of equal treatment for all other in- 
 terests concerned; and in this arena the battle must be fought 
 out. The unions will not have their own way by any means. 
 So far as concerns the rate of wages, in any event, political 
 agitation and legislation can do little. The forces governing 
 the demand and supply of labor are beyond the control of 
 legislation. But other subjects of labor legislation have been 
 introduced, as is well known, such as eight-hour laws, high 
 wages for state employees, and demands for employment by 
 the government of only union men. All these efforts would 
 be largely unnecessary were the action of the unions founded 
 on another principle than monopoly. 
 
 4. The' difficulties arising from this incorrect policy of 
 artificial monopoly of the labor supply have been felt by the 
 unions, but they have not been assigned to their true cause. 
 Believing in the theory, even though incorrect, they have 
 gone on enforcing their demands by methods unrelated to 
 the real causes at work. They have tried to strengthen their 
 position by claiming a share in the ownership of the estab- 
 lishment in which they work, or a right of property in the 
 product they produce, or a part in the business manage- 
 ment of the concern which employs them. They have tried 
 to say who shall be hired, who dismissed, where materials 
 shall be bought, to whom goods shall be carried or sold, 
 and the like. Their purpose is not always clear; but it seems 
 to be a part of a plan to keep the employer at their mercy, 
 and thus under the necessity of submitting to any and all 
 demands as regards wages. 
 
 In this matter the unions cannot succeed. The very es- 
 sence of a definite rate of wages is that the laborer contracts 
 himself out of all risk. If the workman claims to be a
 
 66 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 partner in the commercial enterprise, asking in addition a 
 part of the gains, he must also be willing to share the losses. 
 This is obviously impossible for the ordinary working man. 
 Hired labor and narrow means go together. Capital can, 
 labor cannot, wait without serious loss. Laborers, therefore, 
 cannot take the risks of industry and assume the familiar 
 losses of business. This is the fall and conclusive reason 
 why the laborer contracts himself out of risk and accepts a 
 definite rate of wages. If he does this, he is estopped, both 
 morally and legally, from further proprietary claims on the 
 product or establishment. 
 
 By way of resume, it is to be seen that the attempt to 
 increase the income of labor on the unionist principle of a 
 limitation of competitors has led into an impasse, where further 
 progress is blocked by the following evils : 
 
 1. The wrong to non-union men. 
 
 2. The defiance of the established order of society. 
 
 3. A futile resort to legislation. 
 
 4. The interference with the employer's management. 
 
 In contrast with the existing policy, which can end only 
 in discouragement and failure, permit me, wholly in the in- 
 terest of the membership of the unions, to suggest another 
 policy which will certainly end in higher wages and open a 
 road to permanent progress for all working men. Instead of 
 the principle of monopoly of competitors, I offer the prin- 
 ciple of productivity, as a basis on which the action of 
 unions should be founded. 
 
 By productivity is meant the practical ability to add to 
 the product turned out in any industry. The productivity of 
 labor operates on its price just as does utility on the price 
 of any staple article improve the quality of it and you in- 
 crease the demand for it. This general truth is notliing new. 
 The purchaser of a horse will pay more for a good horse 
 than for a poor one. A coat made of good material will sell 
 for more than one made of poor material. Why? Because 
 it yields more utility, or satisfaction, to the purchaser. In 
 the same way, if the utility of the labor to the employer is 
 increased, it will be more desired; that is, if the laborer yields 
 more of that for which the employer hires labor, the em- 
 ployer will pay more for it, on purely commercial grounds.
 
 TRADE UNIONS dy 
 
 Now it happens that where productivity is low that is, 
 where men are generally unskilled the supply is quite be- 
 yond the demand for that kind of labor. Productivity being 
 given, supply regulates the price. Obviously, to escape from 
 the thralldom of an oversupply of labor in any given 
 class, or occupation, the laborer must improve his produc- 
 tivity. That is another way of saying that if he trains him- 
 self and acquires skill, he moves up into a higher and less 
 crowded class of labor. The effect on wages is twofold: 
 (i) he is now in a group where the supply is relatively less 
 to demand than before; and (2) his utility as a laborer to 
 the employer is greater and acts to increase the demand for 
 his services. Productivity, therefore, is the one sure method 
 of escape from the depressing effects on wages of an over- 
 sujjply of labor. 
 
 It is unnecessary to describe in detail the forms by which 
 productivity shows itself in the concrete. If the laborer is a 
 teamster, he can improve in sobriety, punctuality, knowledge 
 of horses, skill in driving, improved methods of loading and 
 unloading, avoidance of delays, and in scrupulous honesty. 
 If, moreover, he studies his employer's business and consults 
 his interest instead of studying how to put him at a disad- 
 vantage, or making work he still further increases his pro- 
 ductivity and value to his employer. In other occupations 
 and in other grades of work the process is simple. In fact, 
 it is the ordinary influence of skill on wages; and men have 
 been acting on an understanding of it time out of mind. 
 
 To this suggestion it may be objected that the workman 
 who makes himself more capable receives no more from an 
 employer than the less capable; that employers treat all alike 
 and are unwilling to recognize skill. The fact is doubted; 
 lor it is incredible that intelligent managers should be for- 
 any length of time blind to their own self-interest. But if 
 they are thus blind, and if they place an obstacle to the 
 recognition of merit and skill, then we at once see how the 
 unions can make a legitimate use of their organized power 
 by demanding higher wages for higher productivity. Such 
 demands are sure to meet with success. 
 
 This method of raising wages, based on forces leading to 
 a lessened supply and an increased demand, shows a dif-
 
 68 SICLECTED ARTlLl.KS 
 
 lerencc as wide as the poles from the existing artificial 
 method of "bucking" against an oversupply by an ineffective 
 monopoly. To the laborer who wishes higher wages the 
 advantage of the former over the latter is so evident and so 
 great that further illustration or emphasis on this point 
 would be out of place. In the economic history of the lasv 
 fifty or sixty years in the United States and Great Britain it 
 appears that money wages have risen from about fifty per 
 cent, for unskilled labor to over one hundred per cent, for 
 higher grades of work, while the hours of labor per day have 
 been lowered considerably. Moreover, this gain in money 
 wages has been accompanied by a fall in the prices of many 
 articles consumed by the laboring class. This fortunate out- 
 come has gone on simultaneously with a progress in inven- 
 tions and in the industrial arts never before equalled in the 
 history of the world, and it is a progress which has enabled 
 the same labor and capital to turn out a greater number of 
 units of product. In fact, the enlargement of the output has 
 been such that each unit could be sold at a lower price than 
 ever before and yet the value of the total product of the 
 industry has sufliced to pay the old return upon capital and 
 also to pay absolutely higher money wages to the workmen 
 for a less number of hours of labor in the day. Indeed, one 
 is inclined to believe that the gain in wages by the working 
 classes in recent years has been due far more to this in- 
 creased productivity of industry and much less to the de- 
 mands of labor unions than has been generally supposed. 
 The productivity method of raising wages has the advantage 
 over the one in present use in that it gives a quid pro quo, 
 and excites no antagonism on the part of the employer. A 
 pressure by strikes to have productivity recognized must be 
 i>uccessful, since an employer cannot aflford the loss conse- 
 quent on hiring an inefficient workman. The insistence, as 
 at present, on a uniform minimum rate of wages by process 
 of terrorism, and without regard to the supply of possible 
 competitors, cannot for a moment be considered in com- 
 parison with the hopeful and successful method through im- 
 proved productivity. The one is outside, the other within, 
 the control of any individual initiative. 
 
 Keeping these things in mind, those of us who would like
 
 TRADE UNIONS 69 
 
 to see a definite and permanent progress of the laboring 
 classes believe that here the unions have a great opportunity. 
 They must drop their dogged attempts to enforce a policy 
 against the oversupply of labor by a futile monopoly; it is as 
 useless and hopeless as to try to sweep back the sea with a 
 broom. On the other hand, should the unions demand as 
 conditions of admission definite tests of efficiency and char- 
 acter, and work strenuously to raise the level of their pro- 
 ductivity, they would become limited bodies, composed of 
 men of high skill and efficiency. The difficulty of supply 
 would be conquered. A monopoly would be created, but it 
 would be a natural and not an artificial one. The distinction 
 between the union and non-union men would, then, be one be- 
 tween the skilled and the unskilled. The contest between 
 union and non-union men would no longer be settled by 
 force. Thus the sympathy of employers and the public 
 would be transferred from the non-union, or the unfit, to the 
 union, or the fit men. If space were sufficient, interesting 
 cases could be cited here of. unions which have already 
 caught sight of the truth, and greatly improved their posi- 
 tion thereby. This policy unmistakably opens the path of 
 hope and progress for the future. 
 
 In contrast with the mistaken policy of the present, we 
 may set down the different ways in which productivity would 
 act upon the four evils enumerated at the end of the first 
 part of our study: 
 
 1. The wrong to the non-union man would disappear. 
 The rivalry of union and non-union men would no longer be 
 the competition of equals, because the non-union, or inferior, 
 men would be out of the competition for given kinds of 
 work. There is no wrong to a non-union man if he is ex- 
 cluded from work for inefficiency. The wrong of to-day is 
 that the union often shields numbers of incapables. 
 
 2. Since the unionists would represent skill, and the non- 
 unionists lack of skill, there would be no need of force to 
 hold the position of natural monopoly. The perpetual de- 
 fiance of the law in order to terrorize non-union men would 
 have no reason for its existence; and the worst phases of 
 unionism would disappear. Such a consummation alone 
 would be worth infinite pains; but if it should come in con-
 
 70 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 nection with a policy which is morally certain to improve the 
 condition of the workmen, not to reach out for it is little 
 short of crime. 
 
 3. As another consequence of the new principle the 
 unionist would find himself and his comrades steadily gain- 
 ing a higher standard of living without resort to the artificial 
 methods of politics. Legislation would not be needed to 
 fight against the results of the oversupply of labor. Like 
 ordinary business men, the unionists would find their affairs 
 peacefully settled in the arena of industry by permanent 
 forces, and not in the uncertain strife of legislatures and 
 political conventions, in which they are likely to be outwitted 
 by clever party leaders. And yet the workmen would retain 
 in their organized unions the power to command justice 
 from those employers who are unjust. 
 
 4. The new policy would insure community of interest 
 between employer and employe. This objective is so impor- 
 tant, it has been so outrageously ignored in countless labor 
 struggles, that to attain it would almost be like the millen- 
 nium; and yet, instead of being moonshine, it is simple com- 
 mon sense. If the laborers knew and acted upon the fact 
 that skill and goodwill were reasons why employers could 
 pay better wages, the whole face of the present situation 
 would be changed. If it were objected that the unfair and 
 grasping employer would pocket the surplus due to the im- 
 proved productivity of the laborers, it must be remembered 
 that the unions still retain their power of collective bar- 
 gaining. But, of course, the unions must not believe that 
 demands can be made for advances of an unlimited kind far 
 beyond the services rendered to production of anj- one 
 agent, such as labor. 
 
 The new proposals would also completely remove the 
 disastrous tendency to make work. If men obtain payment 
 in proportion to their productivity, the greater *the product 
 the higher the wages; for this has been the reading of eco- 
 nomic history, no matter how individuals here and there pro- 
 test. Hence the result would be lower expenses of produc- 
 tion, a fall in the prices of staple goods, and a generally in- 
 creased welfare among those classes whose satisfactions 
 have been increased.
 
 TRADE UNIONS 71 
 
 Not only would the consumer be benefited, but the in- 
 creased productivity of industry would enable the home 
 producer to sell his goods cheaper in foreign markets. As 
 things are going now, the hindrances to production and mak- 
 ing work by unions is threatening to contract our foreign 
 trade. The new policy proposed to the unions would there- 
 fore aid the United States in keeping its present advantages 
 in the field of international competition.
 
 LAWS AND COURT DECISIONS 
 
 Current Literature. 46: 127-32. February, 1909. 
 
 Contempt of Samuel Gompers. 
 
 In the city of St. Louis is a manufacturing plant calle<l 
 the Bucks Stove and Range Company. It has a capital of 
 one million dollars, and employs 750 men. Its president, 
 J. W. Van Cleave, is also president of the iManufacturers' 
 Association. It has an "open shop" that is, it employs both 
 union and non-union labor. In the nickel-plating depart- 
 ment the thirty-five union men had a dispute with their em- 
 ployer over the hours of labor. There was up to this time' 
 a standing agreement to arbitrate such disputes, but this dis- 
 pute was not arbitrated. A strike ensued. The contest fol- 
 lowed much the usual line of such contests, until it was 
 acted upon by the Federation of Labor, which endorsed the 
 cause of the union men and ordered a boycott of the prod- 
 ucts of the Bucks Stove and Range Company. The com- 
 pany took the case to court, claiming that such a boycott is 
 an illegal conspiracy in restraint of trade. The Supreme 
 Court of the District of Columbia decided against the labor 
 men, and issued a preliminary injunction against their adver- 
 tising the company in the Federation's "We don't patronize" 
 list, and against their further interference with the business 
 of the company bj'^ means of request or advice to others not 
 to buy its wares. This injunction was later made perma- 
 nent. The labor leaders, claiming that the injunction inter- 
 fered with their constitutional rights in forbidding them to 
 advise or request others not to buy the company's wares, 
 refused to obey it. They were accordingly cited before the 
 court for contempt, found guilty, and sentenced as already 
 stated. The political issue concerning court injunctions, that 
 figured so largely in the recent presidential campaign, drew 
 its vitality chiefly from this case. A considerable number
 
 74 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 of bills are now before Congress for changes in the statutes 
 regarding injunctions, and an important congressional dis- 
 cussion of this particular case is almost certain to be the 
 result, whenever those bills come up for consideration in the 
 sessions at Washington. 
 
 It is never an easy thing to reduce a contest of this kind 
 to its simplest elements. In this case the equity of the situa- 
 tion lies chiefly in the determination of this one point 
 whether the court that granted the restraining order went too 
 far and forbade not simply a "secondary boycott," but also 
 a perfectly legal exercise of the right of the labor union men 
 to agree among themselves not to purchase the company's 
 wares, and to request their friends to do the same. The 
 language of the court, in granting the preliminary injunction, 
 concedes the latter right. Says Judge Gould: 
 
 "Defendants have the right, either individually or collectively, 
 to sell their labor to whom they please, on such terms as they 
 please, and to decline to buy pJaintiflf's stoves; they also have the 
 right to decline to traffic witli de.ilers who handle plaintiff's 
 stoves. But Sailor Bros., for instance, have an equal right to 
 buy the plaintiff's stoves, and plaintiff has an equal right to sell 
 said stoves to Sailor Bros., and when defendants and those asso- 
 ciated with them combine to interfere with or obstruct, without 
 justifiable cause, the freedom of buying and selling which should 
 exist between plaintiff and Sailor Bros., they infringe upon the 
 rights of both and do an unlawful act. The same principle which 
 is the basis of their trade freedom is also the basis of the free- 
 dom of plaintiff and Sailor Bros, to deal with each other untram- 
 me!ed by defendants." 
 
 In arguing the case for the labor leaders, in the recent con-' 
 tempt proceedings, ex-Judge Parker, their attorney, seems 
 to approve the positions as above stated by the court. It 
 was not so much this particular ruling, he says, that seemed 
 to his clients the most serious injury, but "a feature of the 
 order that was not discussed in the opinion," and which is 
 described by Mr. Parker as "a command that they shall not 
 discuss that decision, that there shall lie no longer freedom 
 of speech, that they shall not tell their organizations about 
 it, about what has happened and what the court has decided; 
 practically, that they shall not go to Congress and ask for 
 legislation relieving them from what they regard as an im- 
 proper law; that they shall not write editorials about it." 
 Such an order, he insists, is "absolutely void." because it 
 oflfends against the federal Constitution. Even an act of
 
 TRADE UNIONS 75 
 
 Congress to that effect would be void, and equally so a court 
 decree. 
 
 This is the crux of the whole question, whether Messrs. 
 Gompers, Mitchell and Morrison, in their actions after the 
 court's decree was rendered, disobeyed any part of the order 
 except a part that was void by reason of being unconstitu- 
 tional. After the preliminary injunction was issued, Mr. 
 Gompers, in a newspaper interview, said: "When it comes to 
 a choice between surrendering my rights as a free American 
 citizen or violating the injunction of the courts, I do not' 
 hesitate t.o say that I shall exercise my rights as between 
 the two."' The name of the Bucks Stove and Range Com- 
 pany continued to appear in the organ of the Federation, 
 "edited by Mr. Gompers, on the "unfair list," until the per- 
 manent injunction was made, and even after that date bound 
 volumes of The Federationist containing copies with the "un- 
 fair list" in, were sold and distributed, and thousands of 
 copies of the proceedings of .the national convention con- 
 taining notice of the boycott were published. In The Pcdcra- 
 tiouist, moreover, continued to appear notices like this : 
 
 "Bear in mind that an injunction by a court in no way com- 
 pels Labor or Labor' .s friends to buy tlie product of the Van 
 (."leave Bucks Stove and Range Company of St. Louis. 
 
 "Fellow-workers, be true and helpful to yourselves and to 
 eacli other. Remember that united effort in cause of right and 
 justice must triumph." 
 
 And in a speech in New York City, made after the per- 
 manent injunction was issued, Mr. Gompers spoke as follows: 
 "They tell us that we must not boycott. Well, if the boycott 
 is illegal we wont boycott. But I have no knowledge that any 
 luw has been passed or any order issued by any court compelling 
 us to buy, for instance, a range, or a stove from the Buck's 
 Stove and Range Company. You know that myself and several 
 are enjoined from telling you, and we are not prepared to tell 
 you, that the Bucks Stove and Range Company is unfair." 
 
 The judge before whom the contempt proceedings were 
 heard was not the same as the judge who issued the injunc- 
 tion. Judge Wright, who decided the contempt case, is a 
 Roosevelt appointee, a lifelong friend of President-elect Taft, 
 and also a friend of Senator Foraker, who requested his ap- 
 pointment by the President several years ago. Mis decision 
 in the case covers seventy-five typewritten pages, and its 
 language is very severe. Mr. Gompers's acts are described 
 as done "in wilful disobedience and deliberate violation of
 
 76 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 the injunction, and for the purpose of inciting and accomplish- 
 ing the violation generally and in pursuance of the original 
 common design of himself and confederates to bring about 
 the breach of plaintiff's existing contracts with others, de- 
 >prive the plaintiff of property (the goodwill of its business) 
 without due process of law, restrain comm,erce among the 
 several states." The general tenor of the decision and its 
 striking literary style may be gathered from the following 
 extract: 
 
 "The position of the respondents involves ciuestions vital to 
 the preservation of social order, questions which smite the foun- 
 dations of civil government, and upon which tlie supremacy of 
 the law over anarchy and riot verily depends. 
 
 "Are controversies to bo determined in tribunals formally 
 constituted by the law of the land for that purpose, or shall 
 each who falls at odds with another take his own furious way? 
 Are causes pending In courts to be decided by courts for liti- 
 gants, or the view of each distempered litigant Imposed? 
 
 "Are decrees of courts to look for their execution to the 
 supremacy of law or tumble in the wake of unsuccessful suitors 
 who overset them and lay about the matter with their own hands 
 In turbulence proportioned to the frenzy of their disappointment?" 
 
 As for freedom of speech, Judge Wright declares that 
 the federal Constitution guarantees "only that in so far as 
 the federal government is concerned, its Congress shall not 
 abridge it, and leaves the subject to the regulation of the 
 several states, where it belongs." The question involved in 
 the case, he thinks, is whether tlic tribunal of a certain class 
 or the tribunals of the whole people shall be supreme ""the 
 supremacy of law over the rabble or its prostration under 
 the feet of the disordered throng." After sentence was de- 
 clared, and an appeal from the decision was taken, the labor 
 leaders were released on bail. President Roosevelt was 
 urged to grant a pardon to the three men, on the ground 
 that their sentences are extretne. He issued a statement to 
 the effect that the matter could not properly come before 
 him for consideration as long as there is an appeal pending 
 and the courts have not finished with the case. The appeal 
 can hardly be argued before March 4, and the request for a 
 pardon must then, of course, come before President Tafl. 
 The attorney for the Bucks Stove and Range Company con- 
 tends, however, that the President has no power to issue .1 
 pardon in this case, since the offence committed is in con- 
 nection with a civil case, and the President's power to par- 
 don is limited to offences against the United States.
 
 Trade unions ^^ 
 
 The spirit in which the three men are regarded in labor 
 union circles is well illustrated in the following words from 
 a letter to Mr. Gompers from the executive committee of the 
 New York State Federation: "History is replete with hero- 
 ism displayed by men and women who forget self in a grand 
 endeavor to ameliorate the conditions of the common people, 
 and thousands of those who now cry out against methods 
 used by organized labor are beneficiaries of the successful 
 efforts put forth by the martyrs who have gone before. So 
 will millions yet unborn benefit by the sacrifices now being 
 made by you and your compatriots." Tlie Socialist press, 
 usually bitterly hostile to Mr. Gompers, has only words of 
 praise for his present stand, and of condemnation for the 
 court. Victor L. Berger. of the Milwaukee Social Democratic 
 Herald, writes : "The only way to resist is to resist. Let every 
 labor paper in the country print the boycott list, including the 
 boycott on the Buck Stove company, which ought to be given 
 special prominence. Am willing that the Herald shall do so. 
 However, in order to make it effective, all the labor papers 
 must take concerted action." 
 
 It can not be said, however, that the daily press of the 
 country manifest much solicitude for Mr. Gompers and his 
 friends. The Baltimore American calls attention to the fact 
 that in the original proceeding the punishment was not even 
 a fine. Employers of labor, it says, can with greater justice 
 complain of the leniency of the court than the labor leaders 
 can have for complaint of undue harshness. It thinks that 
 the proof of disobedience was clear even in the matter of 
 the "secondary boycott" (boycott of others not a party to 
 the dispute who continue to trade with the party that is list- 
 ed as "unfair"), which was more vigorously prosecuted after 
 the decree than before. Says the New York Tribune : "They 
 set themselves up over the courts as an authority on the Con- 
 stitution, but their pretext that the constitutional guarantee 
 of free speech and a free press insured the right to destroy 
 reputations and property as they were doing is the flimsiest 
 possible. ... If they stood for a better cause they would 
 still deserve exemplary punishment. But they stand for a 
 bad cause in particular a boycott in support of a local union 
 which violated its contract, and in general a combination to
 
 78 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 force the preference of its members to all workers excluded 
 from its rolls." The Kansas City Times thinks the court's 
 point is unanswerable that even if an error is committed 
 in a decree it is imperative to the welfare of society that it 
 be obeyed. "Courts," it remarks, "are not above criticism, 
 but there is a vast difference between criticism of judicial 
 action and open defiance of a court decree." 
 
 The most common criticism of the attitude of the labor 
 leaders is that they had a right to appeal but no right to 
 disobey. Says the Philadelphia Record: "If they were con- 
 vinced of error in the application of the law or injustice in 
 its operation, they should have sought their remedy in ap- 
 peal to the higher courts or to federal and state legislatures 
 for corrective statutory regulation. That way is open to all. 
 In putting the Eederation of Labor in opposition to the 
 judicial enforcement of the law they make a tactical mistake. 
 The Eederation of Labor is not a law unto itself." The New 
 York Press, one of the most radical of the dailies, takes the 
 same view. It says: "Very clear was the real issue the 
 issue on which Gompers and his associates were found 
 gyilty. It was, and must ever be, that in laying down the 
 law the court cannot be overruled by an individual. The 
 private individual in a community of law and government 
 can never have the privilege of refusing to obey the man- 
 date of the courts." The Philadelphia Ledffcr thinks that 
 nobody desires to see the labor leaders actually serve out 
 their sentences, since "the great object sought in the dispute 
 has been already attained." The New York Sun for several 
 days after the decision was announced printed at the head of 
 its editorial page utterances by President Roosevelt in op- 
 position to the boycott, among them the following from a 
 letter to Senator Knox, October Ji, igo8: "The blacklist and 
 the secondary boycott are two of the most cruel forms of 
 oppression ever devised by the wit of man for the infliction 
 of suffering on his weaker fellows." 
 
 What comes the nearest to support of the labor leaders 
 in their contention that we can find in an influential daily 
 paper is an editorial in the Springfield Republican. It re- 
 grets the temper shown by Judge Wright and "the extremity 
 of his language," but it admits that no other decision could
 
 TRADE UNIONS 79 
 
 be expected since the order of the court "had been openly 
 and wantonly disobeyed." It is only by going back to the 
 injunction itself, this paper thinks, that any material can be 
 found upon which to hang an argument. As it understands 
 the injunction, it applied not only to the secondary boycott 
 but to the boycott in its most simple and inoffensive form 
 a form that did not include acts of intimidation or violence. 
 Reasoning from this understanding of the case which is at 
 variance with the utterances already quoted of Judge Gould 
 in granting the injunction The Republican goes on to say: 
 
 "To all appearances the injunction in thfs case enforces a 
 principle which would make it decidedly dangerous for two or 
 more persons to agree, upon any grievance, to cease patronizing 
 a merchant or manufacturer particularly to publish or spread 
 the report of their action. Thus the case may easily involve 
 that gross abuse of the power of the equity court which has be- 
 come so common and the subject of so much agitation. This 
 case, moreover, raises a question of the freedom of speech and 
 of the press, which cannot be overlooked. . . . 
 
 "The courts are reducing oUr boasted freedom and regard for 
 the weaker industrial classes to a strange level compared with 
 what obtains in monarchical England. They have been going 
 too far; they will have to recede at least until our society 
 has adopted substitute measures for the due protection of the 
 laboring masses." 
 
 One other interesting stateme'nt on the labor side of the 
 case comes, strangely enough, from Mr. Van Cleave himself, 
 who was the plaintiff in this case. A number of the laboF 
 leaders refer with bitterness to the fact that while the labor 
 unions are enjoined from using the boycott, the employers 
 have not been stopped by the courts, and perhaps can not 
 be, from applying the black list to employees. Mr. Van 
 Cleave also looks upon his side of the case, and attributes the 
 existence of the boycott more to unfair employers than to 
 unfair labor unions. Writing in American Industries, he 
 says: "Let me repeat here what I have often said before, 
 that I am just as much opposed to the greedy and tyrannical 
 employers, outside as well as inside the trusts, as I am to 
 the boycotters. They have done much to incite boycotting 
 and the other vices which are perpetrated by many of the 
 labor unions. These recreant employers numerically com- 
 prise only a small proportion of their guild, but their prac- 
 tices have injured every worthy employer in the country. 
 In fact, I condemn them more than I do the objectionable 
 labor unionists, for they stand higher socially, they are bet-
 
 8o SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 ter educated, and consequently better conduct is expected of 
 them." 
 
 Forum. 42: 535-51. December, 1909. 
 
 Organized Labor and Court Decisions. James Boyle. 
 
 Conspiracies, Strikes and Lockouts. 
 
 The first trial in America under the old common law of 
 England against trade combinations was in New York, when 
 a number of journeymen bakers were convicted of conspir- 
 ing not to bake bread until their wages were raised. There 
 is, however, no record of any sentence having been passed 
 upon them. The next case is an historic one, as being the 
 first in America in which there are complete records. It is 
 that of the boot and shoemakers of Philadelphia, in 1806. 
 The defendants were indicted for: 
 
 First. Conspiring to Increase their wages as cordwainers 
 [shoemakers]. 
 
 Second. Conspiring to prevent by threats, menaces and other 
 unlawful means other workmen from working, except at wages 
 they had fixed. 
 
 Third. I'niting themselves into a club and combination, mak- 
 ing and ordaining imhiwful and arbitrary by-laws, rules, and or- 
 ders amongst themselves, and thereby governing themselves and 
 other cordwainers, and unlawfully and unjustly exacting great 
 sums of money, and conspiring that they would not work for any 
 master or person who should employ cordwainers who should 
 Infringe or break the rules, orders or by-laws of the club, and 
 by threats, menaces and other injuries, preventing other cord- 
 wainers from working for such master, and in pursuance of 
 such coml)lnatlon refusing to work at the usual rates and prices 
 paid cordwainers, to the damage of the masters, the common- 
 wealth, and other cordwainers. 
 
 The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the defendants 
 wore each fined eight dollars and costs. 
 
 The next important case is that of the journeymen cord- 
 wainers (shoemakers) of New York, or The People of the 
 State of New York v. Melvin et ai. in 1809. before the 
 Mayor of the city. They were indicted: 
 
 First. For, In brief, unlawfully, perniciously, and deceitfully 
 organizing themselves into a club or combination, and making 
 unlawful by-laws, rules and orders among themselves, and other 
 workmen in the cordwainers' art. and extorting large sums of 
 money, and by force and arms unlawfully assembling together 
 and conspiring not to work for any master or other person who 
 should employ workmen. Journeymen or any other person In the 
 said art who were not members of their club, after notice given 
 to discharge such workmen from his employ.
 
 TRADE UNIONS 8i 
 
 Second. For conspiring togetlier not to work for any master 
 or person whatsoever in the said art who should employ any 
 workmen who infringed or broke any of tlielr rules, etc. 
 
 Third. For conspiring not to work for any master or person 
 who should employ any workmen who broke any of their rules 
 or by-laws, unless the workmen so offending shall pay to the 
 club such Hne as should be assessed against him, and that in 
 particular they would not work for James Corwin and Charles 
 Aimes, because they employed Edward Whitess, a cordwainer, 
 wlio had broken one of their rules, and refused to pay a fine of 
 two dollars therefor. 
 
 Fouith. That they wickedly, unjustly and unlawfully con- 
 spirt'd to impoverish by indirect means said Whitess, and hinder 
 him from following his trade, and did hinder him from following 
 it, and did greatly impoverish him. 
 
 Fifth. For conspiring and agreeing by indirect means to 
 prejudice and impoverish Whitess, and prevent him from exer- 
 cising his trade. 
 
 Sixth. For conspiring not to work for the customary wages 
 l)aid cordwainers, and to demand and extort for their labor in 
 their said art great sums of money. 
 
 Seventh. Conspiring to unjustly and oppressively increase 
 tlieii- own and the wages of other workmen, and that they would 
 by threats and other unlawful means prevent or endeavor to pre- 
 vent other cordwainers from working at lower rates. 
 
 Eighth. Conspiring that they would not work for any mas- 
 ter who should have more than two apprentices at the same time 
 to learn the art of cordwaining. 
 
 Ninth. Combining by indirect means to prejudice and im- 
 poverisli certain master shoemakers and prosecutors of the in- 
 dictment. 
 
 The jury convicted the defendants, who were fined one 
 dollar each, and costs. In passing sentence, the Mayor 
 observed that the novelty of the case, and the general con- 
 duct of the body of cordwainers, inclined the court to believe 
 that they had erred from a mistake of the law, and from 
 supposing that they had rights upon which to found their 
 proceedings. That they had equal rights with all other mem- 
 bers of the community was undoubted, and they had also 
 the right to meet and regulate their concerns, and to ask 
 for wages, and to work or refuse; but that the means they 
 used were of a nature too arbitrary and coercive, and which 
 went to deprive their fellow-citizens of rights as precious 
 as any thej' contended for. 
 
 The different states have laws recognizing the rights of 
 labor to organize and attempt peacefully to persuade others 
 from working, but, in the main (except in the direction in- 
 dicated), the old civil law of England still stands as the law 
 of the United States, particularly as regards the civil liability 
 of strikers. Then there are federal statutes, which make it 
 an offence to obstruct the United States mails; and the
 
 82 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 vigorous action of President Cleveland in the Pullman- 
 railway strike, at Chicago, in 1894, shows how effectively 
 the strong arm of the national government can be used in 
 certain emergencies against even the so-called "rights" of 
 labor. Another instrument of regulation as to trade unions 
 is the Sherman anti-trust law of 1890, which is occasionally 
 invoked against trade unions as being "in restraint of trade." 
 It is a fact that at the present time the trade unions of 
 Great Britain are in a far more favorable position as re- 
 gards their legal status than are the unions of America. 
 There is, indeed, almost an universal opinion in England, 
 outside the membership of the trade unions themselves, 
 that the recent law exempting trade union funds from liabil- 
 ity for damages, and granting privileges to union men as to 
 "picketing," etc., go too far in the direction of "special 
 privileges." It must also be said that the American courts 
 are far more inclined to grant injunctions against labor 
 than are the British courts. 
 
 The American Federation of Labor 
 
 The national federation of individual unions of diffeient 
 trades is an American idea, as pointed out by John Mitchell, 
 the noted labor leader, and one of the defendants in the 
 contempt case. The present American Federation of Labor 
 is the culmination of many efforts in the past. There had 
 been a number of attempts to confederate local unions, 
 principally liy municipal groups, and there had been several 
 failures in the direction of national combinations. The most 
 ambitious and for a time the most successful of these 
 attempts at national organization of labor, was "The Noble 
 Order of Knights of Labor." Its failure seems to have 
 been owing principally to the fact that it' was too compre- 
 hensive in its basis of membership, and that it disregarded 
 trade lines and sought to merge all trade unions into one 
 body; but the organization is still in existence. The present 
 I'"ederati6n of Labor owes its origin to a combination of the 
 Knights of Industry and the .Amalgamated Labor Union, 
 which latter organization was composed of secedcrs from 
 the Knights of Labor. It was organized at Pittsburgh, Pa., 
 on November 15, 1881, and was originally styled "The Fed-
 
 TRADE UNIONS 83 
 
 eration of Organized Trades and Labor Unions of the United 
 States of America and Canada." It is said that its member- 
 ship started with a quarter of a million, but that it rapidly 
 declined. At that time there was a keen rivalry between the 
 Knights of Labor and the individual trade unions, turning 
 on the fundamental question of the autonomy of each union. 
 By 1886, the Knights of Labor had reached their greatest 
 numerical strength. In the same year the Federation, which 
 had been formed at Pittsburgh in 1881, merged at Columbus, 
 Ohio, with a number of independent trade unions, and the 
 combination was named the American Federation of Labor. 
 By 1890, it claimed a membership of a quarter of a million. 
 In 1898, the membership was 264,000; in 1899. it was 334,100; 
 in 1900, 515,400; in 1901, 742,600; in 1902, 957,500. In 1904, 
 there were 118 international unions having complete juris- 
 diction over their own trades, with an approximate member- 
 ship of 2,000,000, affiliated with the American Federation of 
 Labor. The Netv York World Almanac for 1909 gives the 
 following particulars: "The Federation is composed of 116 
 national and international unions, representing approximate- 
 ly 27,000 local unions, 38 state branches, 587 city central un- 
 ions, and 664 local unions. The approximate paid member- 
 ship is 1,540,000. The affiliated unions publish about 245 
 weekly or monthly papers, devoted to the cause of labor. 
 The official organ is the American Federationist, edited by 
 Samuel Gompers." All the principal trade unions of the 
 United States belong to the Federation with the exception 
 of the following: the American Flint Glass Workers' Union, 
 the Bricklayers' and the Masons Union, the Brotherhood of 
 of Operative Plasterers, National Association of Letter Car- 
 riers, National Association of Steam Fitters, Stone Masons' 
 International Union, Western Federation of Miners, and the 
 following "Brotherhoods," each being a separate union: 
 Locomotive Engineers, Locomotive Firemen, Railroad 
 Switchmen, Railroad Trainmen, and the Railroad Conductors' 
 Order. The object of the Federation is to encourage the 
 formation of local and national unions, and to establish 
 friendly relations between the various national and interna- 
 tional organizations without interfering with their autonomy, 
 to encourage the sale of union-label goods, to promote the
 
 84 si:LiaTi:i) artici.f.s 
 
 labor press, to secure legislation in the interest of the work- 
 ing masses, and to influence public opinion, by peaceful and 
 legal methods, in favor of organized labor. The Federation 
 is debarred by its constitution from directly affiliating itself 
 with political parties. 
 
 The most important case in America involving thd rights 
 of organized labor as to boycotting, injunctions, and con- 
 tempt of court, is that of the suit of the Buck Stove and 
 Range Co., of St. Louis, against the American Federation of 
 Labor, and a number of its officials, and its subsequent de- 
 velopments. This case will undoubtedly be historic, not 
 only on account of the importance of the direct results of 
 the suit, but because of the principles of law decided; and it 
 'may be also be historic because of after-results, as regards 
 the relation of organized labor to politics. The records of 
 the case are very voluminous, but the main incidents, when 
 separated from the multitudinous details, are simple, and 
 briefly are as follows: 
 
 The Federation's Boycott Injunction Contcnil>t Case 
 
 In August, 1906, some metal polishers at the works of the 
 complainant's factory struck. Thereupon the Metal Polish- 
 ers' Union declared the complainant "unfair" to organized 
 labor, and published the declaration in their local labor jour- 
 nal, issued circulars to the same effect, and in various ways 
 sought to "boycott" complainant's goods, which heretofore 
 had had yearly sales amounting to $1,250,000, throughout the 
 various States of the Union. In November, 1906, the St. 
 Louis Central Trades and Labor Union endorsed the boy- 
 cott. At the regular annual convention of the American 
 F'ederation of Labor, in November, 1906, a resolution was 
 adopted endorsing the action of the St. Louis labor organiza- 
 tions in their controversy with the complainant, and ordering 
 that the name of the latter be published in the "VVe Don't 
 Patronize'' list of the American Fedcrationist, the official or- 
 gan of the Federation, One of the methods of enforcing the 
 demands of the F'ederation is the systematic use of the boy- 
 cott, for which there is the most thorough plan. The Execu- 
 tive Council of the F'ederation is authorized to approve of, and 
 declare boycotts at intlividuals and concerns, and is required
 
 TRADE UNIONS 85 
 
 to present at each annual convention a printed statement of 
 the details leading up to any pending boycotts approved by 
 it. At each convention the President of the Federation ap- 
 points a committee on boycotts, to which are referred all 
 resolutions relative to the boycotting of individuals and con- 
 cerns whose business is to be attacked. It is said that dur- 
 ing the twenty years of its existence the Federation has de- 
 clared many hundreds of boycotts, there having been over 
 400 during the last dozen years. These boycotts, it seems, 
 have been made or approved and prosecuted by the Federa- 
 tion in response to the application of individual unions af- 
 filiated with it. At the convention of the Federation held in 
 1905 a resolution was adopted which commenced as follows: 
 ''We must recognize the fact 'that a boycott means war,' and 
 to successfully carry out a war we must adopt the tactics 
 that history has shown are most successful in war. The 
 greatest master of war said that 'war was the trade of a bar- 
 barian, and that the secret of success was to concentrate all 
 your forces upon one point of the enemy, the weakest, if 
 possible.' " Adopting this principle, the Federation recom- 
 mended that the boycotting tactics should be concentrated 
 upon the least number of "unfair" parties that was possible. 
 "One would be preferable. If every available means at the 
 command of the State federations and central bodies were 
 concentrated upon one such, and kept up until successful, 
 the next on the list would be more easily brought to terms 
 and within a reasonable time none opposed to fair wages, 
 conditions or hours but would be brought to see the error 
 of their ways and submit to the inevitable." At the same 
 convention another resolution was adopted requiring local 
 organizations that had induced the Federation to endorse 
 boycotts and to place names on the "We Don't Patronize" 
 list, to report the situation to the Executive Council of the 
 Federation every three months, it to be stated in that report 
 what efforts were being taken to make the boycott effectual. 
 Failure to report for six months was to be sufficient cause 
 to remove such boycotts from the "We Don't Patronize" list. 
 The Federation's rules prescribe that no boycott shall be 
 endorsed until "after due investigation and attempted settle- 
 ment". [In this particular case of the Buck Stove and
 
 86 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 Range Co. there is a conflict of testimony upon this point.] 
 But after an individual or concern has been declared "unfair"' 
 by the Council of the Federation, then the secretaries of all 
 the local unions, amounting to many thousands, are notified 
 to read the pronouncement out at a meeting of each union, 
 and to have the reform and labor press publish the same; 
 and the individual or firm so declared to be "unfair" has its 
 name included in the "We Don't Patronize" list published in 
 the monthly organ of the Federation, the Federatiouist. 
 
 In March, 1907, the Executive Council of the Federation 
 placed the complainant and its products on the "We Don't 
 Patronize" list of the Fcderationist, and a circular was issued 
 to the local unions calling their attention to this action. The 
 effect of the boycott on the sale of the stoves and ranges of 
 the Buck Company was immediate and far-reaching. Deal- 
 ers all over the country notified the company that owing to 
 the pressure and threats of boycotts on themselves by the 
 local labor unions and their friends, they were compelled to 
 cease handling the goods of the Buck Company. Com- 
 plainant's suit was to enjoin this boycott. After hearing 
 upon the bill, and defendants' return to the rule to show 
 cause, an injunction pendente Hie was granted ; and subse- 
 quently a decree was issued that the defendants, "their and 
 each of their agents, servants, attorneys, confederates, and 
 any and all persons acting in aid of or in conjunction with 
 them or any of them be, and they hereby are, perpetually 
 restrained and enjoined from conspiring, agreeing or com- 
 bining in any manner to restrain, obstruct or destroy the 
 business of the complainant, or to prevent the complainant 
 from carrying on the same without interference from them 
 or any of them . . . and from printing, issuing, publishing 
 or distributing through the mails, or in any other manner, 
 any copies or copy of the American Federationist, or any 
 other printed or written newspaper, magazine, circular, letter 
 or other document or instrument whatsoever, which shall 
 contain or in any manner refer to the name of the complain- 
 ant, its business or its product in the 'We Don't Patronize' 
 list of the defendants, ... or which contains any reference 
 to the complainant, its business or product in connection 
 with the term 'Unfair' or with the 'We Don't Patronize' list.
 
 TRADE UNIONS 87 
 
 or with any other phrase, word or words of similar import, 
 and from publishing or otherwise circulating, whether in 
 writing or orally, any statement, or notice, of any kind or 
 character whatsoever, calling attention to the complainant's 
 customers, or of dealers or tradesmen, or the public, to any 
 boycott against the complainant." 
 
 Two things may be observed: First, the business-like way 
 in which the American Federation of Labor declared and 
 prosecuted boycotts. Boycotts are often called "un-Ameri- 
 can," but the defence in this case introduced evidence that 
 in Revolutionary times "The True Sons of Liberty" boy- 
 cotted those who continued to import British goods. There 
 was prepared a list of the names of those "who audaciously 
 continue to counteract the united sentiments of the body ot 
 merchants throughout North America; by importing British 
 goods contrary to agreement." And one of these lists was 
 posted up at the door or dwelling-house of each offender, 
 "as a warning to any one that shall affront as aforesaid." 
 And to each such notice was a further notice: "It is de- 
 sired that the Sons and Daughters of Liberty would not buy 
 any one thing of him, for in so doing they will bring disgrace 
 upon themselves, and their posterity, forever and ever, 
 Amen." 
 
 The second thing to be observed is the sweeping nature 
 of the restraining order of the Court. It is not all given 
 above, but the extracts indicate with sufficient fullness its 
 character. 
 
 The American Federation of Labor appealed .against this 
 decree, and on March 11, 1909, the Court of Appeals of the 
 District of Columbia rendered a decision which sustained but 
 modified it. The Court of Appeals said that the clean-cut 
 question was whether a combination, such as was entered 
 into in this case which has for its object the coercion of a 
 given firm through the instrumentality of the boycott is 
 lawful. The Court remarked in its presentation: "In our 
 opinion, it is more important to wage-earners than to em- 
 ployers of labor that we declare this combination unlawful, 
 for if wage-earners may combine to interfere with the lawful 
 business of employers, it follows that employers may com- 
 bine to coerce their employees."
 
 88 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 The Court of Appeals defined a boycott as "a combination 
 to harm one person by coercing others to harm him." In its 
 opinion the combination in this case not only answered this 
 definition, but also the definition of a common law conspir- 
 acy. The immediate purpose and result of the combination 
 was, the Court held, to interfere with complainant's lawful 
 business, and to deprive complainant and its customers of 
 their right to trade intercourse. If the immediate object was 
 unlawful, the combination was unlawful. That no physical 
 coercion was practised in this case did not alter the conclu- 
 sion of the Court, since restraint of the mind, as the evi- 
 dence in this case clearly demonstrated, was just as potent 
 as a threat of physical violence. 
 
 The Trades Dsputes Act passed in 1906 by the British 
 Parliament which was quoted by the judge giving an opin- 
 ion dissenting from the majority decision of the Court con- 
 tains this clause: 
 
 An act done in pursuance of an agreement or combination by 
 two or more persons shall, if done in contemplation or furtherance 
 of a trade dispute, not be actionable unless the act, if done with- 
 out any such agreement or combination, would be actionable. 
 
 That clause in the British Act has been bitterly criticised 
 because it practically places trade unionists apart from their 
 fellow-citizens as a privileged class above ordinary law. It is 
 interesting to compare this special class-legislation of the 
 British Parliament with the principles laid down by a ma- 
 jority of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia in 
 this case: 
 
 The contention is put forward that inasmuch as each member 
 of the Federation has the right to bestow his trade where he 
 will, according to his whim or fancy, it cannot be unlawful for 
 a combination of members to do what each acting separately may 
 do, and that, therefore, the combination may lawfully discontinue 
 or threatf'n to discontinue business intercourse with a given firm 
 and all who handle its product, or, to state the proposition blunt- 
 ly, that the boycott as previously defined is lawful. 
 
 To admit the soundness of this contention is to give legal sup- 
 port and standing to an engine of harm and oppression utterly at 
 variance with the spirit and theory of our Institutions, place the 
 weak at the mercy of the strong, foster monopoly, permit an 
 unwarranted Interference with the natural course of trade, and 
 deprive the citizen of the freedom guaranteed him by the Consti- 
 tution. The loss of the trade of a single individual ordinarily 
 affects a given dealer very little. Being discriminating, the pur- 
 chasing public, if left free to exercise Its own judgment, will 
 not act arbitrarily or maliciously, but will be controlled by natural 
 considerations. But a powerful combination to boycott Immedi- 
 ately deflects the natural course of trade and ruin follows in 
 its wake because of the unlawful design of the conspirators to
 
 TRADE UNIONS 89 
 
 coerce or destroy the object of their displeasure. In other words, 
 it is the conspiracy and not natural causes that is responsible 
 for the result. FYom time immemorial the law has frowned upon 
 combinations formed for the purpose of doing harm, and we 
 thlnlc public policy demands that such a combination as we have 
 found to exist in this case be declared unlawful. 
 
 The Court next takes up the contention of the defence 
 that the decree of injunction is an infringement of the con- 
 stitutional guaranty of freedom of speech and of the press, 
 and says: 
 
 In so far as it seeks to restrain acts in furtherance of the 
 boycott we do not think it constitutes either a censorship of 
 the press or an abridgment of the right of free speech. An un- 
 lawful combination was found to exist, which, unless checked, 
 would destroy complainant's business and leave [no] adequate 
 redress. The Court, therefore, very properly sought to restrain 
 the cause of the mischief, the unlawful combination. The "We 
 Don't Patronize" or "I'^nfair" list and oral declarations of the 
 boycott were included in the decree because they were among 
 the means employed in carrying out the unlawful design. . . . 
 
 Oral and written declarations in furtherance of a conspiracy 
 are tentacles of the conspiracy and must be treated as such and 
 not as independent acts. 
 
 Up to this point the decree of injunction was sustained. 
 But part of the decree was modified. The Court of Appeals 
 goes on to say: 
 
 But we think the decree in this case goes too far when it 
 enjoins the publication or distribution through the mails or 
 otherwise of the Federationist or other periodicals or newspapers 
 containing any reference to complainant, its business, or product, 
 as in the "We Don't Patronize" or "Unfair" list of the defend- 
 dants. The Court below found, and in that finding we concur, 
 that this list in this case constitutes a talismanic symbol indi- 
 cating to the membership of the Federation that a boycott is on 
 and should be observed. The printing of this list, therefore, 
 was what the Court sought to prevent and what, in our opinion, 
 the Court had power to prevent; but the decree should stop there 
 and not attempt to regulate the publication and distribution of 
 other matter over which the Court has no control . . . for, when 
 the conspiracy is at an end, the Federation will have the same 
 right that anv association or individual now has to comment 
 upon the relations of complainants with its employees. It is the 
 existence of the conspiracy that warrants the court in prohibit- 
 ing the printing of this list. Manifestly, when the conspiracy ends 
 the prohibition ought also to end. 
 
 We are of the opinion that the decree is too broad in other 
 respects. . . . We think It should attempt no more than a prohibi- 
 tion of the boycott and the means of carrying it on, that is, the 
 declarations or threats of boycott or other manner of intimida- 
 tion against complainant's patrons or those handling or wishing 
 to purchase its product. We have no power to compel the defen- 
 dants to purchase complainant's stoves. We have power to pre- 
 vent defendants, their servants and agents, from preventing oth- 
 ers from purchasing them. 
 
 For the reason stated, the decree was modified and af- 
 firmed to the following effect: The defendants were as
 
 90 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 were their agents, servants, and confederates perpetually 
 restrained and enjoined from conspiring or combining to 
 boycott the business or product of complainant, and from 
 threatening or declaring any boycott against said business or 
 product, and from aiding, or assisting in any such boycott, 
 and from printing the complainant, its business or product, in 
 the "Wc Don't Patronize" or "Unfair" list of defendants in 
 furtherance of any boycott, or from referring, either in print 
 or otherwise, in such manner. 
 
 The second of the concurring judges, in a separate opin- 
 ion, explained that he believed a boycott was legal when 
 unaccompanied with threats to compel others to join them'in 
 the boycott. 
 
 The third judge dissented from part of the modilicd de- 
 cree, although he agreed that the combination to boycott 
 became unlawful when threats or coercion was used. He 
 held that there was no power to restrain the publication of 
 which complaint was made. 
 
 Important as are the issues involved in the above deci- 
 sion, it was overshadowed at least in popular estimation 
 by an issue which developed while the case was pending, 
 that of the alleged "contempt of Court" on the part of cer- 
 tain officials of the American Federation of Labor, by vio- 
 lating the restraining order of the Court, and their sentence 
 to imprisonment for this offence as found by the Court. 
 
 The Federation, through its officers and particular!)' 
 Samuel Gompers, the President of the Federation and the 
 editor of its organ, the I'cderationisI at all times took the 
 ground that the injunction prohibited the exercise of the 
 constitutional rights of free speech and freedom of the press, 
 and hence was null and void. Both editorially and on the 
 public platform he discussed the principles involved in this 
 injunction, and protested against its denial of constitutional 
 rights, as he claimed. But the Court found that he and two 
 other officials of the Federation Frank Morrison, the Secre- 
 tary, and John Mitchell, a Vice-President were guilty of 
 contempt of Court in violating the injunction. The original 
 injunction was issued by a judge of the Supreme Court of 
 the District of Columbia (Washington), and the proceedings 
 in contempt were before the same Court, but before a differ-
 
 TRADE UNIONS 91 
 
 ent judge. This latter judge found that evidence before him 
 showed that the defendants had determined to violate the 
 injunction if it was issued, and that as a matter of fact the 
 injunction was violated both by publication and orally. The 
 defence claimed that when the injunction came into eflfect the 
 American Federation of Labor complied with it, and re- 
 moved the Buck's Stove and Range Company from the "We 
 Don't Patronize" list. The Court, however, found that the 
 defendants had "rushed'' an edition of the Federationist 
 through the mails, in order to have the list in circulation 
 befote the date of the injunction taking efifect, and that by 
 special arrangement of type of ostensible "news" matter, the 
 enjoined matter had in effect been published, and the same 
 offence had been committed by oral announcements. The 
 Court also found that one of the defendants (John Mitchell) 
 had, as the president of the United Mine Workers of Amer- 
 ica (he also being one of the vice-presidents of the Federa- 
 tion), a number of times declared that he would disobey what 
 he considered an unlawful injunction; and that after the in- 
 junction in question, he presided at a convention of the 
 United Mine Workers at which a resolution was passed or- 
 dering that the complainant be placed upon the "Unfair" list, 
 and imposing a fine of five dollars on any member of the 
 union who purchased the complainant's goods, failing to pay 
 which fine the member was to be expelled from the union. 
 For their contempt of the Court in disobeying the injunction, 
 the defendant Morrison was sentenced to six months in jail, 
 Mitchell to nine months, and Gompers to twelve months. 
 
 On November 2, 1909, the Court of Appeals of the District 
 of Columbia affirmed the judgment of Justice Wright as to 
 contempt; and unless that judgment is upset by the Supreme 
 Court of the United States, or the President interferes, the 
 defendants must go to jail. 
 
 Unconstitutional Labor Laws 
 
 In all the history of trade unionism in the United States 
 there has been nothing which has created such a deep-seated, 
 widespread, and permanent feeling of grievance as to the 
 question of its legal status as aflfected by the decisions of the 
 courts, federal and state.
 
 92 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 Within the recent years there has been a long list of de- 
 cisions by the Supreme Court of the United States declaring 
 certain "labor laws" void because they conflicted with the fed- 
 eral Constitution. Many similar decisions have also been 
 given by state courts. And there is a still longer list of in- 
 junctions by courts federal and state, to compel trade union- 
 ists to refrain from breaking the law or from stepping over 
 the limitations imposed by the Constitution, federal or state, 
 as the case might be or from trespassing on the rights of 
 others as guaranteed by 'the Constitution. 
 
 There are several phases of the matter, outside the merits 
 of the cases either as to the law or as to the facts which 
 are very interesting. The first is regarding a written consti- 
 tution as affecting legislation. In his last annual report (No- 
 vember, 1908) to the American Federation of Labor, Mr. 
 Gompers, the president, said: "It will be observed that what 
 the working people of our Republic ask at the hands of our 
 Congress is fully within the bounds of the law enacted in the 
 monarchy of Great Britain. Recently some one said that 
 such a law could be enacted by the British Parliament, be- 
 cause special legislation is permissible and even natural, 
 since each dominant class has legislated in and for its own 
 interest, while in our country we have a written Constitution 
 forbidding special legislation. . . . Surely, the British Parlia- 
 ment, under a monarchy, would not accord special privileges, 
 and special rights, to give to the workers of that country a 
 power and a privilege to exercise such activities as are un- 
 just or harmful to the people or the institutions of that 
 country." 
 
 As a matter of fact, there is no one thing which reconciles 
 the majority of the British people to a hereditary House of 
 Lords in these days as the fear that a one-chamber Parlia- 
 ment, under the domination of organized labor, and par- 
 ticularly of the Socialists, would not only pass the most 
 extreme communistic and class legislation, but that that 
 legislation would grossly violate the rights of minorities and 
 of individuals. 
 
 The diflference between the British Parliament and the 
 Congress of the United States is this: Parliament, in a poli- 
 tical and constitutional sense, is omnipotent, with only revo-
 
 TRADE UNIONS 93 
 
 lution or civil war as an alternative. Constitutionally, Parlia- 
 ment is the supreme power, the court of last resort in the 
 British Empire, except civil war. It can make and un- 
 make the sovereign; it can define the conditions of the loyalty 
 of the citizens of the empire to the sovereign; and if the 
 sovereign violates the terms on which he wears the crown 
 the citizen is absolved from allegiance. Every law passed 
 by the British Parliament is constitutional. There is no 
 such thing as an unconstitutional law in the United Kingdom, 
 if it is passed in due form. The British Parliament has no 
 Supreme Court to review its legislation. It is its own Su- 
 preme Court. It is a favorite nut to crack among the 
 British constitutionalists as to how far the sovereign is in- 
 dependent of Parliament; but in a practical sense Parliament 
 is supreme even over the sovereign with civil war as the 
 only active protest left against Parliament. Another con- 
 stitutional nut to crack is whether Parliament can legislate 
 itself out of existence, and thus bring anarchy into being 
 without any legislative act establishing that form or rather 
 absence of form of government. 
 
 Plence, there is a great difference between the condition of 
 validity of an act passed by the federal Congress or a state 
 legislature, as compared with one passed by the British Par- 
 liament. It is sometimes said that an Act of Congress is 
 never valid until it has been passed upon favorably by the 
 Supreme Court of the United States, even though it has 
 passed the veto prerogative of the President although, of 
 course, an act is to be considered as constitutional until it 
 has been declared otherwise by the Supreme Court. 
 
 It is a fact, as complained of by the president of the Fed- 
 eration of Labor, that the British Parliament have passed a 
 number of laws in the interest of labor, and that when the 
 Ameri<;an Congress has passed similar laws the Supreme 
 Court has declared them to be contrary to the Constitution 
 of the United States and, therefore, invalid. Bnt Mr. Gom- 
 pers is in error in assuming that the British acts were not 
 special legislation in the interest of one class. On the con- 
 trary, a number of these labor laws were avowedly passed 
 as special legislation in the interest of one class as against 
 other classes. This the British Parliament can do. and there
 
 94 ' SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 is none to say it nay, except the electors themselves at the 
 next election. It is otherwise with the federal Congress 
 and the several state legislatures of the United States. The 
 decisions of the American courts about which complaint is 
 made are so decided, generally, either because they are spe- 
 cial laws that they are "class legislation" and, therefore, 
 against both the spirit and letter of the constitutions, federal 
 and state, or else because they have infringed upon the per- 
 sonal and individual rights of certain citizens and it does 
 not matter whether these citizens are rich or poor, or em- 
 ployers or employees. 
 
 Among Americans there is a general acceptance of the 
 doctrine of the right of the Supreme Court of the United 
 States to pass upon the validity of acts of Congress and of 
 state laws in certain aspects, in cases brought before it, in 
 which these laws are involved. The majority of Americans 
 evidently take it for granted that this power is specifically 
 given to the Supreme Court by the Constitution itself. Not 
 so. The authority is only an iulplied one and some even 
 claim an usurped one. It seems to be a natural corollary 
 that if there is a written constitution prescribing the limita- 
 tions of legislative power, there must be lodged somewhere 
 an authority to decide whether, and when, and where those 
 limitations have been overstepped. The Supreme Court of 
 the United States assumed, on its own motion, that this 
 power \vas lodged with it, getting its authority by implica- 
 tion. That assumption has been challenged in the past, but 
 without avail. It is challenged now in a formal way by the 
 Socialist Party, who in tlicir "platform" of 1908, upon which 
 Mr. Debs ran for President, included this in their "demands": 
 
 The abolition of the power usurped by the Supreme Court of 
 the United States to pass upon the constitutionality of legisla- 
 tion enacted by Congress. National laws to be repealed or abro- 
 gated only by act of Congress or by. a referendum of thf whole 
 people. 
 
 The Supreme Court of the United States has, within a 
 
 recent period, declared unconstitutional the following "labor 
 
 laws": 
 
 That the Constitution bie made amendable by maJorUy vote. 
 The law of the state of New York (passed by the state legls- 
 'lature) limiting the hours of workmen in bake shops to ten per 
 day. 
 
 The law prohibiting "common carriers" engaged in interstate
 
 TRADE UNIONS 95 
 
 commerce from discharging employees because of membership in 
 a labor organization, or from discharging them for any reason. 
 
 The law limiting the hours of telegraphers and other railway 
 employees of common carriers engaged in interstate commerce. 
 
 The eight-hour law so far as it applies to dredge-men in Gov- 
 ernment employ. 
 
 Federal courts, other than the Supreme Court, have also 
 declared unconstitutional the law passed by Congress pre- 
 scribing the hours for telegraphers and other railway em- 
 ployees; and also the Congressional law providing for the 
 liability of common carriers engaged in interstate commerce 
 for accidents to their employees. 
 
 There have been a multitude of similar decisions by the 
 state courts, and as they have not been negatived by a higher 
 court or by legislation they must be considered the law of 
 the land: 
 
 Maliciously inciting the employees of a railroad which is 
 being operated by a receiver of the court to strike, is contempt 
 of court, and punishable. 
 
 Combinations of employees to compel railroads to cease using 
 certain cars (because of a strike against the owners or makers) 
 is a boycott, and is an unlawful combination. 
 
 An employer is under no legal obligation to give a discharged 
 employee a statement of his service. 
 
 The "black-list" has been declared lawful. 
 
 In the noted case of the Buck Stove and Range Co. v. The 
 American Federation of Labor, the latter was enjoined from de- 
 claring, threatening, or maintaining a boycott. 
 
 Combinations to compel a manufacturer whose goods are 
 sold in other states to "unionize" his shop is in "restraint of 
 trade," within the meaning of the Anti-trust Act, and is there- 
 fore illegal. 
 
 Contracts of public bodies limiting the work to union labor 
 are void. 
 
 A law prohibiting an employer from making a condition of 
 employment the withdrawal from a trade union on the part of 
 the employee is unconstitutional. 
 
 The "Unfair" list, when its object is to induce a boycott, Is 
 declared unlawful. 
 
 A labor organization which compels an employer to discharge 
 non-union men by threats to notify all labor organizations that 
 the employer is a non-union one, is liable to action for damages 
 by a non-union employee as an aggrieved party. 
 
 A demand by workmen for a "closed shop" Is contrary to 
 "public policy." 
 
 A statute compelling corporations to assign reasons for dis- 
 charging an employee is unconstitutional. 
 
 A statute prohibiting "blacklisting" by employers is uncon- 
 stitutional. 
 
 "Picketing," for the purpose of annoying non-union men, Is 
 unlawful. 
 
 There have been a multitude of similar decisions by the 
 
 state courts. One of the most important of these was by the 
 
 Supreme Court of the state of Ohio, declaring unconstitu-
 
 96 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 tional a law (passed in 1900) limiting to eight hours a day 
 laborers, workmen, and mechanics engaged upon public work 
 or work done for the state. The Court held that this law 
 "violates and abridges the right of parties to contract as to 
 the number of hours' labor that shall constitute a day's work, 
 and invades and violates the right, both of liberty and prop- 
 erty, in that it denies to municipalities and to contractors 
 and sub-contractors the right to agree with their employees 
 upon the terms and conditions of their contracts." 
 
 The Supreme Court of the state of Massachusetts has 
 given a decision which may have as far-reaching a result as 
 almost any that has been rendered in regard to organized 
 labor. It is to the effect that members of a trade union 
 cannot be compelled to strike by the organization. A 
 bricklayers' union had ordered a strike to enforce a demand, 
 but some of the members declined to obey the order. There- 
 upon the union voted to fine the disobedient members, and 
 the latter appealed to the courts to enjoin the union en- 
 forcing its demand. The injunction was issued, and the 
 Supreme Court of the state sustained the restraining order. 
 
 The Supreme Court of the state of New York has decid- 
 ed that the legislature of the state cannot prescribe the 
 compensation which municipalities must pay their employees. 
 
 The Missouri State Supreme Court has declared an "anti- 
 truck" law unconstitutional. 
 
 There has been a recent Canadian decision in line with 
 several given on this side of the border. In Winnipeg, Man- 
 itoba, the plumbers' union struck, and pickets were posted 
 around the workshops. The employers brought suit, and 
 the court not only enjoined the men from picketing, but 
 mulcted them in damages to the extent of $25,000 and de- 
 creed that each member of the union could be assessed in- 
 dividually and his property attached to satisfy the judgment. 
 
 It may be stated as a general proposition that the trend 
 of decisions of the American courts is opposed to the spirit 
 and intent of recent legislation by the British Parliament in 
 regard to compensation for injuries, the American authorities 
 generally holding to the old doctrine of "contributory negli- 
 gence" and the requirement of the employee to safeguard 
 his own person from injuries.
 
 TRADE UNIONS ' 97 
 
 Independent. 54: 3038-9. December 18, 1902. 
 
 Incorporation of Trade Unions. 
 
 Incorporation of trade unions has lately been the topic of 
 discussion in connection with labor disputes both in this 
 country and in Great Britain. It has been argued on the 
 employers' side that it will be impossible to enter into agree- 
 ments with trade unions until they become incorporated 
 bodies fully responsible for any breach of contract by its 
 member or officers; the implication being that an unincor- 
 porated labor union could not be made legally liable for 
 breach of contract or tort. This view has been readily ac- 
 cepted by the labor side, and has been urged as an argument 
 against incorporation. 
 
 This sentiment has been strengthened since the decision 
 rendered last year by the House of Lords in the case of the 
 Taff Vale Railway Company against the Amalgamated So- 
 ciety of Railway Servants. In that case counsel for the labor 
 union argued that as it was neither a corporation nor a 
 partnership it could not be made a party to an action in 
 court; this contention was overruled by the House of Lords. 
 The decision elicited a great deal of adverse criticism in 
 circles friendly to labor. A noted British publicist was re- 
 ported to have said that the decision of the House of Lords 
 would enable the employers to break up the trade unions by 
 obtaining heavy judgments against them and levying upon 
 the funds in their treasuries. 
 
 In whatever direction one's sympathies may lie, it must 
 be admitted that the decision of the House of Lords is sound 
 law. The position that a trade union "can do no wrong" in 
 a legal sense is untenable. Nor is there in the decision any 
 novel departure from accepted principles. The rigid forms 
 of the old English common law, which required the joinder 
 of all individuals belonging to an association as parties to the 
 action, have long since been relieved by the more liberal 
 practice of the courts of equity. Under the rules of equity 
 pleading, when the question is one of common interest t.o 
 many persons, or when the parties are very numerous, and it
 
 98 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 is impracticable to bring them all before the court, one or 
 more of them may sue or be sued qs representing the in- 
 terests of all. This rule specially applies "where the parties 
 form a voluntary association for public or private purposes, 
 and those who sue or defend may be presumed to represent 
 the rights and interests of the whole." (Stor}', Equity Plead- 
 ing, Sec. 107.) 
 
 The New York Code of Procedure of 1847, which simpli- 
 lied procedure by effacing the distinction between actions at 
 law and suits in equity, adopted these rules of pleading al- 
 most verbatim (Sec. 448 of the present Code of Civil Proce- 
 dure). They were reproduced from the New York Code in 
 the codes of California, Colorado, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, 
 Nebraska, Ohio, etc., and also in the British Judicature Act 
 of 1873. 
 
 Thus it is evident that in Great Britain, as well as in the 
 United States, and in Code states as well as in those where 
 the old practice still prevails, a suit can be maintained against 
 an unincorporated trade union for a breach of contract or a 
 tort. In New York the practice in such cases has been fur- 
 ther regulated by a later amendment, which relates to ac- 
 tions by or against "unincorporated associations consisting 
 of more than seven members." An action in such a case 
 must be brought against its president or treasurer, and the 
 judgment binds the property of the association. Under these 
 provisions actions have been maintained in New York courts 
 by and against the Knights of Labor and many other unin- 
 corporated labor organizations. 
 
 A trade union can, therefore, gain no immunity from 
 judgments for breach of contract or tort by a mere failure 
 to incorporate. The real issue in all recent injunction cases 
 is the right of labor unions to resort to such methods as 
 picketing, boycotting, etc., which are usually enjoined by 
 the courts. In the Taff Vale case the court below granted 
 an injunction restraining the union from picketing. Counsel 
 for the union attempted to defeat the injunction by raising 
 the technical question of the status of a trade union in court 
 ^nd was sustained by the Court of Appeal. This was the
 
 TRADE UNIONS 99 
 
 only question before the House of Lords, the vital issue 
 thus being obscured by a technicality. Council may be ex- 
 cused for attempting to win their clients' case upon a 
 technicality, but great social problems cannot be solved by 
 clever technical points. 
 
 There are, however, more valid objections to incorpora- 
 tion of trade unions under the present state of corporation 
 law. The object of a trade union is to represent its members 
 in the collective bargaining for terms of employment. Now, 
 an agreement made by an unincorporated trade union for 
 the benefit of its members is easily enforcible, inasmuch as 
 their rights under such an agreement "are not materially 
 different from those of partners" (McMahon vs. Rauhr, 47 
 N. Y., 67). The union would be entitled to bring suit against 
 an employer for a breach of the labor agreement resulting 
 in a loss to its members. The moment, however, the union 
 incorporates, the law regards it, like any other corporation, 
 as a body separate and distinct from its members. An un- 
 authorized reduction of the scale of wages is an injury to 
 the individual members of the union, but the union, as a 
 corporate body, has sustained no pecuniary loss thereby, and 
 can therefore claim no damages for the breach of the con- 
 tract of employment. We are thus brought face to face with 
 a legal paradox viz., that a thousand workmen may com- 
 bine into an association for the purpose of making a con- 
 tract with an employer and that contract will be enforced by 
 the court, but should the same association incorporate under 
 the law it forfeits its remedies against the employer for 
 breach of contract. This clearly shows that the present cor- 
 poration law, which is adapted to the needs of business cor- 
 poration is unsuited to the requirements of a trade union. 
 
 There can be no objection in principle to the incorporation 
 of trade unions, but in order to make it practically feasible 
 an adequate law must be framed which will assure to the in- 
 corporated trade unions the same legal remedies against an 
 employer for breach of contract as the employer now pos- 
 sesses against a trade union.
 
 ; .ATo . 
 
 i ^aN JOS&k) - OALIFOR^y:LECTED articles 
 
 Independent. 66: 11-3. January 7, 1909. 
 
 What Organized Labor Ought to Have: A Reply to Mr. 
 Gompers. Everett P. Wheeler. 
 
 Henry George said that labor asked for justice. This it 
 certainly should have absolutely impartial justice. But it 
 ought not to have special privileges. This, it seems to me, 
 is what Mr. Gompers asks. 
 
 His fundamental mistake is in his claim that there can 
 be no property in anything intangible, and that labor is in- 
 tangible. A right of property in the labor of another man, 
 he says, means slavery. He declares that it is an inalienable 
 right of freemen "to work for whom you please, to stop 
 work when you please, for any reason you please, or for no 
 reason." 
 
 This definition of slavery is erroneous. Slavery means 
 the subjection of one person who is of full age, and possest 
 of his faculties, against his consent, to the control of another. 
 But if the consent be given, there is no slavery. If a Circas- 
 sian sells his daughter to a Turk, against her will, she be- 
 comes the slave of the Turk. But if she voluntarily marries 
 him, she becomes his wife. As a wife she owes many duties 
 to her husband. To the performance of these she voluntarily 
 bound herself when she became his wife. This is not slavery. 
 So with a man's labor. It is his property, and a sacred and 
 indispensable property. He is free to sell it or to refuse to 
 sel). But once he contracts to give his labor, the person with 
 whom the contract is made has property in its performance. 
 
 If a manager contract with a singer to sing in opera, the 
 tenor must keep his contract or respond in damages. The 
 contract for his service is just as much property as the lease 
 of the opera house. 
 
 When a trades union or a single workman agrees with a 
 corporation or an individual for the doing of work, the right 
 to have that contract performed is property. Well does Mr. 
 Gompers say: "The trade agreement between the union and 
 its employers we believe to be the keystone of peace in the 
 industrial world today." 
 
 When that trade agreement is made, each party has a
 
 TRADE UNIONS loi 
 
 vested right to its performance by the other, and that right 
 is property. 
 
 Therefore, the Canadian Arbitration Statute and the 
 American Railroad Act are right. The American act is en- 
 titled "An act concerning carriers engaged in interstate com- 
 merce and their employees." It was approved June ist, 1898. 
 It provides that "whenever a controversy concerning wages, 
 hours of labor or conditions of employment shall arise be- 
 tween a carrier subject to the act and the employees of such 
 <:arrier, seriously interrupting or threatening to interrupt the 
 business of the carrier," either party may demand an arbi- 
 tration. Pending the arbitration the status existing imme- 
 diately prior to the dispute must not be changed; provided 
 that no employee shall be compelled to render personal 
 service without his consent. Employees dissatisfied with the 
 award are forbidden to quit the employer's service before 
 three months after the award, without giving thirty days' 
 notice. In like manner a dissatisfied employer cannot dis- 
 charge employees on account of dissatisfaction with the 
 award without giving thirty days' notice. 
 
 This act was successfully invoked in March, 1907, to pre- 
 vent a great railway strike west of Chicago. 
 
 Both the American and Canadian acts provide a definite 
 method of enforcing some of these trade agreements. They 
 recognize the great injury to thousands of innocent people 
 that may be caused by a sudden strike or a sudden lockout 
 in the management of a public service corporation. (The 
 American act is limited to railroads.) And they forbid a 
 strike or lockout, in the case of disagreement between em- 
 ployer and employed, until there has been an arbitration. 
 This is a great step in advance. Civilization means the en- 
 forcement of contracts by lawful means. To compel another, 
 by individual warfare, either to make or to keep a contract, 
 is barbarism. 
 
 In the long run, the sacredness of contracts means more 
 to the labor union than to the employer. What the honest 
 workman wants is steady work on terms to which he has 
 freely agreed, and the performance of which he can enforce. 
 
 The justice of Mr. Gompers's criticisms on the Sherman 
 Act must be admitted. That law was tost into the statute
 
 102 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 book by that hysterical wave of prohibition that has been 
 sweeping over this country. An evil is seen. The hasty 
 impulse of the sincere fool, and the ready compliance of the 
 shortsighted knave, is to put a prohibitory law on the statute 
 book. The first satisfies his morbid conscience. The second 
 curries favor with the noisy constituent, and thinks the law 
 will never be enforced. 
 
 By all means amend the Sherman Act. Repeal the prohi- 
 bition against combinations, whether of labor or capital. 
 Instead thereof, regulate both. Provide an effective remedy 
 by which the illegal acts of either can be readily restrained. 
 
 It will be asked: "What would you designate as illegal 
 acts?" I answer: Interference with the property rights of 
 others, whether employer or employed. The blacklist ought 
 to be illegal. The workman has a right to contract for his 
 labor. The employer ought not to interfere with this right. 
 On the other hand, if one workman has contracted to labor 
 for an employer, another ought not to entice him to break 
 that contract. Each party to the contract has a property 
 right to its performance by the other. 
 
 Mr. Gompers says to us: "Labor's weapons are in no 
 sense weapons of aggression; they are nothing more than 
 purely passive resistance." 
 
 If this were true, there would be no just cause for com- 
 plaint. But is it true? In the Danbury hat case, a manufac- 
 turer in Danbury was peaceably making hats. He had in his 
 employ men who had freely contracted to work for him in 
 that business. Was it no aggression to boycott his customers 
 and prevent him from making sales, and his workmen from 
 working to make hats? Is the law so blind that it can only 
 see direct acts of violent aggression? Is it murder to stab 
 a man to the heart, and not murder to kill him by poison 
 sent thru the mails? Mr. Gompers can never convince the 
 American people that there is any difference in guilt be- 
 tween the two or that there should be any difference in the 
 legal remedy. 
 
 He argues that the criminal law affords sufficient protec- 
 tion. Unfortunately, it does not. The criminal law of Amer- 
 ica was not devised for the purpose of punishing the guilty. 
 It expressly declares that it is better that ten guilty men
 
 TRADE UNIONS 103 
 
 escape than that one innocent man be punished. And if it 
 were otherwise, criminal law is a poor protection for civil 
 rights. Leave that to the civil courts. 
 
 Now, it may be that in some cases injunctions have been 
 improvidently granted. Judges are not infallible. But the 
 means of redress are available. Who can name a labor suit 
 where an improvident injunction has been in the end sus- 
 tained? On the other hand, the injunction was of invalu- 
 able service to the public in the Chicage railroad strike and 
 in the San Francisco 'longshoremen strike. The brutal vio- 
 lence of the strikers was the reverse of "passive resistance." 
 If continued, it would have caused a complete cessation of 
 commerce. "Commerce," as the Flemish burghers said to 
 Charles the Bold four hundred years ago, "commerce is ir- 
 reconcilable with war." 
 
 Again, Mr. Gompers declares: "No man has a property 
 right to the custom of any other man in business." This is 
 his second fundamental mistake. The good-will of a business 
 is a property right, and often very valuable. It is constantly 
 bought and sold. The good-will of a business is the interest 
 of the owner in the custom of that business. 
 
 Let me illustrate by a case in my own experience. Over 
 thirty years ago the Atlantic and Pacific Telegraph Company 
 was competing with the Western Union. The latter had 
 then the monopoly of the cable lines to Europe. It refused 
 to transmit over these cable lines messages forwarded by 
 its competitor. I obtained an injunction restraining it from 
 refusing. Under this order cable messages were transmitted 
 until the merger of the two companies. This injunction was 
 vital to the existence of the competing company, for its cus- 
 tomers, as a rule, would not deal with it unless they could 
 have cable as well as land messages forwarded. 
 
 There the court recognized property in the custom which 
 the telegraph company had obtained. And it recognized 
 property in the contract of the operators to transmit mes- 
 sages. It protected the one and enforced the other. 
 
 Mr. Gompers is right in saying the labor union "sells the 
 power to labor." In making this sale it should obey the laws 
 of trade. These are to make a good article and sell at a 
 fair price. Let organized labor strive for both ends, and it
 
 I04 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 will have the support of all good men. But, he adds, the 
 labor union is not a trust because it "deals, not with material 
 things, but with the labor of its members; it aims, not to 
 confine its benefits to a few, but to bestow them on every 
 member of the trade." 
 
 There again is the fundamental mistake that a combina- 
 tion is not a trust because it deals only with immaterial 
 things. They are just as much the subject of property as ma- 
 terial things. Light and air are just as necessary as bread 
 and water. The elevated railroads have in many instances 
 paid as much as a million dollars per mile for interfering 
 with the light and air of the abutting owners. When you 
 buy a corner house you pay more than for a house on an 
 inside lot, because you get more light and air. Whether, 
 therefore, a combination deals in labor or in sugar, it is 
 equally a trust, and ought not to be prohibited, but be al- 
 lowed perfect freedom as long as it does not interfere with 
 the rights of others, but no longer. 
 
 And when we are told that the labor union limits its aim 
 to "every member of the trade," we, who are not members, 
 feel that the aim is narrow and shortsighted. The real good 
 of the members of the trade is bound up with that of those 
 who are not members. If a union man does a good job, 
 the customer is benefited. If he scamps his work, the cus- 
 tomer suffers. When many customers suffer, their ability 
 and their disposition to pay good wages are both diminished. 
 "When one member suffers, all the members suffer with it.'' 
 
 One other flaw in Mr, Gompers's argument requires con- 
 sideration. He maintains that an act lawful in the individual 
 ought not be unlawful to a combination. Let us see. If 
 one man enters my house and behaves decently he is wel- 
 come. But if a thousand men come at once and fill it, they 
 violate my right to use my own home. If the grocer nearest 
 me dislikes me and refuses to sell me food, I can buy else- 
 where. But if all the provision dealers in town combine to 
 refuse to sell me food, they starve me to death. That is 
 murder just as much as if they killed me with a pistol. 
 
 "You take my life when you do take the means by which 
 I live." 
 
 The test of the lawfulness of a combination should be the
 
 TRADE UNIONS 105 
 
 lawfulness of the purpose for which it was formed. A com- 
 bination to economize the cost of production and thereby give 
 the buyer a better article at a cheaper rate should always be 
 lawful. A combination to destroy a man's business is the 
 "ferocious competition" of which Mr. Justice Holmes speaks, 
 and should always be unlawful. On these lines, let the Sher- 
 man Act be amended. 
 
 In conclusion, Mr. Gompers declares: "The workingmen 
 constitute the great majority of people in the world; finally, 
 they will take over the power of government." Yes, the 
 workingmen. But who are the workingmen? Farmers and 
 farm laborers are workingmen. Those engaged in personal 
 service are workingmen. Ministers, lawyers, doctors, engi- 
 neers, teachers are all workingmen, and generally work more 
 than eight hours a day. "Organized labor" does not include 
 more than one-tenth of the population of America. Trades 
 unions have been in many instances of great service to their 
 members, and to the public. As long as they ask for justice, 
 and limit their endeavors to that, they will have public sup- 
 port. But when they seek to gain their ends by violence, 
 direct or indirect, the pistol, the club, or the boycott, they 
 will be defeated. This is a free country, and the man who 
 does not belong to a labor union has just as indefeasible a 
 right to sell his labor as if he were a member. This right 
 the laws of a free country will always protect.
 
 AFFIRMATIVE DISCUSSION 
 
 Peters, J. P. Labor and Capital, pp. 55-61. 
 Benefits of Labor Unions. James Bronson Reynolds. 
 
 Benefits to employed. I would specify three classes of 
 benefits which unions give to their members. The first is 
 the immediate, material benefit for which the union is organ- 
 ized, namely, a fair working day and as high wages as pos- 
 sible. If you find a trade with short hours and good wages 
 you may be sure that it is one whose workers have been or- 
 ganized into a union. If the hours are long and the wages 
 small you may safely infer that the trade is either unorgan- 
 ized or weakly organized. The only exceptions are a few 
 highly skilled trades where organization may not be neces- 
 sary to secure a monopoly of labor. 
 
 Those who call themselves advocates of non-union labor 
 should remember that the union secures the hours of labor 
 and the standard of wages by which the non-union man is 
 benefitted equally with the union man. I know no means by 
 which reasonable hours and a fair rate of wages can be se- 
 cured and maintained in a trade except by organization, and 
 I regard the realization of the value of organization in any 
 trade as a fair test of the intelligence of the men engaged in 
 it. If unions are sometimes narrow or arbitrary the remedy 
 is not the abolishment of the union, any more than anarchy 
 is the remedy for bad government. The remedy for bad 
 government is good government, and the remedy for bad 
 unions is good unions. In any case organization is the road 
 to progress and improvement for the wage-earner. 
 
 Further material benefits from trade unions are found in 
 the efforts of unions to secure the safety of their members in 
 the use of dangerous machinery, in the maintenance of good 
 sanitary conditions under which the work shall be performed, 
 in the granting of out-of-work, sickness, and death benefits.
 
 io8 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 A labor union is also an employment bureau, and its officers 
 spend no little part of their time in securing work for mem- 
 bers out of work. 
 
 The second benefit of a trade-union to its members is 
 that the union seeks to maintain permanent employment. A 
 well-organized union is always opposed to strikes except as 
 a last resort. The strength of a union can be judged by the 
 frequency of strikes in the trade. Labor leaders, as a class, 
 are opposed to strikes and prevent many labor difficulties 
 of which employers are not aware and for which the leaders 
 receive no credit. This statement may be a surprise to some 
 and may be denied by the enemies of trade-unions, but it is 
 never-the-less true. As union officers are not connected with 
 the shop in which difficulties arise, they are usually free from 
 its prejudices and its irritations. There have been many 
 instances where they have kept men at work, where "hot- 
 heads" would have caused a strike and would have involved 
 their members in loss. Employers who indignantly resent 
 what they call the intrusion of outsiders in the management 
 of their own affairs would do well to consider this statement. 
 This service of labor leaders is neither known nor appreciat- 
 ed as it deserves to be. The unreasonable demands and 
 overbearing manners of a few are taken as characteristic of 
 the class. 
 
 The third benefit of a trade-union to its members is the 
 moral benefit. Unions in the technical trades demand tests 
 of efficiency from their members. Some also demand the 
 maintenance of a certain standard of technical efficiency, and 
 many scrutinize moral character. The officers of a union 
 who find a member repeatedly out of work and constantly 
 coming to them for another job are sure to advise him to do 
 better work and warn him against the results of dissipation. 
 Hence, unionism, though not encouraging competition be- 
 tween members, does encourage good character and good 
 work. 
 
 Benefits to employers. The benefits of a trade-union to 
 employers have been r,ecognized by a few, grudgingly ad- 
 mitted by some, and doubted by many. But I am convinced 
 that it is as certainly to the advantage of an employer to 
 deal with a union, rather than with unorganized bodies of
 
 TRADE UNIONS 109 
 
 working men, as it is to the advantage of the men to belong 
 to union. The first benefit to the employer who wishes to 
 learn the real cause of his diflficulties with his men is that 
 he can deal through the union with their own chosen repre- 
 sentatives, who, as a rule, are best qualified to speak in their 
 behalf. Not being dependent upon the employer the leaders 
 are able to speak frankly and freely, and the root of the dif- 
 ficulty can be reached more quickly through them than 
 through the workers who constantly fear that their com- 
 plaints may cause the loss of their jobs. Second, employers 
 often indignantly declare that they are willing to meet their 
 own men, but do not admit the right of outsiders to "inter- 
 fere" in their business. Without discussing the economic 
 questions involved in that proposition, but considering the 
 case merely from the employer's point of view, I believe the 
 prejudice is short sighted. The employer needs to learn the 
 real cause of the difficulty in his shop from those best able to 
 express it and who will be free from personal prejudice and 
 local bias. The labor leader knows how to handle his own 
 men, is not deceived by their attempt to give an incorrect 
 statement of the case, quickly sifts the evidence, and, be- 
 cause of his experience, is an expert representative of the 
 laborer's point of view. If the employer is willing to meet 
 his men fairly, he cannot find anyone so well qualified to help 
 him settle the difficulty justly to both sides as the accredited 
 leader of an organization. Third, the employer is immensely 
 benefitted by the conservatism of the experienced labor 
 leader. Unorganized bodies of men are much more likely to 
 strike hastily than if directed by experienced leaders. Of 
 course there are leaders who involve their unions in unneces- 
 sary strikes, make negotiation with employers difficult, exer- 
 cise a bad influence over the men, and are generally un- 
 worthy of respect or confidence. But the true character of 
 such men is sure in time to be discovered. A union will 
 not keep a leader who does not "hit it off" with the em- 
 ployers. My opinion is that while some unworthy and dis- 
 honest leaders are unwisely trusted by their organizations. 
 in the majority of cases it would be better for the men if 
 they more thoroughly trusted their own chosen leaders. Dis- 
 trust of their leaders is the greatest weakness of labor un-
 
 no SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 ions. While a few socalled "walking delegates" may be un- 
 trustworthy the majority of them are reliable and hardwork- 
 ing, having less leisure than the men whom they represent. 
 The labor leader who works sixteen hours a day to secure 
 an eight-hour day for his men is not consistent with his 
 principles but he is entitled to the respect of his organiza- 
 tion. 
 
 Annals of the American Academy. 27: 521-30. May, 1906. 
 
 The Services of Labor Unions in the Settlement of Industrial 
 Disputes. William B. Prescott. 
 
 While not shirking any responsibility for their mistakes, 
 trade unionists deny that their system is especially provoca- 
 tive of industrial strife. That is due to the inherent desire 
 in man to insist upon his rights and to improve his social 
 condition. The union arose when production passed into 
 the factory stage and the employer knew not his employees 
 except as he heard of them through his heads of depart- 
 ments bent on "making good." To the employer they were 
 an impersonal mob who collectively got results. The fore- 
 man or superintendent who did know those under him re- 
 gretted that in fact, for his chief business was to get the 
 greatest result for the least money, and in doing so it be- 
 came his duty to squeeze his friends. In this way injustices 
 became rife that would not be thought of under the "small 
 shop" system with its village-like environment. If men pro- 
 tested to the superintendent they were told the management 
 was responsible, and the management in turn said it couldn't 
 interfere with the superintendent. But both told the work- 
 ers if they didn't like it they could go the world was wide. 
 But apart from juggling evasiveness of this character, if an 
 employer were ever so willing to do the square thing, it* 
 would be impossible for him to meet the wishes of individ- 
 ual employees. The first step to remedy wrongs would be 
 for the workers to counsel together and formulate their de- 
 mands or desires. Here we find that a sort of organization 
 is necessary if men are not to submit to industrial despotism, 
 and in the workaday world there are no benevolent despo- 
 tisms. If an industry be in the competitive stage, the race fot 
 business prevents that to any great extent; and if competi-
 
 TRADE UNIONS in 
 
 tion be held in check the necessity for providing dividends 
 on inflated stock is a barrier. The great central figure in a 
 workingman's life is the wages he is to receive. That is not 
 only vital with him, but vital with those dependent on him. 
 If wages are low it means not only a lessening of creature 
 comforts for himself, but a narrower, poorer outlook for his 
 children. 
 
 The cardinal tenet of unionism is that the worker shall 
 have an effective voice in determining the conditions under 
 which the worker shall sell his labor. This right has been 
 and is usually resisted by employers. They see in it an 
 attack upon their profits, and they know that, once they admit 
 the principle involved, what had been the line of least resist- 
 ance when they desired to economize assumes something 
 like the proportions of a stone wall. So there were and are 
 strikes and lockouts to enforce or resist this so-called prin- 
 ciple. At that point of developinent in any trade we find 
 unions adopting scales after sunset and enforcing them the 
 following morning. Employers may succumb to such tac- 
 tics, but when opportunity offers the inevitable reprisal oc- 
 curs. This sort of guerrilla warfare goes on until the union 
 is destroyed or the employers awake to the fact that whether 
 they recognize the organization or not, it determines the 
 wages paid. These wasteful strikes or lockouts are usually 
 followed by a conference of some sort, many of which have 
 seen the acceptance of the proposition which put an end to 
 the wars. Having obtained recognition of this principle by 
 force of hard knocks, taken and given, the union purpose 
 and method begin to unfold. Confident of their ability to 
 compel the respect of employers, the unionists promulgate a 
 scale of wages, of which they notify the employers interested 
 and invite them to confer on any disputed points. Often- 
 times the unions have found their employers slow to act and 
 are compelled to call meetings of the latter in order that 
 negotiations may be conducted in a business-like manner. 
 
 The representatives of both factions are thus brought face 
 to face, and there is a free and frank discussion of views, it 
 is no uncommon thing to see employers voting with em- 
 ployees and vice versa. Convinced of the sincerity of the 
 conferees, there is a disposition on the part of all to consider 
 questions on their merit, rather than from the viewpoint of
 
 112 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 the special interests represented by each. By this means 
 common sense and reason supplant misunderstanding and 
 its consequent rancor and bitterness. If such a conference 
 eventuates in an amicable settlement of differences, it is a 
 short and easy step to establish a board of say, two from 
 each element, to which must be referred all disputes as to 
 the interpretation of the agreement, with power to appoint 
 an arbitrator in case the conferees are unable to agree. 
 
 From this naturally follows a conference committee with 
 similar powers as to appointing an umpire to decide upon 
 new scales. When this stage is reached and the representa- 
 tives are honest in their professed desire to preserve the 
 peace there is little danger of wasteful war. With a confer- 
 ence committee" established there is an agency existing whose 
 duty it is to minimize the differences between the contending 
 factions. Without it, on the eve of any change the influence 
 of each organization seems to be devoted to the senseless, 
 almost criminal, work of widening the breach. This is done 
 for the purpose of instilling confidence and backbone into 
 their respective memberships. This of itself is wasted en- 
 ergy, for no one ever met an employee who was in favor of 
 long hours and low wages or an employer who wasn't look- 
 ing for the easiest way to affluence or a competency, which- 
 ever his goal might happen to be. 
 
 Wherever tried this system has been beneficent to all. It 
 gives stability to emploj'ment on the one hand and steadiness 
 to the labor market on the other. To the public it is also a 
 guarantee against unsettled conditions. Economically speak- 
 ing, what more can be asked? It is urged against it by some 
 that such agreements usually provide .for the surrender of 
 individuality by reference of disputed points to an arbitrator. 
 This is far-fetched, whether it emanates from a worker or an 
 employer. The former renounces some of his personal rights 
 when he joins a union, and the latter does also when he joins 
 any of the numerous companies open to him, or promises 
 to pay what his competitors concede. In certain circum- 
 stances the law compels us all to submit to an arbitrator 
 when a neighbor transfers a dispute into a civil court where 
 a judge is the umpire. This cry of individual liberty is car-
 
 TRADE UNIONS 113 
 
 ried to absurd lengths, for in our complex state of society we 
 are all dependent. 
 
 I recall that when typesetting machines were in their in- 
 fantile days it became necessary for the board to render a 
 decision. Owing largely to the fact that none knew much 
 about the character and productivity of Mr. Mergenthaler's 
 revolutionary innovation there was no agreement. An arbi- 
 trator was unanimously chosen, who rendered a decision. 
 Its character and effect are no importance now and here. 
 As time rolled round and more light was obtained on the 
 matter and the making of a machine scale became a neces- 
 sity, the board decided the subject too important to be de- 
 termined by an outsider, and forthwith drafted a scale that 
 in its essential features has held since that time. 
 
 The decision of an arbitrator often leaves bitterness in its 
 train, but not so the result of the deliberations of a joint 
 board. And the reason is not far to seek. The document is 
 the joint product of the two parties in interest it is the 
 conclusion of the minds presumably best fitted to determine 
 such problems. If either party has made a mistake in the 
 selection of representatives it will regard it philosophically 
 it at least has no "kick coming," to drop into the vernacular. 
 But those acquainted with the system know that the element 
 of justice underlying it is what commends it to the workers. 
 The right of the seller to have an effective voice in establish- 
 ing the price of his product is recognized, as is not possible 
 under any other known system. And behind the labor move- 
 ment in all its manifestations is the all-consuming desire for 
 justice rather than for power. This element also commends 
 the system to fair-minded employers. 
 
 From the standpoint of the public, the trade agreement is 
 a happy solution of the strike and lockout difficulty. And if 
 the great industries are not conducted along such lines, I 
 venture that the State will find some substitute. Great 
 strikes in Australasia begot the compulsory arbitration laws 
 of that progressive corner of the world. And here and there 
 in this country State boards of mediation and arbitration are 
 carrying on flirtations with the same remedy. 
 
 This public desires justice, too, and it doesn't want its 
 comfort disturbed. If a strike or lockout causes a dearth of
 
 114 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 coal at a reasonable price or common carriers do not proper- 
 ly perform their functions, the public will find a way to ter- 
 minate strikes. And this public, with its good heart and 
 strong sense of justice, will not order a wholesale massacre 
 of strikers or their incarceration. It will empower some au- 
 thorit}' to hear the evidence and determine the rights in the 
 controversy so that justice may prevail and the public wants 
 be supplied. These law-made arbitrators new kinds of 
 courts to settle new-born controversies may even be elected 
 for short terms by the people. Legal objections to such a 
 tribunal may be piled up mountain high, be very logical and 
 very forbidding, but my limited reading of the history of this 
 country has taught me that whatever the people really de- 
 sired they secured even to the establishment of a prohibitive 
 tariflF under the guise of raising revenue from imports, or the 
 abolition of chattel slavery. And the new order has always 
 made good. 
 
 But I hear our friends say that maj' be all very well and 
 permissible in the case of necessitous industries like coal 
 mining or railroading, but no such regulation would be made 
 to apply to smaller and less important lines of activity. If 
 such a remedy were found to work well and serve the ends of 
 justice in the major industries, it would inevitably be applied 
 to the minor ones. In fact in the whirligig of legal warfare 
 over the innovation it rnight be deemed necessary to make 
 the law all-inclusive in order to avoid some such pitfall of 
 class legislation. So far as known. State interference has 
 never proven as satisfactory as the trade agreement method 
 of settling disputes, but those who oppose it on the ground 
 that it is a surrender of personal liberty "veiled Socialism" 
 is the incongruous name given by some are hastening the 
 day when what they profess to dread the most will be ushered 
 in. And, indeed, that would not be a new thing. Often has 
 it occurred that the reactionaries who opposed any recogni- 
 tion of new conditions have been the most valuable aid to 
 radical thought and methods. 
 
 If powerful unions are the parents of the trade agreement 
 system, it is none the less true that the prime requisite for 
 its maintenance is strong, dominating organizations on both 
 sides of the house. With the employers it must be of suf-
 
 TRADE UNIONS iiS 
 
 ficient force to compel honest adherence to the scale in its 
 field of operations. The uinons must be in such a position 
 that when they speak it is the last word on their side of the 
 subject. They must also be able to discipline employees 
 who would violate the terms of the agreement. If they are 
 unable to do this employers will soon complain, and with jus- 
 tice, for an agreement with an organization unable to control 
 the workers at the trade would be worse than farcical. Sup- 
 pose during the past few fat years the Typographical Union 
 had been a weak institution, unable to control its members, 
 we would have seen the spectacle of men making demands 
 on publishers at times when they would have to concede or 
 suffer much loss. Methods for preserving discipline differ 
 in the various unions. Some rely on beneficial systems; 
 others partly on the closed shop. But whatever the means, 
 they must not be impaired, for with the advent of new 
 responsibilities there is need for more, not less, power in the 
 organization. 
 
 The main objection to collective bargaining is that it has 
 in some instances led to conspiracies having for their object 
 the fleecing of the people. The cases cited have been excep- 
 tional and the evil was short-lived. But this is not an intend- 
 ed or usual outcome of the trade agreements. In truth, the 
 public are mulcted most in industries in which the trade 
 agreement does not obtain. This species of robbery may be 
 an accompaniment of collective bargaining here and there, 
 but it is not of it, and its root is to be found elsewhere. If 
 we want to give battle to that kind of wrong we are better 
 equipped to do so as citizens than as industrialists. If there 
 were not a trade union in this broad land the consumer 
 would be the victim of such get-rich-anyway conspiracies. 
 
 To sum up, collective bargaining (i) recognizes the right 
 of the wage-earner to a real and substantial voice in deter- 
 mining the price of his labor; (2) reduces industrial strife 
 and the wastage from strikes and lockouts to a minimum; 
 (3) provides the most satisfactory method of settling dis- 
 puted questions, as the arbiters are experts selected by each 
 side, and (4) it is the best safeguard against government 
 interference in its least beneficent and most obnoxious form 
 compulsory arbitration or its approximate.
 
 ii6 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 Those who oppose collective bargaining either openly or 
 by indirection through miserable subterfuges are in duty 
 bound to show us a way out which will furnish the workers 
 equal justice, conserve the energies of the people, secure as 
 equitable results and ward off the ogre of government con- 
 trol of wage scales. They will have much difficulty in doing 
 this, but until they can fill the bill they should step aside. 
 To be a mere negationist on this question is to be reaction- 
 ary and a discourager of progress a bourbon unaflEected by 
 the growth of intelligence or the change of conditions. 
 
 Independent. 52: 1055-8. May 3, 1900. 
 Ethical Side of Trade Unionism. Edward W. Bemis. 
 
 The trade union has been compared to the modern trust. 
 It is strikingly like the latter in some respects, and different 
 from it in others. Like the typical trust, many trade unions 
 seek to obtain a monopoly and secure monopoly prices. Sid- 
 ney Webb designates the principle as that of a "compulsory 
 maintenance of the standard of life." It might be called both 
 the compulsory maintenance and the elevation of this stand- 
 ard, so far as that is dependent on wages, hours of labor and 
 other industrial conditions. 
 
 Under the present economic organization of society the 
 vast mass of workmen who have no special individual repu- 
 tation, as has the lawyer, the physician, the teacher, the artist, 
 and the writer, are in fierce competition for employment. 
 Those who will work the cheapest are likely to be hired. 
 Assuming that the many claimants for employment have all 
 a passable knowledge of their trade, those that will work 
 the cheapest are likely to be hired. Under these circum- 
 stances a species of cutthroat competition arises, and work- 
 men, weak individually, without much tinancial resource or 
 knowledge of trade conditions, are under the temptation to 
 work for less than it is to the advantage of society that they 
 should receive. Business prosperity is advanced by a high 
 purchasing power among the masses. To develop this power 
 is vastly more important and permanent in its eflfects upon 
 industrial prosperity than the crowding upon foreign markets
 
 TRADE UNIONS 117 
 
 of the so-called "surplus products" of our factories. Under 
 any rational distribution of income our industries would never 
 have much unsalable surplus product, even if there were no 
 foreign trade whatever. 
 
 It has been likewise conceded by most investigators that 
 a high purchasing power among the many increases home 
 decencies and comforts, morals and education. Sometimes 
 the saloon is chiefly benefited by high wages and short hours, 
 but usually the reverse is true. In the light of the experi- 
 ence of England and America, few are so bold as to deny- 
 that the trade union movement has to some extent improved 
 the industrial condition of labor. As a result have come the 
 social and ethical advantages just mentioned. Just as the 
 trust, jiowever, often refuses to deal with any who will not 
 confine their trade to the trust, so the union often refuses to 
 work with non-union men. It is a policy of force, not very 
 pleasant to contemplate, and yet I believe entirely defensible, 
 and even necessary, in the present social conditions, so far, 
 at least, as the union is concerned. If it is a good thing to 
 raise wages, and if refusal to work with a non-union man 
 increases the power of the union in this direction, and if such 
 refusal is not inherently sinful, it may be defended as an 
 interference with one's freedom of action in order to secure 
 greater freedom from poverty for all, since any general rise 
 in the wages of a trade secured by a combination of work- 
 men is likely to raise wages even in establishments where 
 only non-union labor is employed. 
 
 While the union resembles the trust in many of its aims 
 and methods, it differs from it in the following essential 
 points: The labor organization benefits millions instead of 
 thousands; it aids the poor who need improved social condi- 
 tions rather than the rich who do not; it is far more demo- 
 cratie in its organization, for the labor union usually admits 
 to its membership at any time all good workmen of the 
 trade who wish to join, and on terms of perfect equality, 
 with equal chance with the old members to secure the of- 
 ficial positions of control and emolument. We are all familiar 
 with how, when the financially weak are taken into the trust, 
 they are usually given only subordinate position, and if 
 allowed to become minority stockholders are still at the
 
 Ii8 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 mercy of the few who control the majority of the stock. 
 It is probable that the labor union does not stimulate its 
 members to the keenest exertions as much as does the trust 
 but this is only part of the general weakness of the wage 
 system, which does not find any way of giving the workman 
 as much interest in the business as have the owners. On the 
 other hand the union has not such a bad influence upon 
 political conditions as has the giant corporation, which is 
 constantly seeking favors and discriminations from taxing 
 and franchise-giving bodies and from the railroads. The ex- 
 tent to which legislation in the interest of our great corpora- 
 tions, especially our monopolies and trusts, is a pure matter 
 of bargain and sale in nearly all of our legislative and 
 council chambers would horrify the country if really under- 
 stood in all its enormity. The direct ethical aspect of trade 
 unionism is seen in its relief of those in distress, whether 
 from lack of work, old age, sickness, or death of the bread- 
 winner. 
 
 The one hundred principal trade unions of Great Britain, 
 with a membership in 1898 of 1,043,476, or about 60 per cent, 
 of the total membership of all the unions, spent during the 
 seven years, 1892-1898, inclusive, for friendly and benevolent 
 purposes, 59 per cent, of their total expenses, while another 
 18 per cent, was devoted to working expenses of various 
 kinds, and only 23 per cent, to dispute benefits. American 
 trade unions are much younger, and these admirable benefit 
 features come with age. Less than one-sixth of our tr^ide 
 unions were in existence in 1880, and they then embraced 
 less than one-tenth of the existing membership, of perhaps 
 one million, of all American unions, while one-third of the 
 present British unions were in existence twenty years ago, 
 and in those unions to-day are over 60 per cent, of all the 
 British trade unionists. In 1880 only 5,590 members of 
 American national trade unions were in receipt of other than 
 strike benefits from their national organizations, yet in New 
 York State alone, in 1894. when there were 155.843 members 
 of labor organizations in the State, 541 of these organizations, 
 representing 121,957 members, or possibly one-fifth of all 
 those organized at that time in the United States had ex- 
 penditures for the year of $511,817.59, of which $260,447.59, or
 
 TRADE UNIONS 119 
 
 51 per cent., was spent for benefits other than trade dis- 
 putes, and it is probable that the same was true of a part of 
 another 30 per cent, reported as spent for "benefits not clas- 
 sified." The membership of the New York unions had grown 
 to 209,120 on September 30th, 1899, and there is every reason 
 to believe that the amount spent in insurance and aid to 
 members has continued to grow more than proportionately 
 to the increase of numbers. In fact, without such a carefully 
 guarded national system of labor insurance as prevails in 
 Germany or such safeguards as can be adopted in enormous 
 railroad systems like the Pennsylvania and the Baltimore & 
 Ohio, it is almost impossible to insure workingmen against 
 sickness and disability unless through their own organizations. 
 The latter can quickly detect shamming, for every member 
 is personally interested as a contributor in preventing im- 
 position by fellow members. When we consider that during 
 the severe winter of 1893-4, when so many were out of 
 work, not a single application for relief came to the chari- 
 ties organizations of Chicago from any trade union members, 
 and when we realize the self-respect that self insurance of 
 this kind gives, we can understand an important ethical as- 
 pect of the trade union movement which is not sufficiently 
 recognized. 
 
 Against this some would place the supposed restriction 
 on tbe number of apprentices by the unions. It is said that 
 there is a conspiracy against the American boy and against 
 trade instruction. An investigation of this matter for an 
 article which I contributed to the Annals of the American 
 Academy of Political and Social Science, for September, 1894, 
 showed that many trade unions, such as those upon the rail- 
 roads, have no such restrictions, and that in most other cases 
 the number of apprentices, as, for example, among the print- 
 ing establishments of Chicago or New York, is less than 
 the trade union rules allow. This means that the greatest 
 obstacle in the way of apprenticeship lies not in the unions, 
 but in the American boy, who does not want to undergo an 
 apprentice's training, and the employer, who does not care to 
 bother with him. The solution of trade instruction will lie 
 with manual training and technical schools, supported by 
 public and private eflForts, as in Germany and England, and,
 
 I20 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 as we are beginning to see, in our State agricultural colleges, 
 and in some of our city schools. 
 
 The attitude of our unions on the temperance question 
 has been a matter of special investigation on my part within 
 a ffw months. About a dozen organizations, with aboyt 
 180,000 members, report a very marked antagonism to the 
 saloon. For example, Mr. Robert B. Kerr, Secretary-Treas- 
 urer of the International Brotherhood of Blacksmiths, with 
 3,000 members, writes: 
 
 "Both Pre.sident Slocum and myself, as well as the other 
 members of the Executive Board of this order, have done every- 
 thing possible to oppose the saloon and its influences among our 
 members. I wish to go on record as saying that I consider the 
 saloon to be the greatest enemy to organized labor that exists 
 at the present time, as indeed it is to all other progressive move- 
 ments of whatever kind. To the best of my knowledge none of 
 our locals meet in halls connected with saloons; as a general 
 thing meetings of trade unions are held in halls belonging to 
 the trades and labor councils or to some of the fraternal socle- 
 ties." 
 
 The general secretary-treasurer, Mr. Lee M. Hart, of the 
 National Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, with a 
 membership of 4,000, writes that they have "very stringent 
 laws compelling temperance on the part of every member." 
 
 Mr. E. E. Clark, head of the Railway Conductors, writes: 
 
 The good effects of the trades unions upon their members 
 are apparent to the most casual observer. The general character 
 and social standing of the employees In trades which are thor- 
 oughly well organized is so radically different from what it was 
 before they had organizations that there is no room for doubt on 
 that score. Intemperance has materially decreased; thrift and In- 
 dustriousness have Increased, and the percentage of men who 
 own their own homes is very much larger among members of 
 trade unions than among any equal number of men who do not 
 belong to the unions. The general Influence of labor organizations 
 has been to elevate the character of the men, and those influences 
 are still at work." 
 
 Mr. J. Ford, Jr., editor of the Switchman's Union, writes : 
 
 "In our obligation there is a clause which states, 'I will 
 not recommend any one for membership in this organization 
 whom I know to he a common drunkard." I, myself, am a total 
 abstainer, and likewise, also. Is the Grand Master, the Grand 
 Secretary and Treasurer, and the Vice-Grand Master. I visited 
 some of the subordinate lodges this summer and at every place 
 I spoke against the use of liquor. I have also written against it 
 in our official organ." 
 
 He says the trade union elevates its members 
 "morally, socially and intellectually, makes them better husbands, 
 fathers, workmen or citizens. In fact, a laboring man who does 
 not belong to the organization which represents its labor, in 
 my estimation, is not a good citizen. Years ago, before the 
 switchmen were organized, they received $1.50 per day. They
 
 TRADE UNIONS 121 
 
 were a roving class. Today, through organization, they are 
 getting' 25 cents and 29 cents per hour, and a good many of them 
 have homes and are educating their children to fill any position 
 in life. All this is due to organization." 
 
 Mr. J. B. Lennon, secretary of the Journeyman Tailors, 
 writes: 
 
 "I can well remember when there could be found in no city 
 from Sunday until Tuesday or Wednesday of the following week 
 any tailors who were sufficiently sober to work at their trade, 
 or if any they were very few indeed. I believe most earnestly 
 that organization has been the cause that has cured and elimi- 
 nated this evil. You can now go to the same cities where our 
 unions have existed from ten to twenty-five or thirty years, and 
 you will scarcely find a single member of the organization that 
 is a habitual drunkard. The officers of our organization, myself 
 Included, are decidedly opposed to the use of intoxicating liquors 
 as a beverage, and I have not failed, whenever the opportunity 
 presented itself, to declare myself upon this question." 
 
 The secretaries of other unions, numbering over 100,000 
 members, report considerable opposition to the saloon, while 
 a third group, of nearly 200,000 members, report that their 
 insurance departments are a great encouragement to tem- 
 perance, because sickness, accident and disability benefits are 
 forfeited if the misfortune has been caused by drink, while 
 all the unions appear to consider, with truth, that the social 
 atmosphere of the union supplies some of the needs of human 
 nature that usually draw men to the saloon. 
 
 Our trade unions have been the most active force in secur- 
 ing compulsory education, factory legislation, employers' lia- 
 bility acts, free public employment bureaus, bureaus of labor 
 statistics, boards of arbitration, sanitary laws for workers, 
 the regulation or prohibition of sweatshops the early closing 
 of stores, and the eight-hour day, while they have co-operated 
 heartily with efforts of other classes in securing the prohibi- 
 tion of most kinds of Sunday labor. 
 
 Recognizing, then, that pur own rapidly growing labor 
 organizations are not directly seeking to increase the skill or 
 efficiency of their members, but to secure better terms from 
 the employer and better protection from the State, we are 
 bound to admit that in the accomplishment of these ends a 
 better standard of living and higher ethical ideals are grad- 
 ually developed. By all odds the worst feature of American 
 unions is the readiness of many of their leaders to desert 
 their organizations for political plums, under our spoils sys- 
 tem or for other selfish reasons. Fortunately the rank and
 
 122 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 file of the unions are beginning to recognize this and to seek" 
 more disinterested leadership. 
 
 The unions greatly need the friendly counsel and co- 
 operation of those better educated and more fortunately situ- 
 ated, who are enthusiastic to work and suffer if thereby these 
 promising organizations of labor can more nearly approach 
 their ideals. Will not some would-be followers of Jesus 
 realize that the giving of such co-operation to organized 
 labor is a truly Christian duty? 
 
 Independent. 66: 182-5. January 28, igog. 
 Nemo Me Impune Lacessit. A. J. Portenar. 
 
 In order to determine the nature and extent of Mr. Gom- 
 pers's ofifense it is pertinent to inquire what effect his an- 
 nouncement in the "We Don't Patronize" list had; upon 
 whom it had such effect, and why it had such effect. 
 
 When the list has any influence on the action of one 
 who reads it, it can only have such influence if the reader is 
 in sympathy with the object of the list. If he has that sym- 
 pathy he will voluntarily discriminate against the products 
 mentioned in that list. Surely it cannot be contended that 
 he has not a right so to discriminate. Upon one who is in- 
 different or hostile to the trades union movement, the list 
 will either have no effect at all, or else will cause him to act 
 in a manner entirely contrary to the effect sought by Mr. 
 Gompcrs in making the public announcement. In either case, 
 Mr. Gompers does not control and has not sought to control 
 the actions of those persons who may read this list. If he 
 has made no attempt to coerce any one into following a given 
 line of action, then whatever offense he may be deemed 
 guilty of must consist solely in the fact of the publication 
 itself, regardless of whether anybody was influenced thereby 
 or not. 
 
 At the risk of suit for damages in a civil action or prose- 
 cution for criminal libel, a newspaper may publish anything. 
 Freely using this privilege, newspapers have published stories 
 to influence stock market prices, without being over scrup- 
 ulous as to whether the stories were true; they have dis-
 
 TRADE UNIONS 123 
 
 seminated serious charges reflecting upon candidates for pub- 
 lic office close to elections, so as to give no opportunity for 
 denial or refutation, also without careful scrutiny of their 
 truth, or even with positive knowledge of their falsity; they 
 have spread scandalous tales concerning the private affairs of 
 individuals, for malicious reasons or to make a racy story. 
 All this may be borne with equanimity; but the limit is 
 reached, the line of toleration is overstept, the "absolute" 
 freedom of the press must be curtailed by the order of a 
 court, when the editor of a labor paper informs his readers 
 that a certain manufacturer discriminates against those very 
 readers by employing non-union men. It is not claimed that 
 the information is untrue. It cannot be claimed that union 
 men must not be told this truth because they have no right 
 to bestow their patronage where they please. It will not be 
 claimed that they will please to bestow their patronage upon 
 their avowed enemies. 
 
 It is true that the good-will of a business is often bought 
 and sold, and that it may be very valuable. But if a man 
 sells to another the good-will of his business together with 
 the stock and appurtenances thereof, is he assured that he 
 can make delfvery of what he has sold? And if, for any rea- 
 son or out of pure caprice, his former customers refuse their 
 patronage to his successor, can the latter demand delivery of 
 what he bought? Can he sue and recover the purchase price 
 of the good-will in the same manner as he might if the stock 
 was misrepresented as to quality or amount? He cannot; 
 and hence it follows that while good-will might be called 
 property in a certain sense, it is still true that no man can 
 have a property right in the custom of any other man. If 
 he had, the seller could deliver and the purchaser demand 
 the patronage of the persons whose good-will was paid for, 
 and those persons would be bound to spend their money with 
 those who had a vested right to such patronage, and not 
 wherever their inclinations might lead them. 
 
 I therefore fail to see what ofTense was committed by Mr. 
 Gompers, either in the publication per se, or in the effect 
 that might be attained upon others by the publication. 
 
 Now, a word as to the contempt for which Mr. Gompers 
 was sentenced to imprisonment.
 
 124 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 If the Constitution, without qualification, says that I may 
 do a certain thing, and a judge in his wisdom orders me to 
 desist from doing that thing, what should be my attitude?. 
 Must I surrender my constitutional rights upon his arbitrary 
 order? True, if it is a judge of an inferior court who makes 
 the order, I may appeal from his decision, but while my 
 appeal drags its slow way thru the courts my rights are 
 destroyed, and even should my appeal eventually be sustained, 
 I have none the less been unjustly withheld from the exercise 
 of my guaranteed privileges, and that without any hope of 
 redress against the judge who so deprived me. 
 
 If I disobey, I am in contempt. Now, it is difficult to 
 maintain the position that any man may disobey the order of 
 a court when he feels that he is aggrieved thereby. Never- 
 theless, it would not be difficult to find instances where men 
 have disobeyed statutes and courts, and have been applauded 
 therefor. That which is legal may still be unjust, and there 
 is no wrong so hard to bear with fortitude as a wrong im- 
 posed by the forms of law. Obedience to the law and the 
 courts is necessary as a rule of conduct, but it is conceivable 
 that disobedience may at times be the more righteous atti- 
 tude. 
 
 But let us leave the^ case of Mr. Gompers and consider the 
 boycott in a general way. In that connection I must refer 
 to certain language used by Mr. Wheeler, from which I infer 
 that he is laboring under a mistaken impression: 
 
 "So with a man's labor. It is his property, and a sacred and 
 indispensable property. He is free to sell it or to refuse to sell. 
 But once he contracts to give his labor, the person with whom 
 the contract is made has property in its performance. ... In 
 the long run, the sacredness of contracts means more to the 
 labor union than to the employer. What the honest workman 
 wants Is steady work on terms to which he has freely agreed, 
 and the performance of which he can enforce." 
 
 Does Mr. Wheeler believe that the mechanic or laborer 
 has contractual relations with his employer which he can 
 enforce in the courts? Does he not know that the terms 
 upon which he is employed are such as he can obtain in com- 
 petition with his fellows, terminable at any moment, with or 
 without good cause? Does he not know that the only re- 
 straint upon the employer's absolute domination is in the 
 union for mutual protection or advancement of the em- 
 ployees? In theory, of course, the workman freely assents
 
 TRADE UNIONS 125 
 
 to the terms of his employment, and may leave it as readily 
 as the employer may discharge him, but is it so in fact? 
 Permit me to quote from an article in the independent of 
 October 24th, 1907: 
 
 "Freedom of contract presupposes the equality of the con- 
 tracting parties. What sort of equality exists between the own- 
 er of land; machinery and capital on the one side, and the owner 
 of nothing but a pair of hands on the other? It has been forcibly 
 said that most worl^men have not a month's wages between them- 
 selves and the almshouse. Thus the 'freedom' of one of the par- 
 ties is fatally circumscribed by the imperative character of his 
 necessities. Now, if the position of the workman is still fur- 
 ther prejudiced by the fact that three men are seeking one job, 
 will it be contended that any other 'freedom' remains but that 
 of taking what he can get with the alternative of starving? 
 
 "The union confers with the employer as a representative of 
 the individuals who compose it. All the questions surrounding 
 employment in an industry are discussed, with the result that 
 written contracts for a definite period of time are agreed upon, 
 at living wages and for reasonable hours." 
 
 Such employers as Mr. Van Cleave, Mr. Post or Mr. 
 Parry refuse to treat with a union as equal parties to a con- 
 tract. They usually declare that they are going to run their 
 own business without interference. But while they discrim- 
 inate against union men, they are filled with virtuous indig- 
 nation when union men retaliate by discriminating against 
 them. It is quite proper for Mr. Van Cleave, as president 
 of the Manufacturers' Association, to advise the collection of 
 a fund of $500,000 for the avowed purpose of fighting or- 
 ganized labor, but it is highly improper for union men to 
 refuse to spend their money on Mr. Van Cleave's stoves, 
 and thus furnish him with the munitions of war to be used 
 against themselves. To summarize, Mr. Van Cleave may 
 exercise his constitutional right to be a non-union employer 
 and to injure the business of union men by an active cam- 
 paign against them, but union men may on no account in- 
 jure his business by an active campaign against him. Inci- 
 dentally, I wonder if Judge Wright would issue an injunction 
 against the Manufacturers' Association restraining them from 
 giving money to the Typothetas to enable them to make a 
 fight against the eight-hour day asked for by the International 
 Typographical Union. Injunctions have been issued restrain- 
 ing union men from paying assessments for the support of 
 strikers. Can it be that it makes a difference whose ox is 
 gored?
 
 126 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 Again I quote Mr. Wheeler: 
 
 "It will be asked: What would you designate as Illegal acts? 
 I answer: Interference with the property rights of others, whether 
 employer or employed. The blacklist ought to be illegal." 
 
 Ingenuous Mr. Wheeler! Yes, the blacklist ought to be 
 illegal, but it is not, and the Supreme Court, in the Adair 
 case decided that a statute which forbade the discharge of a 
 man because of his membership in a union was unconstitu- 
 tional. So my only property my ability to labor may be 
 interfered with if I desire to be a member of a union, but I 
 and the other members of the union must respect the "prop- 
 erty right" of him who injured us to sell us the goods he 
 will not employ us to make. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler takes issue with Mr. Gompers because the 
 latter said the labor union is not a trust: 
 
 "There again is the fundamental mistake that a combination 
 is not a trust because it deals only with immaterial things. They 
 are just as much the subject of property as material things." 
 
 To Mr. Wheeler's ideas on the labor union as a trust let 
 me oppose the words of the Honorable John Morley, a mem- 
 ber of the present British Government, and a man known 
 thruout the civilized world for his humanitarianism: 
 
 "There is all the difference In the world between the self- 
 ishness of a capitalist and the so-called selfishness of a 
 great trade society. The one means an increase of self-indul- 
 gent luxury for one man or a single family; the other means 
 an increase of decency, increase of comfort, increase of self-re- 
 spect; more ease for the aged, more schooling for the young, not 
 of one family, but of a thousand, or ten thousand families. Others 
 may call that selfishness, if they please; I call it humanity and 
 civilization, and the furtherance of the commonwealth." 
 
 Now, look at this "other flaw" that Mr. Wheeler found, 
 and how he meets it: 
 
 "One other flaw in Mr. Gomper's argument requires considera- 
 tion. He maintains that an act lawful in the individual ought 
 not to be unlawful to a combination. Let us see. If one man 
 enters my house and behaves decently he is welcome. But If 
 a thousand men come at once and fill it, they violate my right to 
 use my own house." 
 
 It appears to me that there is a flaw in Mr. Wheeler's 
 
 illustration. One man may be welcomed in Mr. Wheeler's 
 
 house, but he has no right there. One man can just as eflFect- 
 
 ually violate his right to use his own home as a thousand, 
 
 and neither the one nor the thousand may enter without 
 
 Mr. Wheeler's permission. But one man may refuse to buy 
 
 Mr. Van CIcave's stoves, and a thousand may do likewise, 
 
 and each of them and all of them no more lose their individ-
 
 TRADE UNIONS 127 
 
 ual rights in such a case because they think alike and act 
 alike than they would if they voted against Mr. Van Cleave 
 for a public office because they think alike and act alike. 
 They may request any man to boycott Mr. Van Cleave at 
 the polls. Why may they not request any man to boycott 
 Mr. Van Cleave in a hardware store? 
 
 The boycott has been harshly characterized of late years, 
 as tho it were a new contrivance by the powers of darkness, 
 used only by those sons of Belial, the members of labor 
 unions. As a matter of fact, the boycott is as old as man- 
 kind. But is only anathema when applied by the afore- 
 said offspring of Beelzebub. It is even a laudable and pa- 
 triotic thing at other times. Some years ago the Philadel- 
 phia Councils contemplated a particularly outrageous raid 
 on the people's property. Among other methods of convinc- 
 ing the City Fathers that they were about to do an evil 
 thing a proposal was made to boycott the Councilmen and 
 their families. No one was to speak to them, to do business 
 with them, or have any human relation with them. Their 
 children were to be shunned in the schools, and their wives 
 to be ignored in the streets and shops. The plan was car- 
 ried out and in a few days the obnoxious ordinance was 
 abandoned. One Councilman admitted that the boycott on 
 his family brought him to terms quicker than any other 
 method could have done. Was anything cruel and un-Amer- 
 ican done there? If there was, neither the newspapers nor 
 Mr. Wheeler said so. The people of Philadelphia were 
 attacked and they defended themselves. But how the light- 
 ning flashes and the thunder roars when trades unions show 
 that they will not submit to injury without retaliation! 
 
 The boycott when used by labor unions has been uni- 
 formly declared illegal by the courts, and continuously as- 
 sailed with vituperative fury by the editors of newspapers, 
 and by the sort of correspondent who signs himself "Jus- 
 titia" or "Pro Bono Publico." Why? Because it is effec- 
 tive. And the reason it is eflfoctive is because those to 
 whom such an appeal is made are in natural sympathy with 
 those who make it. Remember the motto of trades union- 
 ism: "The concern of one is the concern of all." 
 
 Trades unionism has never been handed anything. It
 
 128 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 has been compelled to fight for everything it got. The 
 sarpe violent outcry that is now raised against the boycott 
 when applied by union men, was once directed against the 
 idea of unionism itself. Laws and courts and eminent citi- 
 zens of former days have been as harrowed in soul and as 
 vociferously indignant in written and spoken language over 
 the thought of any combination among workmen for any 
 purpose as they are today over the boycott. But "unionism 
 is militant; mighty changes have been wrought in the past 
 century, and the fighting spirit is in no wise quenched. 
 
 Metropolitan Magazine. 31: 346-56. December, 1909. 
 Programme of the Labor Unions. Frank Julian Warne. 
 
 In one of the twenty yellow pine boxes taken by boat 
 from New York City up the East River to Potter's Field 
 near Hell Gate one day recently, was the body of an indus- 
 trial toiler who in life had been a metal polisher. 
 
 It is not generally known that on a cross above the 
 paupers' graves in Potter's Field is the inscription: "He 
 calleth His own by name." 
 
 But the coffin of our metal polisher bore only a number, 
 and as a number the body was buried. This industrial toiler, 
 at the age of only forty-two, had arrived at the end of 
 Poverty Road. He left behind in dire want a sick wife and 
 four underfed children, all of whom became public charges. 
 
 Charity tabulated the cause of the poverty ensuing to 
 the wife and children "as death of bread-winner." It could 
 have been designated with equal truthfulness as "no male 
 support," or "large family," or "no relations," or "death of 
 husband and father," or possibly "old age," or any one of a 
 score and more classifications or terms familiar to readers 
 of reports of charitable societies. 
 
 But the really important fact would not be tabulated: 
 the vtan was a victim of his trade. In life our metal polisher 
 had toiled at an occuf>ation in which many of its zvorkers die 
 from pulmonary tuberculosis. 
 
 More than 88 per cent, of the deaths among the members 
 of a local metal polishers' union in New York City are due
 
 TRADE UNIONS 129 
 
 to tuberculosis contracted at their trade. There is hardly 
 another occupation more deleterious to the health of the 
 workers, and metal polishers at the age of forty often look 
 like old men. They get their lungs full of the dust of 
 metals, minerals, and cotton fibre. "A buffing wheel making 
 2,500 revolutions a minute has wrecked many constitutions." 
 The nature of the metal polisher's work is not compatible 
 with longevity and, as at rule, the workmen engaged at it 
 are not long-lived. Our metal polisher who was buried in 
 Potter's Field, unprotected while at work from the injurious 
 effects of his employment, had contracted the disease of his 
 particular occupation. 
 
 Metal polishing is only one of a hundred trades inimical 
 to the health of our workers, and our pauper metal polisher 
 was only one of thousands of workmen who each year need- 
 lessly pay the death toll of unhealthful occupations. 
 
 "Well," you niay say, "there must be metal polishers. It 
 is a hazardous trade, but men can be found to work at any- 
 thing, and I don't see what you are going to do about it." 
 
 True, men will work at anything because they must; they 
 will endanger their lives because they must. We cannot pre- 
 vent their working and we cannot remove the hazard entirely ; 
 but we can greatly reduce it. Listen : 
 
 Frederick L. Hoffman writing in the Bulletin of the Bureau 
 of Labor of the United States Government, says : 
 
 Since it Is possible, by intelligent factory inspection and con- 
 trol, and with especial regard to ventilation (that is, the removal 
 of injurious dust particles at the point of their origin) to almost 
 entirely eliminate the conditions injurious to health and life in 
 factories and workshops and industry generally, it is not going 
 too far to advance it as a fundamental principle of sanitary legis- 
 lation that the consumption death rate among wage-earners can 
 be reduced by intelligent methods to a ratio as low as 1.5 per 
 thousand, (almost one-half the present rate) such a re- 
 duction would result In an annual saving of approximately 22,238 
 human lives. 
 
 The Trade Union to the Rescue. 
 
 That the deaths of workers from unhealthful occupations, 
 with all their accompanying sickness and ensuing poverty, 
 are not greater is due as much to the activities of the labor 
 or trade union as to any other single agency. That the dan- 
 gers from such employment are constantly being reduced is
 
 130 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 also to the credit largely of organized labor. Through these 
 unions the workers are effecting revolutions in factory man- 
 agement and regulation; they are responsible to a great ex- 
 tent for the creation of state departments or bureaus of 
 labor, with their extensive machinery for mine and factory 
 inspection; and also for much of the efficiency with which 
 these departments are conducted. By means of strikes and 
 trade agreements the unions are enforcing upon employers 
 better sanitary conditions in the working places; through 
 protests to boards of health they eradicate many unhygienic 
 evils; and in various other ways the worker through the 
 trade union is bringing about healthier conditions of em- 
 ployment in scores and scores of industries. 
 
 The Power of the Label 
 
 Probably the most important of the many means em- 
 ployed by the union to this end is the union label. Sixty- 
 four national and international unions, operating in nearly 
 every State and comprising a membership of nearly two 
 million toilers, have each adopted separate symbols which 
 are printed on stickers and pasted (or stamped or sewed) on 
 the article which the members are engaged in producing. 
 This label states that the goods bearing it were made under 
 union conditions; it guarantees to the purchaser that these 
 conditions were healthful and sanitary, and the union mem- 
 bers see that they are so. To compel the establishment of 
 such conditions and the use by the employer of the label, 
 the union sometimes employs the boycott and the strike. 
 In 1900 as many as 22,315,000 labels were being used in a 
 single year by the cigar-makers' union alone; the hatters' 
 union issues more than one million a month. 
 
 The union label is coming more and more to be an instru- 
 ment of great economic power in protecting the worker against 
 unhealthful conditions of employment and in reducing the 
 amount of poverty by diminishing the number suffering from 
 trade diseases. 
 
 The Real Causes of Poverty 
 
 When we said that our metal polisher was a victint of 
 his trade, we touched on the core of the poverty question
 
 TRADE UNIONS 131 
 
 as it has always been recognized by the trade union, and as 
 it is now coming to be recognized by society at large. 
 
 The primary and dominant causes of poverty are not 
 shiftlessness, laziness, unreliability, theft, gambling, vice, 
 crime, immorality, heredity, early marriage, large family, 
 physical defects, ignorance of English, desertion and non- 
 support, illiteracy, ill health that whole category of individ- 
 ual or social defects in character which has been designed 
 more or less with the view of holding the individual respon- 
 sible for poverty. 
 
 All these can exist and do exist where there is no poverty. 
 
 The primary and dominant causes of poverty, as well as 
 of most of the so-called "causes" mentioned in the preced- 
 ing paragraph, arc unhealthful and dangerous occupations, 
 unemployment, low wages, industrial accidents, trade dis- 
 eases, unsanitary dwellings and workshops, child labor, im- 
 migration, congestion of population, lack of industrial train- 
 ing, long hours of work all the expressions of fundamental 
 economic forces over which the individual victim usually 
 has no control and for the effects of which he ought not 
 to be held responsible. 
 
 IVhcrez'cr these exist to-day there is poverty. 
 
 It is comforting, possibly partly because it enables us to 
 remain in smug contentment with conditions as they are, to 
 I)e told that the individual is responsible for his condition 
 of poverty; but it is far from being the truth. Society 
 must recognize, as the trade union has already, that indus- 
 trial and economic conditions, far more than personal char- 
 acteristics, make poverty, and that to prevent it society 
 must control or remove these fundamental causes. 
 
 Instead of dissipating social energy in feeble attempts 
 to cure -poverty zve should direct our cotnbined strength 
 toward the prei'cntion of pcverty, for if poverty is prevent- 
 ed it will not have to be cured. In fact, it is very much to 
 be questioned if poverty is curable. We do know, however, 
 that much if not most of it can be prevented. This has been 
 indicated in our discussion of unhealthful occupations. Let 
 us take one other illustration among the many there are 
 to select from industrial accidents.
 
 132 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 The Perils of the Worker 
 
 It is not possible to measure with any degree of accuracy 
 the amount of poverty caused by industrial accidents; we 
 cannot even measure the extent of the accidents. It takes 
 very little imagination and acquaintance with actual condi- 
 tions, however, for one to 'see that on our railroads, in our 
 coal mines, in the metal trades, in mechanical industries, in 
 the manufacture of explosives, sulphuric and nitric acids, 
 and in other dangerous industries accidents play a dominant 
 part among the causes of poverty, accompanied as they 
 usually are among workmen by a period of unemployment 
 when wages stop altogether and expenses increase for medi- 
 cine and burial. In all these and other industries employ- 
 ment is inseparable from the worker being exposed to the 
 possibilities of accidents. 
 
 Frederick L. Hoffman, a well-known writer on insurance 
 subjects, estimates that the number of accidents among men 
 employed in manufacturing industries alone for 1906 was 
 208,300, of which 5,000 were fatal, and the remainder more 
 or less serious. The estimate is, of course, wholly inade- 
 quate, as it is not only confined to accidents among men 
 workers but to manufacturing industries; it takes no account 
 of casualties in mines and quarries, transportation by land 
 and sea, and all general employments. Whether the total 
 number of accidents each year in the United States is 208,- 
 300 or more than 500,000, the fact remains that in conse- 
 quence a tremendous amount of poverty comes not only to 
 the injured victims but to their families also. Mr. Hoflfman 
 says that fully one-half of the fatal accidents are more or 
 less the immediate result of dangerous industries or trades. 
 
 P'or illustration, in the anthracite mines of Pennsylvania 
 there were 4,833 fatal and 11,084 non-fatal accidents in ten 
 years. In the same period in the bituminous coal mines of 
 that State alone there were 3,522 fatal and 7,671 non-fatal 
 injuries. One single mine explosion in West Virginia last 
 year left 124 widows and 532 orphans in a condition of social 
 dependency.
 
 TRADE UNIONS 133 
 
 71ie Railroads' Toll of Death 
 
 In railroading the risk to the health, life and well-being 
 of the worker is one of the most serious met with in indus- 
 trial pursuits. The most important group of employees is 
 trainmen, the number exceeding 300,000. Among this num- 
 ber there were 2,301 deaths in 1906 from railroad casual- 
 ties; in addition there were nearly 35,000 injured, or at the 
 rate of nearly 123 for every 1,000 employees. In the ten 
 years to 1906 there were 16,363 fatal and 221,685 non-fatal 
 accidents among railway trainmen alone in the United 
 States. This did not include similar accidents to switch- 
 tenders, crossing tenders and watchmen, railway mail clerks, 
 flagmen, and freight handlers. 
 
 The degree of accidental injury is of importance in its 
 relation to poverty. The most extensive investigation is 
 the one made by the New York State Department of Labor 
 covering the five years ending in 1906. Of 39,244 accidents 
 in factories and workshops, 31,722, or 80.8 per cent, caused 
 temporary disablement to the worker, and 6,580, or 16.8 per 
 cent, permanent disablement. The fatal accidents for the 
 same period amounted to 864. 
 
 How some accidents happen is indicated in the report of 
 the Factory Inspector of Pennsylvania. Referring to the 
 iron and steel works, he says: 
 
 The reckless manipulation of cranes and hoists; the hasty and 
 faulty hooking up of heavy weights; the slipping of furnaces; the 
 overturning of ladles filled with molten metal; the speeding of en- 
 gines and cars without light, bell or flagman through the yards 
 of large establishments thronged with busy workers; the order- 
 ing of employees to work upon rotten scaffoldings; the employ- 
 ment of foreigners ignorant of our language and habits in danger- 
 ous occupations without words of caution and without proper over- 
 sight, are crimes against humanity that call for drastic legisla- 
 tion. 
 
 An analysis of accidents in New York State covering the 
 years 1901-1906, shows more than 50 per cent, are the im- 
 mediate result of machinery in motion. Some of the causes 
 are gearing, belts shifting, pulleys, elevators, hoists, cranes, 
 hot liquids, acids, steam, explosives, collapse of buildings, 
 falling objects, fall of persons, vehicles and animals. 
 
 We do not need to point out that industrial accidents 
 usually mean to the injured worker unemployment, in-
 
 134 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 creased expenses along with decreased earnings, tlie ex- 
 haustion of savings altogether a sharp push toward if not 
 over the poverty line. 
 
 That many of these accidents could be prevented is not 
 mere theory. It has been demonstrated by the experience 
 of European countries. Mr. Hoffman says that if the rate 
 of casualties of railway employees in this country were 
 reduced from 2.50 per thousand, the annual average rate for 
 1897-1906, to 0.98 per thousand, the average for the German 
 Empire for the same period, the saving each year would be 
 1.735 valuable human lives. 
 
 If the accident liability of employees in coal mines in 
 the United States were reduced from 3.10 per thousand, the 
 annual average rate for the period 1897-1906, to 1.29 per 
 thousand, the average rate in the United Kingdom for the 
 same years, the saving in human life in our coal mines each 
 year would be 915. 
 
 Furthermore, it should not be impossible, says Mr. Hoff- 
 man, to save at least one-third and perhaps one-half of the 
 35,000 male wage-earners killed annually in American in- 
 dustries, and this could be done merely by the exercise of 
 intelligent and rational methods of factory inspection, legis- 
 lation and control. By the same means how great a pro- 
 portion of the vast number of non-fatal accidents could be 
 prevented? accidents that not only involve an inestimable 
 amount of human suffering and sorrow and poverty but ma- 
 terially curtail the normal longevity and the efficiency of 
 those exposed to the often needless risk of industry. 
 
 One reason why industrial accidents now result in a 
 large amount of poverty is because almost the entire bur- 
 den of their cost at present falls on the injured worker 
 the one least able to bear it and is sooner or later trans- 
 ferred by him in his helplessness to charitable and philan- 
 thropic institutions. Here are some typical illustrations of 
 where the burden falls: 
 
 A man. assisting other workmen in the construction of a 
 house, while wheeling a wheel-barrow stepped aside to let 
 a fellow-workman pass. He was jostled, which caused him 
 to lose his balance. He fell and was made a permanent 
 cripple. He received no compensation from anyone.
 
 TRADE UNIONS 135 
 
 A workman on a city sewer was injured by an explosion. 
 While in this case a small indemnity was allowed, at the 
 same time the authorities explicitly stated that the city was 
 under no obligations to pay anything, although the disability 
 caused by the accident was permanent. 
 
 While performing his labors at a freight depot, a work- 
 man met with an accident which cut off his earnings for 
 several weeks, he becoming a dependent on charity. He 
 received no compensation. 
 
 In another case a workman was caught in a rope and 
 crushed before the machinery could be stopped. This acci- 
 dent, for which no compensation was made to the worker, 
 vvas due to the absence of proper safeguards to the machine. 
 
 At present, when an industrial accident is due to even 
 the momentary negligence of the victim or a fellow em- 
 ployee, the injured worker is held responsible; and even in 
 the cases where he is not, he or his family can recover 
 damages only by instituting legal proceedings, the expense 
 of which is usually beyond his means. As President Roose- 
 velt said in his Message to Congress in December, 1907: 
 "It works grim hardship ta the ordinary wage-worker and 
 his family to have the effect of such an accident fall solely 
 upon him." Mr. Roosevelt further said: "The law should 
 be made such that the payment for accidents by the em- 
 ployer would be automatic instead of being a matter for law- 
 suits. Workmen should receive certain and definite com- 
 pensation for all accidents in industry, irrespective of negli- 
 gence." 
 
 The Xczi' Principle of Justice 
 
 Around the fellow-servant doctrine of the law of negli- 
 gence centers to-day the problem of industrial accidents, and 
 it is not likely that any progress can be made toward im- 
 proving conditions until t have abandoned our l>lace as the 
 most backward nation in our failure to />rotect the injured in- 
 dustrial toiler and recognize the new principle of justice which 
 Continental countries, even Russia, have adopted, some of them 
 more than thirty years ago. 
 
 This advanced position which the modern conception of 
 justice decrees, shifts the burden of proof from the shoulders
 
 136 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 of the injured employee to those of the employer or cor- 
 poration it distinctly directs that the employer, and not. 
 the employee, shall assume the ordinary risks of the indus- 
 try. This is what Germany, for instance, has done it has 
 made employers responsible for all accidents to employees 
 in the course of their occupation except such as are oc- 
 casioned by the willful misconduct of the victims them- 
 selves. This is an extreme departure from the old law of 
 negligence. In addition, German legislation has established 
 in all industries accident funds for employees. The law re- 
 quires every employer to join a mutual insurance company. 
 This company indemnifies employees for all personal in- 
 juries sustained in the course of their employment, the ques- 
 tion of negligence on one side or the other having nothing 
 to do with the amount of indemnification. This is fixed by 
 the amount of the employee's wages and, in case of his 
 death, by the number of surviving dependents. For nearly 
 a quarter of a century now this compulsory accident in- 
 surance system has been on trial in Germany, and its suc- 
 cess is not seriously disputed. 
 
 In consequence, about 20,oop,ooo persons engaged in in- 
 dustrial pursuits in Germany are protected by the insurance 
 system, and any one of these, in case of a disabling acci- 
 dent, may claim a living allowance as a right and not as 
 a charity. Thus they are not compelled to sink into poverty 
 and pauperism, as is largely the case in this countrj'. About 
 $20,000,000 are annually expended through this system, in- 
 demnifying each year about 100,000 accidental injuries. 
 Permanently injured employees are pensioned. Not the least 
 important of the ensuing benefits, from the point of view of 
 preventing poverty, is that from 80 to 85 per cent, is actual- 
 ly paid to the sufferers. It has been estimated that in New 
 York about 60 per cent, of the damages secured by injured 
 employees goes to lawyers. Another and great advantage 
 of the German system is that the employers spend a larger 
 amount in preventing accidents. 
 
 The Unions Bear the Brunt 
 
 In the United States the brunt of the struggle for the 
 prevention of industrial accidents has been and is being
 
 TRADE UNIONS 137 
 
 borne by tlic labor union. What it has accomplished in this 
 direction cannot be measured in figures even if statistics 
 were obtainable. It has done this in ways similar to those 
 adopted for the prevention of unhealthful condition^ in the 
 working places of its members, and there is not a labor 
 union of importance whose members are engaged in a dan- 
 gerous occupation that does not have among its principal 
 objects the prevention of accidents by demanding and com- 
 pelling the use or installation of proper safeguards. Three 
 of the eleven '"objects" of the United Mine Workers of 
 America, for instance, are directed to tfiis enJ. 
 
 Third. To secure the introduction of any and all well-defined 
 and established appliances for the preservation of life, health, and 
 limbs of all mine employees. 
 
 Fourth. To reduce to the lowest possible minimum the awful 
 catastrophes which have been sweeping our fellow- craftsmen to 
 untimely graves by the thousands; by securing legislation looking 
 to the most perfect system of ventilation, drainage, etc. 
 
 Fifth. To enforce existing laws; and where none exist, enact 
 and enforce them; calling for a plentiful supply of suitable timber 
 for supporting the roof, pillars, etc., and to have all working places 
 rendered as free from water and impure air and poisonous gases as 
 possible. 
 
 The Army of the Unemployed 
 
 Not only are industrial accidents and trade diseases in 
 themselves causes of poverty; they are also among the 
 causes contributing to swell the "Army of the Unemployed." 
 Unemployment itself is a dominant factor among the causes 
 of poverty. 
 
 At a meeting of Congregational ministers in New York 
 City last winter to discuss unemployment, one of them 
 stated that it was his belief that 98 per cent, of the 200,000 
 and more workers then out of employment in New York 
 City alone because of the industrial depression were un- 
 deserving and would not work if the opportunity were of- 
 fered. This was his opinion, and it is the belief of many 
 others, but it is an opinion not based upon a knowledge of 
 the facts. 
 
 The Bitter fruits of Idleness 
 
 At that time horiest, capable, home-loving, temperate 
 men were tramping the streets of the city day and night 
 looking and praying for work, and because they could not
 
 138 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 get it were committing suicide, becoming charitj' depen- 
 dents, being sentenced to idleness in the workhouse, were 
 deserting wives and children, and were being forced into 
 the commission of crime. To them no work meant no pay, 
 and no pay meant no food, no clothing, no shelter. No 
 work meant idleness, the cutting oft of wages, the exhaus- 
 tion of savings and credit, the abandoning of aged parents 
 i.nd the breaking up of homes, the physical and moral 
 deterioration of the workers, a decrease not only in labor 
 efficiency but in the labor supply also, an increase of dis- 
 tress, of prostitution, vagrancy, pauperism, poverty, and of 
 dependency in various other forms. In brief, idleness when 
 long continued anion;/ a laboring l^opulation, means insane 
 asylums, hospitals. Zi'orkhouses. jails, penitentiaries, and like 
 institutions. 
 
 Society not only lost the temporary value of the labor of 
 the hundreds of thousands of unemployed during the recent 
 industrial depression, but it will now also Iiave to support 
 in almshouses and like institutions for the remainder of 
 their lives many thousand formerly efficient workers. 
 
 The 1908 reports of all charitable institutions, both pub- 
 lic and private in New York State, show a startling increase 
 in the number of inmates and in the cost of operation. The 
 increase in the State's expenditures alone for charity for 
 that one year exceeded $2,500,000. 
 
 In Prison for fieiiuj Poor 
 
 The number of admissions to the prisons of New York 
 State in 1908 was 118,647, an increase of 21.000 in one year 
 an almost unprecedented record. The report of the State 
 Prison Commis.sion states that the present method of send- 
 ing unemployed men and women to jail in many cases 
 amounts to imprisoning them for being poor: 
 
 Many of the men so committed were simply out of work and 
 out of 'money; they were not criminals, and needed pity and relief 
 and not punishment. No public policy requires that such men be 
 ent to prison. The distinction between misfortune, or even Im- 
 providence, and crime should be carefully observed. The enforce- 
 ment of the present law often results in oppression to poor people, 
 many of whom are ignorant of their rights and all of them too 
 poor to defend themselves. 
 
 Eigurcs in the report of the New York State Charities
 
 TRADE UNIONS 139 
 
 Aid Association for the past year show that the largest an- 
 imal increase of the insane in the State's history occurred 
 during the year of widespread unemployment following the 
 industrial depression in 1907. This increase was 1,414, com- 
 pared with 741 the previous year, the total number of cases 
 in public and private institutions being 30,507. 
 
 "Down and Out'' for Good 
 
 This downward tendency toward poverty and pauperism 
 of the unemployed has been observed by every student of 
 the problem, and it has come to be an accepted truism that 
 "the curve of pauperism {showing its increase) follows al- 
 most exactly at an interval of one year the curve of unem- 
 ployment." And from this state, unfortunately for society, 
 very few, if any of them, ever emerge again into the ranks 
 of regularly employed, independent labor. 
 
 In protecting society from the full consequences of un- 
 employment as well as in reducing its extent, we again find 
 the trade union performing a most valuable social service. 
 In spite of the fact that one out of every three members of 
 labor unions was out of work for months following the 
 financial panic in October, 1907, very few, if any, trade un- 
 ionists resorted to charity for assistance. Organized labor 
 look care of its bwn unemployed, spending hundreds of 
 thousands of dollars for this purpoe. This ability of the 
 organized American workingman to stand on his own feet 
 for so long a period of idleness is a most remarkable illus- 
 tration of the resources and reserve powers his trade union 
 has surrounded him with for just such sudden emergencies. 
 
 The I'nions' Ilclpinc/ Hands 
 
 In the article on "The Conquest of Poverty" in the Oc- 
 tober Metropolitan Magazine, in an enumeration of the in- 
 stitutions and individuals who relieve distress, there was no 
 mention of the large budgets expended each year for this 
 purpose by trade unions. Many of the unions have unem- 
 ployed, insurance, old age, death, sick and traveling bene- 
 fits. In addition, trade unionists not infrequently tide over 
 fellow members by advances or loans when they meet with
 
 140 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 misfortune. It is also not unusual to find in the reports of 
 treasurers of the unions such an item as "Donation to other 
 unions." But in considering this relief aspect it should not 
 be forgotten that this feature, important as it is, is only a 
 minor or incidental phase of the work of the trade union. 
 
 During 1908, sixty-four labor organizations, affiliated with 
 the American Federation of Labor paid out in benefits to 
 members nearly $2,145,000. This does not take into account 
 the sum of nearly $2,550,000 expended by Federation unions 
 the same year to sustain members on strike. In addition, 
 the five brotherhoods of steam railroad employees not af- 
 filiated with the American Federation of Labor conductors, 
 engineers, firemen, switchmen, and trainmen pay out each 
 year in benefits a sum exceeding $5,000,000. 
 
 The accompanying table is merely suggestive, and is not 
 
 intended as a complete record of the relief work of labor 
 
 organizations: 
 
 FEDERATION UNIONS 
 
 Death benefits $1,257,244.29 
 
 Sick benefits 593,541.84 
 
 Unemployed benefits 206,254.81 
 
 Traveling benefits 51,093.86 
 
 Death benefits (members' wives) 31,390.00 
 
 Tool insurance 5,871.63 
 
 $2,144,395.43 
 Strike benefits 2,550,000.00 
 
 Total $4,694,395.43 
 
 Railway Brotherhoods $5,000:000.00 
 
 Grand total $9,694,395.43 
 
 The Union As a Labor Exchange 
 
 In reducing the extent of unemployment the trade union 
 at all times, day in and day out. is performing the work of 
 what is practically a national labor exchange. Its members 
 scattered as they arc everywhere throughout mines and mills 
 and factories in all parts of the country, are naturally the 
 first to learn of the need for more men, and through their 
 local and State and national organizations reaching into 
 every industrial center, are able to communicate this demand 
 to fellow members temporarily out of employment. They 
 are also able to make known through their trade union
 
 TRADE UNIONS 141 
 
 newspapers where there is already an over supply of labor, 
 thus preventing other workmen from going to that particu- 
 lar industry or section. Some unions advance traveling ex- 
 penses to members, thus making labor more mobile and 
 preventing congestion at certain points, while there may be 
 a dearth of that very same kind of labor elsewhere. 
 
 The principal policy of the trade union toward unemploy- 
 ment, however, is that implied in the demand for an eight- 
 hour work day a demand that has already been secured by 
 many labor unions for their members. The American Fed- 
 eration of Labor believes that: 
 
 To-day, in the midst of an appalling amount of enforced idle- 
 ness and misery among the organized forces of labor in the indus- 
 trial centers of the world, the first rumblings can be heard of 
 the cry "eight hours for work; eight hours for rest; eight hours 
 for what we will." To-day we repeat what we have claimed for 
 good and bad times, that the simplest condition by which the 
 social order can be maintained is a systematic regulation of the 
 work day to insure to each and all an opportunity to labor. . 
 
 In addition to an eight-hour work day, among the prin- 
 cipal objects of all labor unions is opposition to low wages, 
 one of the causes, if not the leading cause, of poverty. 
 Against low wages every single trade union in the country 
 is fighting, has been fighting ever since their organization 
 in fact, low wages was the fundamental operating cause 
 which has given to us the labor union. It came into exist- 
 ence primarily to render employment and the means of sub- 
 sistence less precarious, and to do this it strives to secure 
 to the worker a more and more equitable share of the fruits 
 of his toil. Wages are present in one form or another in 
 every strike, in every controversy over the trade agreement. 
 The trade union is the one potent force that has brought to 
 the American workingman relatively higher wages than 
 those of workingmen in any other country. The miners' 
 union, by directing the entire strength of its membership in 
 demands for higher wages, has secured in seven years in- 
 creases in wages ranging from 10 to as high as 66 2-3 per 
 cent, for some 300,000 mine employees in a majority of the 
 twenty-eight coal-producing States. 
 
 Labor's First Principle : A Living Wage 
 
 One of the policies of the American Federation of Labor, 
 which represents nearly 2,000,000 trade-unionists, is that:
 
 142 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 "A principle in the economy of our lives must be established 
 and that is a living wage, below which the wage-workers 
 should not permit themselves to be driven. The living 
 v/age must be the first consideration, either in the cost or 
 sale of an article, the product of labor." And on this prin- 
 ciple the trade union struggles ever to establish in every 
 industry a minimum wage. In England this has led to a 
 discussion by the Government of creating by law Minimum 
 Wage Boards. 
 
 Enough has been said to indicate the important position 
 the labor union occupies among the social forces at work 
 to prevent poverty; to show all that the trade union does 
 in this respect would be to write a voluminous history of 
 the labor movement. All that we can do here is merely to 
 indicate and suggest. 
 
 \n the midst of our economic chaos the trade union to- 
 day stands as a mightj' bulwark of strength, battling against 
 all those economic forces which, it unopposed, would soon 
 sink the worker into a condition of industrial servitude bor- 
 dering on poverty a condition as injurious to society as to 
 the toiler himself. It has done, is doing, and will continue 
 to do more toward the prevention of poverty than all the 
 charitable and philanthropic organizations in Christendom. 
 It has done this because it attacks not the individual or social 
 effects but the economic causes of poverty it aims to prevent 
 the effects by controlling these causes. 
 
 The trade union seeks to secure for the working classes 
 higher money wages; greater safeguards against sickness, 
 injury and death in unhealthful and hazardous emi)loyments; 
 insurance and relief benefits; less hours of work; better 
 homes (not merely better houses); lower prices for the 
 necessaries of life (as through co-operative establishments 
 and by opposition to "company" stores) ; more opportuni- 
 ties for their children in the school-house; better clothes 
 and food for their wives and little ones, and innumerable 
 other "rights" which our industrial toilers do not now enjoy 
 and which will ever be denied them if they themselves do 
 not control, through their trade union, the forces which are 
 always at work to bring about low wages and adverse con- 
 ditions of employment. All these and other objects of the
 
 TRADE UNIONS 143 
 
 trade union have to do with the workingman more as a 
 man, as a father and husband, and as a citizen than as a 
 mere producer of labor have to do with him as a social 
 animal rather than a labor-producing machine. 
 
 The Forces to be Opposed 
 
 To secure these and other rights to the workingman the 
 labor union must direct its efforts and strength against all 
 those industrial and social forces which prevent and oppose 
 their acquisition and retention. It must . antagonize the 
 cupidity and self-interest of particular employers; it must 
 break down, without pity and without mercy to individuals, 
 those barriers of class prejudice and distinction which would 
 reserve the pursuit of happiness to the privileged few; it 
 must effectually control immigration as it enters our great 
 industries because of its tendency to lower the standard of 
 living of the American workingman; it must crush out child 
 labor for all time, and guard carefully the employment of 
 women; it must regulate apprenticeship, and through innum- 
 erable other channels the labor union must control and 
 direct economic and social forces if it is to save its members 
 from industrial servitude second only to actual slavery in 
 degradation to the individual and in injury to society. 
 
 Outlook. 84: 669-74. November 17, 1906. 
 
 Trade Union and Democracy. John Graham Brooks. 
 
 If in any far future democracy becomes a fact a democ- 
 racy with all the man-made inequalities removed, all the 
 present mockeries gone out of it the long struggle of the 
 trade union will be written down among the herois'ms of 
 history. Its occasional savagery, its hectoring abuses, will 
 fade into a perspective wherein they will appear as inciden- 
 tal, even perhaps as necessary, as strange abuses have been 
 in every wholesome revolution that has marked the progress 
 of the race. The trade agreement will then appear clearly 
 as the training ground for larger and completer partnership, 
 of co-operation or fraternalism in the creation and dis- 
 tribution of commodities.
 
 144 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 We now see that this binding agreement between em- 
 ployer and employed is the aim of trade-unionism. We see 
 as clearly that the goal is never reached except through a 
 definite extension of the democratic principle. The joint 
 agreement assumes that business has come to be so social- 
 ized that all those who carrj' it on should have their say in 
 the councils of administration. Anything like a complete 
 democratizing of industry is of course very far in the future, 
 but the organized struggle to that end has begun. The 
 turbulent energies that enter into it make the labor question. 
 
 The restlessness of labor, its almost pitiless importunity 
 and aggression, its victory to-day at once turned into a rea- 
 son for further claims to-morrow, are a kind of insanity 
 until they are seen to be the varying signs of this world 
 movement toward the extirpation of arbitrary and privileged 
 power in industry. It is a mischievous delusion to suppose 
 that this industrial pressure will for a moment cease. At a 
 dozen points labor has won its fight before a sustaining 
 public opinion. In a given industry we may now mark its 
 progress by specific issues. Is the union justified in es- 
 tablishing a minimum wage? This was met by a generation 
 of abuse, but as competition drove employers to apply the 
 same principle to prices, the absurdity of the unions began 
 to disappear. It was seen in both camps that the necessi- 
 ties of the weaker required this minimum. If it puts some 
 check upon the pace of the strong, there is compensation to 
 the group as a whole. "Each for all and all for each" the 
 most democratic of shibboleths gets an added content of 
 meaning. Where the trade agreement exists, the opposi- 
 tion to this minimum could not stand against the discussion 
 of one afternoon session. 
 
 But' better than all to illustrate the nature of this trade 
 union pressure is the claim for an eight-hour day. The im- 
 mediate competitive exigencies in a world market present 
 obstinate practical difficulties. We get to know to a cer- 
 tainty that these difficulties must sooner or later yield. The 
 labor pressure at this point will strengthen because the 
 leisure, the health, the freedom which shorter hours imply 
 represent values upon which the workers more and more 
 set heart.
 
 TRADE UNIONS 145 
 
 Thus, whether the struggle is over the wage scale, the 
 number of apprentices, piece-work, fewer hours, closed 
 shops, or "recognition," it is an attack on forms of personal 
 power under the wage system. Slowly before our eyes that 
 system is undergoing changes in the direction of co-opera- 
 tion or democratic control. If for no other reason than 
 this, that labor more and more believes it is not getting its 
 share, the pressure will continue. The sheer mass of doubt 
 and suspicion on the part of labor has grown into a fact so 
 troublesome that it must be removed by substituting demo- 
 cratic methods. These may for a time work ill and prove 
 costly, but they must be tried if only to remove the deepen- 
 ing incredulity about the fairness of the present wage sys- 
 tem. 
 
 In the United States, trade union pressure toward co- 
 operation has hitherto been confined almost wholly to the 
 economic field. With sustained desperation, the ablest of 
 our unions have struggled to keep out of politics precisely 
 as they have in other countries, until convinced that their 
 opponents in that field were too strong for them. When 
 those proofs have come, the unions Have turned to party 
 politics. This opens another stage in the democratizing of 
 industry. 
 
 Outlook. 97: 497-502. March 4, 1911. 
 Reason for the Unions. Washington Gladden. 
 
 In a preceding article I have dealt with the abuses of 
 unionism. The exigencies of the argument seemed to call 
 for this order of treatment, because most of those whom I 
 wish to convince are aware of nothing but the abuses of 
 unionism. If they can be made to see that these abuses are 
 not essential to the institution, they may be willing to give 
 heed to the reasons for its existence. 
 
 It may be supposed that the presentation of these rea- 
 sons is a superfluous work. Nearly every employer whom 
 you meet will tell you promptly, "I believe in trade unions." 
 There is a goodly number of those whose works show that 
 they do believe in them, and who are seeking to enter into
 
 146 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 cordial co-operation with them. ^lost employers, however, 
 are apt to qualify their confession of faith by some such 
 phrase as this, "When properly organized and managed." 
 There seems to be something wanting m such a confession. 
 Would a man say, "I believe in the family, when properly 
 constituted and conducted," or "1 believe in democracy, 
 when properly organized and managed"? This seems to 
 imply a reservation of our faith in the institution, if, in any 
 case, fault can be found with its practical administration. 
 Would it not be better to say concerning the family or 
 concerning democracy, "I believe in it, and I hold myself 
 bound to do my utmost to see that it is held in honor and 
 that it is properly constituted and administered"? If such 
 were the attitude of all employers toward trade-unionism, 
 we should soon see a vast improvement in the industrial 
 situation. And I am quite sure that there are many em- 
 ployers who are now frankly antagonistic to the unions who 
 would take this more friendly attitude toward them if they 
 could clearly see what are the real purposes of the unions 
 .ind what disasters are involved in the proposition to kill or 
 cripple them. 
 
 Most of those who say that they believe in unions, "if 
 properly conducted," mean to confine their approval to such 
 unions as are purely social or beneficial. Trade unions gen- 
 erally embody some such features, but they are not the cen- 
 tral reasons for their existence. The federal statute provid- 
 ing for the incorporation of trade unions mentions these 
 objects, but also specifies, as purposes of such organiza- 
 tions, "the regulation of their wages and their hours and 
 conditions of labor, the protection of their individual rights 
 in the prosecution of their trade or trades." The trade un- 
 ion has always had insurance features and social and educa- 
 tional features, and these are the features which the average 
 employer is ready to indorse; but the main purpose for 
 which they are organized is thus succinctly expressed by 
 Mr. and Mrs. Webb: "To provide a continuous association 
 of wage-earners, for the purpose of inaiiitaiitiiif/ or improv- 
 ing the conditions of their employment." This purpose the 
 average employer does not approve of; when the union be- 
 gins to exert its power in regulating wages or hours or
 
 TRADE UNIONS 147 
 
 conditions of labor, he thinks that it is getting out of its 
 sphere and becoming a menace to the social well-being. 
 
 Here, now, is the crux of the situation. This is the main 
 function of the trade union to organize and express the 
 will of its members in bargaining about terms and condi- 
 tions of labor. For one who disputes this right to say that 
 he believes in trade unions is much like saying that he be- 
 lieves in watches provided they have no mainsprings, or in 
 rivers so long as there is no water in them. No one can 
 intelligently say that he approves of trade unions unless he 
 approves of giving to the men who are organized in them 
 the right of dealing, through their representatives, on equal 
 terms with their employers, concerning the wages they shall 
 receive, the hours they shall labor, and, the conditions under 
 which their work shall be done. 
 
 There are employers wlfo appear to say that they are 
 willing to permit trade unions to negotiate about these 
 matters, provided the unions will pledge themselves befpre- 
 hand not to enforce their demands by striking. It does not 
 appear, however, that these employers propose to divest 
 themselves of the power to reduce wages, against the will 
 of the men, or to dismiss whom they will without the con- 
 sent of the union. They expect to keep for themselves all 
 the power they now possess; all they ask is that before 
 entering upon the struggle for the division of the joint prod- 
 uct of capital and labor the representatives of labor shall tie 
 their own hands behind their backs. The proposition does 
 not appear to be a very chivalrous one; probably while hu- 
 man nature remains as it is, and the competitive regime 
 continues to prevail, it will not be widely accepted. 
 
 What, then, shall we say about this demand of the un- 
 ions that they shall have the right, coUecLively, through 
 their chosen representatives, to bargain with their employers 
 about wages and conditions of labor? Is it a reasonable de- 
 mand? I think that it is eminently reasonable and just; 
 that no fair-minded employer ought for one moment to 
 question it. 
 
 Let us remind ourselves that we are not dealing now 
 with the old domestic system of industry, in which there 
 were nearly as many men as masters, and the cases were
 
 148 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 rare in which the capitalist employer did not personally 
 know all the people in his employ. Most of our industrial 
 maxims are drawn out of that regime, and have no applica- 
 tion to the present order. Let us remember that we are 
 dealing now with the large system of industry, in which a 
 single responsible employer represents hundreds or thou- 
 sands of stockholders, and deals with hundreds or thou- 
 sands of employees a relation in which personal friendships 
 and sympathies between employer and employee have come 
 to be a negligible quantity. Suppose, now, that there is no 
 organization among the laborers, or none that has any 
 power to deal with questions of wages or hours of labor. 
 The competitive regime is founded on the assumption that 
 prices will be fixed by "the higglirg of the market." How 
 much "higgling of the market" is likely to take place be- 
 tween a single laborer and such a corporation? Let Sidney 
 and Beatrice Webb set forth the details of the process. The 
 case supposed is that of a labor market in perfect equilib- 
 rium. 
 
 "We assume that there is only a single situation vacant, 
 and only one candidate for it. When the workman applies 
 for the post to the employer's foreman, the two parties 
 differ considerably in strategic strength. There is first the 
 difference of alternative. If the foreman, and the capitalist 
 employer for whom he acts, fail to come to terms with the 
 workman, they may be put to some inconvenience in ar- 
 ranging the work of the establishment. They may have to 
 persuade the other workmen to work harder or to work 
 overtime; they may even be compelled to leave a machine 
 vacant, and thus run the risk of some delay in the comple- 
 tion of an order. Even if the workman remains obdurate, 
 the worst that the capitalist suffers is a fractional decrease 
 of the year's profit. Meanwhile he and his foreman, with 
 their wives and families, find their housekeeping quite un- 
 affected; they go on eating and drinking, working and en- 
 joying themselves, whether the bargain with the individual 
 workman has been made or not. Very different is the case 
 with the wage-earner. If he refuses the foreman's terms 
 even for a day, he irrevocably loses his whole day's subsis- 
 tence. If he has absolutely no other resources than his
 
 TRADE UNIONS 149 
 
 labor, hunger brings him to his knees the very next morn- 
 ing. Even if he has a little hoard, or a couple of rooms full 
 of furniture, he and his family can only exist by the im- 
 mediate sacrilice of their cherished provision against calam- 
 ity, or the stripping of their home. Sooner or later he itiust 
 come to terms, on pain of starvation or the workhouse." It 
 is now universally agreed, Professor Marshall tells us, "that 
 manual laborers as a class are at a disadvantage in bargain- 
 ing." The fact is so palpable that it is needless to quote 
 authorities. A single laborer has no fighting chance in deal- 
 ing with a great corporation; he can only accept what is 
 offered him. The consequence is his inevitable degradation. 
 Professor Marshall points out that "the effects of the la- 
 borer's disadvantage in bargaining are cumulative in two 
 ways. It lowers his wages, and, as we have seen, this low- 
 . ers his efficiency as a worker, and thereby lowers the nor- 
 mal value of his labor; and, in afldition, it lowers his ef- 
 ficiency as a bargainer, and thus increases the chance that 
 he will sell his labor for less than its normal value." 
 
 Under the present system of large industry, with compe- 
 tition as the regulative principle, unorganized labor is always 
 driven on the downward road. This results not only from 
 the inequality between the single laborer and the great cor- 
 poration, but also from the competition between employers. 
 For the employer of humane and liberal sentiment, who 
 wishes to pay his working people the highest wages pos- 
 sible, finds himself unable to compete with the unscrupulous 
 employer, who, by forcing wages down, is able to produce 
 goods cheaper than the former can, and thus to undersell 
 him in the market and get his business away from him. Mr. 
 John Graham Brooks quotes a retired shoe manufacturer of 
 wealth who said of the trade unions: "They make a good 
 many stupid mistakes, but an organisation strong enough to 
 fight the employer is a necessity to labor. Competition so 
 forces many of the best employers to copy the sharp tricks 
 of the worst employers in lowering wages, that the trade 
 union must be equipped to fight against these reductions or 
 for a rise in wages when business is more prosperous." 
 
 The fact that unorganized labor is steadily forced down- 
 ward toward starvation and misery is a fact which no stu-
 
 ISO SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 dent of industrial conditions would dream of denying. The 
 history of the industrial revolution by which the factory sys- 
 tem supplanted the domestic system of production is full of 
 examples of this process. Men who angrily declare that 
 there shall be no organization of labor ought to read care- 
 fully the industrial history of the second quarter of the 
 nineteenth century, when the conditions which thej' consider 
 ideal were prevailing in the great industrial centers. There 
 were no unions in England during the earlier part of this 
 period; laws of the most drastic character, which made it a 
 criminal conspiracy for two or three workingmen to con- 
 sult together for the purpose of securing shorter hours or 
 better wages, had effectually stamped out unionism. 
 
 For the employers it was a most prosperous period; 
 wealth was increasing by leaps and bounds, great fortunes 
 were being lieaped up; but the chasm between the employer 
 and the employed was steadily widening, and the condition 
 of the working people was becoming more and more de- 
 plorable. "In the new cities," says Arnold Toynbee, "the 
 old warm attachments, born of local contiguity and inter- 
 course, vanished in the fierce contest for wealth among 
 thousands who had never seen each other's faces before. 
 Between the individual workman and the capitalist who em- 
 ployed hundreds of 'hands' a wide gulf opened; the 
 workman ceased to be the cherished dependent; he became 
 the living tool of whom the employer knew less than he did 
 'of his steam-engine." 
 
 Government reports of this period show that children of 
 five and six years of age were frequently employed in fac- 
 tories. Men and women stood at their daily tasks from 
 twelve to fourteen and fifteen hours; a working day of 
 sixteen hours was not an unheard-of thing. Even at that 
 early day the demand was loud for machines that could be 
 tended by women and children; and their husbands and 
 fathers were driven out of the shops and compelled to stand 
 idle in the market-place. "Nor was this unmeasured abuse 
 of child labor," says Mr. Hyndman, "confined to the cotton, 
 silk, or wood industries. It spread in every direction. The 
 profit was so great that nothing could stop its development. 
 The report of 1842 is crammed with statements as to the
 
 TRADE UNIONS 151 
 
 fearful overwork of girls and boys in iron and coal mines, 
 which doubtless had been going on from the end of the 
 eighteenth century. Children, being small and handy, were 
 particularly convenient for small veins of coal, and for pits 
 where no great amount of capital was efnbarked; they could 
 get about where horses and mules could not. Little girls 
 were forced to carry heavy buckets of coal up high lad- 
 ders, and little girls and bpys, instead of animals, dragged 
 the coal-bunkers. Women were constantly employed under- 
 ground at the filthiest tasks." 
 
 Through all this period wages gravitated downward, 
 and while the cost of food increased the family income was 
 steadily lowered. The Parliamentary reports give us picr 
 tures of the life of the people in all the great manufactur- 
 ing centers that leave nothing for the imagination: "In the 
 parishes of St. John and St. Margaret there lived in 1840, 
 according to the 'Journal of the Statistical Society,' 5,366 
 workingmen's families in 5,249 'dwellings' (if they deserve 
 the name!), men, women, and children thrown together 
 without distinction of age or sex, 26,830 persons all told; 
 and of these families three-fourths possessed but one room. 
 In the aristocratic parish of St. George, Hanover Square, 
 there lived according to the same authority, 1,465 working- 
 men's families, nearly six thousand persons, under similar 
 conditions, and here, too, more than two-thirds of the 
 whole number crowded together at the rate of one family in 
 one room." 
 
 "The preacher of the old church at Edinburgh, Dr. Lee, 
 testified in 1836 before the Commission of Religious Instruc- 
 tion that he had never seen such misery in his parish, where 
 the people were without furniture, without everything, two 
 married couples often sharing one room. In a single day 
 he had visited seven houses in which there was not a bed; 
 in spme of them not even a heap of straw. Old people of 
 eighty years sleep on the board floor; nearly all slept in 
 their day clothes. In one cellar room he found two families 
 from a Scotch country district. Soon after their removal 
 to the city two of the children had died, and a third was 
 dying at the time of his visit. Each family had a filthy pile 
 of straw lying in a corner, and the cellar sheltered, besides
 
 152 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 the two families, a donkey, and was, moreover, so dark 
 that it was impossible to distinguish one person from anoth- 
 er by day. Dr. Lee declared that it was enough to make a 
 heart of adamant bleed to see such misery in a country 
 like Scotland." 
 
 And these, be it remembered, were not days of indus- 
 trial depression in Great Britain; they were flush times, 
 booming times, when railways were building, and great 
 mills were springing up on every hand, and hundreds of 
 capitalist employers were building up great fortunes. 
 
 Such is the irresistible tendency of the large system of 
 industry when labor is unorganized. It is helpless to resist 
 the forces which press upon it from every side and doom it 
 to degradation. Our own country has witnessed compara- 
 tively little of this tendency, because until recentlj' there 
 has been abundance of cheap land to which the workers 
 could betake themselves, and the physical development of a 
 new country has absorbed our surplus labor. . But even 
 here the labor of women in the cities has given us some 
 hints of the oppression to which unorganized labor is ex- 
 posed; and such conditions as have lately been uncovered 
 in Pittsburgh, where unionism has been practically exter- 
 minated, enable us to see what kind of fate is in reserve 
 for any working class which fails to unite for its own pro- 
 tection. 
 
 What other possible barrier can be interposed between 
 the working class and these forces of selfishness that al- 
 ways tend to exploit and degrade them? Shall the power 
 of the state be called in to protect them? The state may 
 usefully interfere in behalf of children and women, and in 
 the interest of public health, and for the safeguarding of the 
 life of the laborer, and in some other ways; but so long as 
 competition is the regulative principle of industry the state 
 can do very little to shield the laboring man from the pres- 
 sure on his means of subsistence of the superincumbent 
 mass of consolidated capital. Nor is it desirable that the 
 state should take any class of its citizens under its special 
 patronage. 
 
 It is often charged that the state has extended special 
 privileges to capital, by which it has been able to exploit the
 
 TRADE UNIONS 153 
 
 laboring class; and also that it has failed to prevent illegal 
 and oppressive conduct on the part of the strong by which 
 the weak have been plundered. All such wrongs the state 
 is bound to rectify; but when it has done all that it ought to 
 do in these directions, it will still be possible for great com- 
 binations of organized capital to take advantage of un- 
 organized labor and crowd it to the wall, and there is noth- 
 ing that the state can do to prevent it. 
 
 It may be suggested that the sentiments of justice and 
 humanity in the hearts of the capitalists themselves will pre- 
 vent this oppression. Doubtless there are among them men 
 of good will who would be moved by such considerations; 
 but unfortunately these are not the people who set the pace 
 in these competitive struggles; and the unorganized labor- 
 ers, instead of enjoying the protection of the best employers, 
 soon find themselves at the mercy of the meanest. 
 
 But who wants to put them under anybody's protection 
 or at anybody's mercy? Who wants them to be coddled 
 by the state or cockered by their employers? Are we 
 going to put the millions of working people on the 
 list of beneficiaries, and teach them to depend for 
 their existence on the bounty of their employers? 
 These are American citizens; they ought not to feel that 
 they are living on this soil by anybody's sufferance; they 
 pught not to be put, by our industrial system, in a position 
 of vassalage, and they must not be. They ought to be men 
 who have rights, and who "know their rights, and, knowing, 
 dare maintain." We cannot afford to have any other kind 
 of citizens in this country. Some way must be found "by 
 which these men shall become not only politically but in- 
 dustrially free; by which they shall have something them- 
 selves to say respecting the terms and conditions of their 
 employment, by which they shall be assured that their 
 standing in the community is not a matter of grace but of 
 right. 
 
 It is one of the bitter complaints against trade-unionists 
 that they become insolent and arrogant in the use of their 
 power. How much of that is a reaction from the abject 
 servility to which anti-unionism tends to degrade them? I 
 confess that nothing more disquieting has lately come to
 
 154 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 my knowledge than that state of mind in which we some- 
 times tind American workingmen. In a late number of the 
 "Technical World" Mr. P. Harvey ]\Iiddleton thus describes 
 bis interview with a workingman in the Carnegie works at 
 Homestead. It was on a Sunday morning, and the man was 
 just out of the mill. "He was asked if there had been any 
 reduction of Sunday work since the recent order about Sun- 
 day labor had been issued. 'Reduction be !' he 
 
 ejaculated. "Why, I haven't had a Sunday oft in five years.' 
 Then he suddenly became very serious, and, looking fear- 
 fully around the car (the steel workers have learned by 
 bitter experience that the spies of the corporation are every- 
 where), bent down he was over six feet and whispered 
 in my ear: 'This morning I skipped without saying a word 
 to my boss. I don't know what will happen, and I have a 
 wife and five kids at home. But I think I might have at 
 least one half Sunday in five years, don't you?' This last 
 an almost pathetic appeal. Here was an American citizen 
 who had been working twelve hours a day, seven days 
 (eighty-four hours)^ a week for five consecutive years. He 
 was a laborer, and the Steel Trust paid him for his endless 
 toil sixteen and a half cents an hour. He wanted to spend 
 the Sunday with his wife and children, but there was very 
 little doubt in my mind that when he returned to work on 
 Monday morning he would be promptly discharged for 
 quitting work without permission on the day of rest." 
 
 However that might have been, the shameful fact is 
 that an American man should be afraid to complain of such 
 conditions lest he should lose his livelihood. So also during 
 this year of grace, in a town named Bethlehem (!), three 
 maehinists who dared to petition the manager of the steel 
 works for the elimination of Sunday work were promptly 
 discharged. As a consequence of this drastic policy, gen- 
 erally enforced where there are no unions, workingmen 
 hardly dare to express a wish for better conditions. Mr. 
 Robert A. Woods, a most sober student of existing condi- 
 ions, says that "the Pittsburgh employers' point of view, 
 more than that of any other city in the country, is like that 
 of England in the early days of the factory system holding 
 employees guilty of a sort of impiety, and acting with sud-
 
 TRADE UNIONS 155 
 
 den and sure execution if they undertake to enforce their 
 claims in such way as to embarrass the momentum of 
 great business administration." This is the point of view 
 which tends to prevail where unionism is excluded, and sub- 
 mission to it must produce a servile spirit in the laborer. 
 
 The street-car men in our Columbus strike have told, me 
 of the fear of, consequences which oppressed them when, 
 before their union was organized, they ventured to circulate 
 a humble and perfectly respectful petition for a slight in- 
 crease of pay. That they had reason for such fear was 
 made manifest when the company's inspectors warned them 
 that they would be sorry if they did any such thing, and 
 when those who were instrumental in circulating the peti- 
 tion were first reprimanded by the manager, and then, one 
 by one, discharged. 
 
 I do not think that a wise statesmanship will consent to 
 see the masses of American workingmen put in a position 
 like this. Some way must be found by which they may keep 
 their liberty and preserve their manhood. 
 
 By organizing themselves into unions they obtain and 
 preserve this power. I know no other way under the pres- 
 ent industrial system by which they can obtain it. I have 
 never heard any other way suggested. 
 
 By this method they do maintain their freedom and 
 prevent the degradation to which, without organization, they 
 are doomed. There is no question that, in the well-weighed 
 words of John Mitchell, ''trade-unionism has justified its 
 existence by good works and high purposes. ... It has 
 elevated the standard of living of the American workman 
 and conferred upon him higher wages and more leisure. 
 It has increased efficiency, diminished accidents, averted dis- 
 ease, kept the children at school, raised the moral tone of 
 the factories." Much of the legislation by which the con- 
 ditions of the laboring classes have been improved is due 
 to the initiative of the unions. Beyond all controversy, 
 that frightful deterioration of the industrial classes which 
 the large sj^stem of industry set in deadly operation has 
 been arrested, and the lot of the laboring man has been 
 vastly improved during the last seventy-five years. No such 
 horrible living conditions as those which I have described
 
 156 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 above can be found to-day in the great factory towns of 
 Great Britain; even "the submerged tenth" are living far 
 more decently now^ than the average mechanic was living 
 then. Even Pittsburgh, in all its misery, is a paradise com- 
 pared with Manchester and Glasgow in the third and fourth 
 decides of the nineteenth century. Many causes have 
 wrought together to produce this improvement, but the stu- 
 dents of social science agree in their judgment that the 
 most efficient cause .of that improvement has been the or- 
 ganization of labor. It has enabled the working people to 
 resist the pressure that would have degraded them, and to 
 demand and secure a fairer share of the wealth which their 
 labor produces. 
 
 It is true that not all workingmen have been included 
 in the unions, but even those outside the organizations have 
 largely shared in the gains that have been won by or- 
 ganized labor. When, in an open shop, the union suc- 
 ceeds in getting better wages or shorter hours, the 
 non-union men get the benefit of the rise. The unor- 
 ganized trades, like that of the sewing women, have, no 
 doubt, often been exploited by their employers; but the gen- 
 eral level of wages is undoubtedly kept up by the labor 
 unions. 
 
 So great have been the benefits which unionism has 
 brought to the laboring classes and to the communitj- at 
 large that a philosophic statesman like Professor Thorold 
 Rogers, of Oxford, declared that if he had the making of the 
 laws he would exclude from the franchise all workingmen 
 who were not members of trade unions. Certain it is that 
 the man who proposes to outlaw or exterminate them as- 
 sumes a heavy responsibility.
 
 NEGATIVE DISCUSSION 
 
 Atlantic Monthly. 109: 758-70. June, 1912. 
 Value of Existing Trade-Unionism. Charles Norman Fay. 
 
 During the thirty years from 1879 to 1909 I was at the 
 head successively of several corporations employing from 
 two hundred to two thousand working people. Like most 
 believers in democracy I originally believed also in the or- 
 ganization of labor; in the right of the working men, singly 
 weak, to strengthen themselves by union in any honest ef- 
 fort for their own betterment. I believed that organization, 
 bringing to the front the ablest minds among their number, 
 would tend to educate the working people in the economics 
 of labor, to their own good and that of the community. 
 Results, however, have been disappointing. The manage- 
 ment of trade unions appears to have become like that of 
 city politics an affair of personal self-interest rather than 
 of the public good. This conclusion is drawn from various 
 personal experiences, and from public documents to which 
 I shall hereafter refer. 
 
 I came into contact with organized labor when, about 
 1899, a small typewriter factory in Chicago which I con- 
 trolled, employing some two hundred and fifty men, joined 
 the National Association of Manufacturers, consisting of 
 over three thousand of the largest employers in the United 
 States. At the moment I found its attention preoccupied 
 with the matter of union labor. A great dread of labor un- 
 ions swept over employers about 1900, and the National 
 Association of Manufacturers, the Anti-Boycott Association, 
 the Metal Trades' Association, the Typothetre, and many 
 local associations were formed, largely for the purpose of 
 defense. Labor conditions grew worse; strikes, original and 
 sympathetic, multiplied, until many employers moved their
 
 158 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 works out of the city, and many others, including our con- 
 cern, opened negotiations with various country towns for 
 removal thither. We joined the Anti-Boycott Association, 
 about 1901, and 1 became a member of the committee in 
 charge of the litigation begun by this association in the 
 Chicago courts. 1 was made, about the same time, the vice- 
 president for Illinois of the National Association of Manu- 
 facturers, and subsequently the chairman of its special com- 
 mittee on strike insurance. 
 
 My company's factory was unionized in 1903, for the 
 lirst time in its nine years of existence, and forthwith was 
 "struck" by six unions affiliated with the Chicago Federation 
 of Labor. The union demands included an eight-hour day 
 instead of ten hours, an advance of twenty per cent in 
 wages, the handing over of shop rules and discipline to a 
 union committee, the sanctioning of sympathetic strikes, the 
 closed shop, and a number of lesser requirements. 
 
 Our company was young. Engaged as we were in a 
 fierce competition with the so-called Typewriter Trust, and 
 other large typewriter makers, whose works were without 
 exception in country towns, and who paid lower wages for 
 ten hours a day, the narrow margin of profits which we had 
 attained would have vanished instanter, and we should have 
 started at once toward bankruptcy. I stated these facts to 
 the union leaders, and invited them to put an expert 
 on our books to verify my assertion. They replied that 
 they could not bother with our books, that we could "cook" 
 our accounts to suit ourselves, and anyhow they did not 
 care to deal with weak concerns. If we could not do busi- 
 ness in Chicago under union conditions, we had better get 
 out of business or out of Chicago. "What then of our men 
 whom you have just unionized?" I asked. "Would you des- 
 troy their jobs forthwith?". "They must sacrifice themselves 
 for the cause of labor," was the reply, and the poor fellows 
 did. As the business agents left they whistled, and most of 
 the men dropped their tools and marched out. 
 
 Before this there had been a fortnight of negotiations, dur- 
 ing which I looked about for help. I tried to join the Metal 
 Trades and Employers Associations, and to get under their 
 collective-bargain umbrella; but I found no room there.
 
 TRADE UNIONS 159 
 
 These associations were controlled by the larger local fac- 
 tories such as the harvester, ice-machine and electrical works, 
 with whose methods, scale of operations, sales, and sea- 
 sons, our little typewriter factory had practically nothing in 
 common. Labor conditions which were tolerable to them 
 were to us about as deadly as the union demands. So I 
 found myself, with a heavy heart, compelled to make my 
 light alone. 
 
 A few months before, I had met on the railway train one 
 of the Studebakers of South Bend, whose factory had recent- 
 ly passed through a strike, of which he told me as follows: 
 
 "There had never been any unions in South Bend until 
 the organizers came from Chicago to organize our men. 
 As soon as this was done, they called a strike. Their de- 
 mands seemed to us impossible. So we called the men to- 
 gether, and I made them a speech. I said to them, 'We 
 have got along with you men, from father to son, for thirty 
 years, and have never had any trouble until these strangers 
 came' in to rhake it. Now you have put up to us demands 
 that we believe are impossible. You, of course, believe the 
 other way. And what you believe, any other body of men 
 are likely to believe. If we can't get along with you, we 
 can't get along with anybody else. Therefore, we are not 
 going to try to supply your places or to run tliis factory 
 unless we run it with you. We shall simply shut down 
 and give you a chance to look around for a better job. If 
 you don't succeed in finding one and wish to come back, 
 the old job is ready for you on the old conditions whenever 
 men enough decide to come to work to run the shops. If 
 you never come back the shops will stay closed.' 
 
 "So we shut down and left simply the watchmen there, 
 as at night. We employed no strike-breakers, and there 
 was no hard feeling. After a few weeks the older men be- 
 gan to think and argue and, in the course of two months, 
 the strike gradually faded but. The men came back, a few 
 at a time, work started up, and we have been non-union 
 ever since. No property was wrecked and no men killed, 
 and we have had nothing to regret." 
 
 Mr. Studebaker's narrative impressed me strongly, and 
 when I faced a similar situation I followed his lead exactly.
 
 i6o SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 We paid off the men and inclosed in every pay envelope a 
 letter stating that we should not fill the men's places, but 
 merely wait until they found out that all the unions in Chi- 
 cago could not furnish them another job; after which, if 
 they chose to come back, the old jobs would be ready under 
 the old conditions. If they found other work and did not 
 return in a reasonable length of time, we should feel free to 
 start up with new employees, first giving each man ten 
 days' notice so that he could, if he chose, apply for his old 
 situation. 
 
 So the shop remained closed for nearly eight weeks. 
 The unions picketed it in the meantime, but without reason. 
 After six weeks the majority of the men indicated that they 
 wished to return to work, and we gave them the agreed ten 
 days' notice. Before starting up, as many of the men ex- 
 pressed the fear of slugging, we agreed to put the property 
 under the protection of the courts, and applied for an injunc- 
 tion restraining the unions and our union employees from 
 picketing, intimidation, and violence. 
 
 Nevertheless, on the day that work was resumed, two 
 men were slugged. We caught the sluggers, brought them 
 before the court, had them sentenced, and then had the 
 sentence suspended during good behavior. We also furnished 
 our men with police escort to and from work. 
 
 These precautions ended all difficulties. The majority of 
 our eniploj-ees privately told their foreman that they had 
 had no grievances, and had joined the union only because 
 they were afraid to stay out. As soon as they felt them- 
 selves protected by the law, they quit the unions and re- 
 turned to work. 
 
 None of them except the pickets receiyed strike benefits 
 from the unions while the strike lasted, although they had 
 been told when joining the unions that a large war-fund had 
 been laid by in previous years in anticipation of this year 
 of struggle, from which they shouW benefit. When our 
 strike was announced in the papers, the Chicago manager 
 of a detective agency called to see me, stating that his office 
 made a specialty of handling strikes, and that he could give 
 me advance information of every movement made against
 
 TRADE UNIONS i6i 
 
 our company. I expressed some doubt as to his ability to 
 do so. He replied about as follows: 
 
 "These union leaders are all grafters; they will take 
 money from you, or from me, from the politicians, and 
 from the men, anywhere they can get it. Our agency 
 practically owns an official in every important union in 
 America. We will give you detailed type-written reports of 
 the proceedings of the executive and finance committees of 
 the six unions with which you are concerned. When you 
 start up, the unions will slip a union man in your shop to 
 r^-organize it. We will slip one of our operatives in there, 
 too, and he will keep you informed as to what the union 
 man is doing." 
 
 He finally persuaded me to accept his services, and for 
 nearly six months I received his daily reports, whose accu- 
 racy, regarding our strike at least, was sufficiently verified 
 by my knowledge of the facts from our own side. The 
 financial statements, which came in twice a month, showed 
 that but one-fifth of the union war-fund came back to the 
 men, mostly in the shape of pay for pickets, while four- 
 fifths went in salaries and expenses of the organization. 
 The largest single items were the bills of a certain lawyer, 
 perhaps the most conspicuous champion of downtrodden 
 labor in America, aggregating many thousands of dollars, 
 paid him for defending sluggers and fighting injunctions 
 against violence and intimidation of non-union men. Our 
 strike collapsed in about eleven weeks, but according to 
 these statements our pickets, who disappeared from the 
 neighborhood entirely about that time, were continuing to 
 draw pay when I stopped taking the statements some three 
 months after. As the business agents were frequently seen 
 about our neighborhood, and must have known that the 
 pickets were not there, the interesting query arises zvlio got 
 the money that was charged as paid for the services of the 
 latter? 
 
 Another interesting item in the financial report was two 
 dollars per man paid to the organizers for organizing our 
 shop. To cover this, each man had been charged three dol- 
 lars initiation fee, and about fifty of our men failed to pay 
 it. After the collapse of the strike the business agents
 
 i62 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 proposed to me to "call it off," provided the company would 
 pay the union the amount of these defaulted initiation fees, 
 a proposal quite in keeping with the whole miserable per- 
 formance. 
 
 When we linally started up as a non-union shop, desir- 
 ing to keep out union spies while lilling a few vacancies, we 
 advertised, anonymously for men of the six trades, in three 
 different ways, thus running eighteen "ads" at once: for 
 union men, closed shop for non-union men, non-union 
 shop and for men, open shop. Nearly a hundred ap- 
 plicants answered both union and non-union adver- 
 tisements and were, of course, rejected; but the far 
 more interesting development was the fact that out of 
 about one thousand applications received by mail over eight 
 hundred and fifty were for the non-union job. Many wrote 
 strongly, eager for steady work from which they could not 
 be called by business agents every little while. Even from 
 the "polishers,^' supposed to be solidly unionized, of fifty-one 
 applications thirty-one were for the non-union job. This 
 "straw vote" satisfied mc that our little shop at least could 
 ignore the unions; and it did. 
 
 Meantime the work of the Anti-Boycott Association was 
 going on in Chicago and the vicinity. Its purpose was to 
 enforce the common and statute law regarding conspiracy 
 and combination in restraint of trade against the labor un- 
 ions. The strikes of 1901-1903 afforded a favorable oppor- 
 tunity, and Chicago a strategic point for its operations. 
 Several important injunction suits were brought and fought 
 through the local committee of which I was a member. The 
 moral effect of the protection of the courts upon the labor- 
 ing population was so marked that, during the years from 
 1900 to 1903, not far from one hundred injunctions were 
 taken out in Chicago and the vicinity. It became well un- 
 derstood among employers that the majority of employees, 
 even union nic>n, preferred to remain at work if protected; 
 naturally the hostility of the unions to the issuing of injunc- 
 tions by the courts grew bitter, and still persists. 
 
 Eventually less aggressive counsels prevailed in the Na- 
 tional Association of Manufacturers. Suggestions of a great 
 fighting association of employers and the formation of a
 
 TRADE UNIONS . 163 
 
 large war-fund, of extensive lock-outs and the like, came to 
 nothing. Collective bargaining accomplished little. The 
 Studebaker method of non-resistance, involving merely abil- 
 ity to shut down, appealed to me as the best defense against 
 professional trade-unionism. I therefore proposed at the 
 annual meeting of the National Association of Manufactur- 
 ers a method of conferring that ability on every member; 
 namely, a plan for mutual strike insurance, permitting any 
 member to insure against loss of profits and waste of fixed 
 charged during idleness caused by strikes. 
 
 The Honorable Carroll D. Wright, Commissioner of La- 
 bor, had published, in 1901, the first report of the Depart- 
 ment of Commerce and Labor on Strikes and Lock-outs, 
 covering the years 1881 to 1900. The averages from this 
 report indicated that such insurance could be written at a 
 premium of less than one per cent per annum. 
 
 The association listened to the suggestion and appointed 
 a committee on strike insurance, of which I was made 
 chairman; and in that capacity I conducted an extensive cor- 
 respondence, sending out printed interrogatories to the en- 
 tire membership of the association, which yielded much 
 valuable information, among other things the fact that 
 union labor was universally found to be from thirty to forty 
 per cent less efificient than non-union labor. 
 
 I then thought, and still think, strike insurance an abso- 
 lutely lawful, cheap, and practical method of cooperation 
 among employers, which if generally adopted would put 
 professional labor leaders clean out of busmess. For an 
 employer need only say to the business agents, "Go ahead 
 and strike. It will cost me nothing. I am insured, and I 
 will shut down and go fishing until the men feel like going 
 to work again." 
 
 But my associates, like myself, had had their experience 
 in 1903; and had found out that unionism had not entirely 
 superseded the laws of supply and demand. They answered 
 my committee substantially as follows: "Your proposals are 
 sound, but not worth while. We do not have strikes very 
 often. When business is good, and we want men, we have 
 to bid up for them; when it is bad and we do not want 
 them, they come around after us. We prefer to take our
 
 i64 - SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 chances, and if a strike comes, meet it in our own way. 
 Organized or not, we can and will pay labor only what 
 trade justifies." 
 
 In short, by 1904, to these representative employers, over 
 three thousand of the largest in the land, organized labor 
 was no longer the devouring monster of 1900, but had 
 shrunk to a mere gad-fly of trade, at which the patient ox 
 of industry might indeed switch an uneasy tail, but against 
 which it was scarcely worth while to screen him. 
 
 Later on, our company dropped out of the National As- 
 sociation of Manufacturers and of the Anti-Boycott Asso- 
 ciation, and my personal contact with the labor organiza- 
 tions ceased. I now relate these experiences merely as a 
 '"story" to lead the reader on to a far more important and 
 convincing array of facts found in certain public documents, 
 namely : 
 
 The Second Report of the Commissioner of Labor, on 
 Strikes and Lockouts from 1881 to 1905; the Report of the 
 Senate Committee on the Course of Prices and Wages from 
 J900 to 1907; of the Census Bureau on Manufactures brought 
 down to 1905; and the advance bulletins of the Census of 
 1910. 
 
 According to the first-mentioned report, there were in 
 the United States in 1905, besides transportation companies, 
 some 216,262 wage-paying concerns, employing 6,157,751 
 workers. In 1881 the workers numbered 4,257,613; so 
 that for the twenty-five years included their average 
 number may be assumed as 5,200,000. During this 
 period there were no less than 36,757 strikes (not 
 counting those of less than a day), involving 181,407 
 concerns, and 1546 lockouts involving 18,547 concerns. Neg- 
 lecting the lock-outs and excluding railroad employees, 
 8,485,600 persons were thrown out of employment by strikes, 
 for an average period of 25.4 days. These totals are large 
 enough to form the basis of reliable percentages and sound 
 conclusions. Assuming the low normal of 250 working days 
 per annum, we may figure the total time lost by strikes dur- 
 ing that twenty-five years as two thirds of one per cent of 
 normal working time an almost negligible fraction. 
 
 Of the establishments involved, 90 per cent were "struck" 
 by organized, and but 10 per cent by unorganized labor.
 
 TRADE UNIONS 165 
 
 Organized labor won or partly won in 65 per cent, and 
 unorganized labor in 44 per cent, of strikes undertaken. 
 
 Lock-outs averaged 85 days in duration against 25.4 days 
 for strikes. Employers won or partly won in 68 per cent of 
 the lock-outs begun. 
 
 Sixty-seven per cent of all strikes were for wages, hours, 
 and other primary questions between employers and their 
 men; 33 per cent were for recognition of the unions, and 
 other secondary questions between employers and the un- 
 ions, as distinguished from the men. But, during the twenty- 
 five years, as labor organization progressed, this proportion 
 changed steadily and significantly. In 1881, for instance, 
 wage questions caused 71 per cent of the strikes, and "recog- 
 nition" but 7 per cent. In 1905 the figures were respectively 
 37 and 36 per cent. As the percentage of strikes for recog- 
 nition rose, the percentage of victories fell, from the grand 
 average of 65 per cent for the twenty-five years, to 52 per 
 cent in 1904 and 1905, the last two years. 
 
 Substantially no strikes were undertaken for sanitary 
 conditions, or against dangerous machinery, child or female 
 labor, and the like welfare questions, which the labor leaders 
 have practically left to the philanthropists. 
 
 To-day, after fifty years of organization, we may say 
 roughly that 70 per cent of the industrial workers and 90 
 per cent of all wage-earners remain non-union and may be 
 presumed not to favor strike-machines. The enormous ma- 
 jority of wage-workers neither unionize nor strike, but pre- 
 fer to remain at work and settle their wage questions and 
 working conditions for themselves directly with their em- 
 ployers. 
 
 II 
 
 In valuing the widely differing results of strike-effort, 
 that is, the efficiency of trade-unions, certain general con- 
 siderations must be borne in mind. "The destruction of the 
 poor is their poverty." AH an employer needs to win any 
 ordinary strike is the ability merely to shut down, and wait 
 until starvation does its work. This he knows perfectly 
 well. But low wages, long hours, and such primary ques-
 
 l66 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 tions between him and his men are seldom worth to him a 
 shut-down, or a fight to keep running. They mean merely 
 increased cost of labor which, like that of material, can 
 generally be added to prices, and the burden passed along 
 to the consumer. Indeed, the large majority of increases 
 and decreases, the natural fluctuations of wages and prices, 
 take place automatically under the law of supply and de- 
 mand; and differences come to the striking point, as we 
 have seen, only two-thirds of one per cent of the time 
 which is too seldom to count much. Ordinarily, therefore, 
 the emploj'er is indifferent, and easily yields wages and 
 hours demanded. He is seldom the tyrant blood-sucker of 
 helpless laboring men, women, and children that union 
 leaders and muck-rakers love to depict; with rare excep- 
 tions he is a pretty decent fellow, who likes his working 
 people, and willingly pays full going wages, and runs as 
 short hours as his trade will permit. 
 
 Of prime importance to him, on the other hand, is the 
 kind of work he gets for wages paid during the ggys per 
 cent of the time between strikes. "No man can serve two 
 masters; for either he will hate the one, and love the other; 
 or he will hold to the one, and despise the other." When 
 "recognition" means that employees must take orders from 
 half a dozen different unions instead of from the man who 
 pays them; that old and faithful hands must unionize or 
 leave, that sympathetic strikes and boycotts and refusal to 
 handle non-union material may unexpectedly and uselessly 
 involve him in the troubles of distant strangers; in short, 
 that brains, foresight, and energy may any day be ripped 
 out of his business, as a scullion rips the vitals from a fish, 
 and it must broil helpless on the gridiron of competition, 
 all of this being exactly what "recognition" docs mean, 
 verily the employer is bound to fight or lock out, if he can. 
 But first, with property and trade at stake, he carefully con- 
 siders his position. 
 
 He cannot fight or lock out, but must yield for the nonce, 
 when, as in the building trades, time is of the essence of his 
 obligations, with important work to be finished by a day 
 certain; or when he is financially so weak that he must 
 keep going or fail. He cannot yield or lock out, but must
 
 TRADE UNIONS 167 
 
 fight, when, as in the railroad and other public service, the 
 law and franchises enforce continuous operation, yet limit 
 prices for service; or when, as of late in the Isoft-coal and 
 garment trades, competition is so intense as to have pre- 
 cisely the same effect. The poor chap ponders long, and 
 often decides wrongly. But the labor leaders are held back 
 by no financial responsibility of their own or of their un- 
 ions. The union men may suffer individually, but the 
 leaders' comfortable salaries run on, and union treasuries 
 are on tap. The leaders' personal importance increases 
 enormously during a strike, while for the grafters among 
 them and union history is full of graft the strike is their 
 greatest opportunity. 
 
 The student can understand, then, why there were ten 
 strikes to one lockout, and nine union strikes to one called 
 by unorganized labor; why labor has won the majority of 
 strikes so far, and lost the majority of lock-outs; why, as 
 they strike more and more for "recognition" and like second- 
 ary causes, the unrons win less and less; and why the lead- 
 ers fight three times as desperately, and hold their unlucky 
 followers out three times as long for "recognition," involving 
 their own power and prestige, as for wages, concerning only 
 the men yet, nevertheless, lose oftener in the end. One can 
 understand, too, why, when trade conditions compel reduc- 
 tions of wages or demand shop discipline and efficiency, 
 capital takes a stand and labor is comparatively helpless. 
 
 And finally one can understand why as Allan Pinkerton 
 said of the MoUie McGuire thirty years ago "Organized la- 
 bor is organized violence." It must always be. So long as 
 the great majority of laborers remain outside the unions, 
 and a majority of those inside are there only through fear, 
 terrorism becomes the only means of preventing free com- 
 petition in labor and the settlement of strikes according to 
 the real attractiveness, or the contrary, of labor conditions. 
 Samuel Gompers is credited by a recent New York daily 
 with the remark, "Organized labor without violence is a 
 joke." It seems impossible that we should have said such a 
 thing, but the thing itself is true of existing trade-unionism. 
 
 Seeing then that labor is at actual "war" with capital but 
 two thirds of one per cent of the time; and that even then
 
 i68 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 organized labor wins but three times to unorganized labor's 
 twice, what after all is all this colossal organization worth 
 to labor? What is the net value of three wins to two during 
 less than one per cent of the time? Does this minute in- 
 crease of efficiency justify the cost of organization during 
 the remaining ninety-nine per cent? 
 
 The labor leaders will answer that organization is the 
 sole foundation of good wages all the time. Well, is it? 
 Let us turn to the Senate Report on Wages and Prices for 
 the following testimony: 
 
 While from 1900 to 1907 the average price of 25 leading 
 commodities advanced 17 per cent, farm labor, entirely un- 
 organized, advanced from 60 to 67 per cent. Ribbon and 
 hosiery mill-labor, poorly organized, two thirds of whose 
 strikes failed (see strike report) advanced respectively 44 
 and 36 per cent; railway labor, highly organized, advanced 
 as follows: trainmen 33 per cent, machinists 30 per cent, 
 engineers 20 per cent, miscellaneous 18 per cent; build- 
 ing-trades labor, over-organized, advanced but 32 per cent; 
 cabinet-makers, well-organized, advanced but 20 per cent. 
 
 Another comparison from the same report of wages paid 
 in 1907 in different cities and countries, shows that union 
 carpenters earned in Philadelphia $21 per week, in Louis- 
 ville $18, in Baltimore $21, in Chicago $27.50, in London, 
 England, $10.65. Union compositors earned in Philadelphia 
 43 cents per hour, in Chicago 67 cents, in San Francisco 80 
 cents. 
 
 That is to say, of the different classes considered by the 
 Senate Committee, entirely unorganized, unskilled labor 
 gained most in wages, badly organized labor came next, and 
 the best organized and strongest of all union labor, the rail- 
 way engineers, gained least ; while laborers of the same 
 unions at one and the same time, in different cities of the 
 same country, drew widely different and apparently incon- 
 sistent rates of wages for the same work. 
 
 How can these contradictory facts be accounted for on 
 the theory that unionism is the foundation of wage scales? 
 // is not. Actually, they are fixed the world over by local 
 conditions of supply, demand, and efficiency; and trade- 
 unionism has had about as much effect upon them, broadly
 
 TRADE UNIONS 169 
 
 speaking, as has had that magnificent fake, the protective 
 tariff. 
 
 If unionism cannot, what then can secure for the work- 
 ingman high wages, that is, a high standard of living? The 
 answer is plain nothing but efficiency: high-producing pow- 
 er conferred on labor by conjunction with brains and capital. 
 This almost axiomatic proposition is prettily demonstrated 
 by the 1905 Census Report on Manufactures, which shows: 
 
 That small establishments whose annual product amount- 
 ed to $5000 or less employed 1.9 per cent of the labor, drew 
 1.6 per cent of the pay-roll, and produced 1.2 per cent of the 
 total output. 
 
 That middle-sized concerns of $100,000 to $200,000 annual 
 product, employed 18.8 per cent of the labor, drew 18.3 per 
 cent of the wages, and produced 14.4 per cent of the output. 
 
 That large concerns of $1,000,000 or more annual product 
 employed 25.6 per cent of the labor, drew 27.2 per cent of 
 the pay-roll, and produced 38 per cent of the output. 
 
 Evidently the little fellow who is "crushed by the trust" 
 and goes to work for it, "no longer free but a mere slave," 
 draws more pay than before, as it grows bigger, and his 
 efficiency grows with it. A little of the resulting saving 
 comes to him direct; a little goes to the trust; but the bulk 
 of it comes to you and me, to everybody, himself included, 
 in reduction of prices and cost of living. That is the law of 
 trade. 
 
 How much ought to come to him direct? What should 
 be his share of the increment of his productive value due not 
 to himself, but to capital and brains? Not much! Like the 
 "unearned increment" on real estate, most of it rightfully be- 
 longs to the community; and one way or another the com- 
 munity gets it. What then are those "rights of labor,"- which 
 labor is to get 'when Mr. Gompers's prophecy of the final 
 domination of muscle over mind is realized? Probably la- 
 bor itself would define them as an even "divide," master and 
 man alike, all round. Well, what would that amount to? 
 Here is a crude guess. 
 
 The census of 1910 gives the total wealth of the nation 
 as about 107,000 millions of dollars, of which about one 
 quarter was in the land; which last the nation neither made
 
 170 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 nor saved. The rest was in worldly goods produced by all, 
 and saved by some of us. It amounts to, say $983 each for 
 every man, woman, and child in the United States; or, say, 
 $4500 per family. At the usual capitalistic return of 5 per 
 cent this would yield $225 per annum, or 61 cents per day 
 per family. That is, were all the brains and property of the 
 country to continue as now at the service of labor, and were 
 it to work as hard as now, and were each family head to 
 draw 61 cents per day greater average pay, labor would get 
 everything nothing left for capital, brains, and time spent 
 in evolution of the commercial situation. 
 
 Labor, would probably turn upon Gompers and say, "Is 
 that all? Where are our rights our automobiles and Scotch 
 castles, our golf and idle days?" And some wiser man than 
 Edward Bellamy would answer, ''Those things are not on 
 the cards, boys. You will each have to turn out many hun- 
 dred times more work than you are doing every day in 
 order to pass such luxuries around." The boys would prob- 
 ably reply, "If 6i cents a day extra, and hard work for life, 
 is all there is in it, we will take a vacation and spend our 
 $4500 apiece right now, and have one good time while it 
 lasts." 
 
 As a matter of fact, there are no "rights," there is no 
 enormous profit stolen from its daily toil, which labor does 
 not get. The whole wealth of the country, its accumula- 
 tion of three centuries, was 80,000 million dollars in 1910, 
 land-values neglected. The farm products of that year 
 were 9000 millions, the industrial products 15,000 millions, 
 and the precious metals 126 millions; probably all in all we 
 , produced 25,000 millions of dollars value last year. The 
 savings of three centuries, then, are barely three years prod- 
 uct! and they, too, are perishable. The food and merchan- 
 dise disappear in a year; the roads, rolling-stock, and ma- 
 chinery in ten years; the buildings, say, in thirty. All must 
 be renewed from year to year. The world really lives from 
 hand to mouth, its toiling millions consuming at least 97 per 
 cent of all they produce. A few millions of workers of rare 
 industry and thrift, a few hundred thousand of still more 
 brain and energy, gather together the small fraction that 
 remains, and concentrate it by the world-wide machinery
 
 TRADE UNIONS I7f 
 
 of modern commerce in a few favored countries for them- 
 selves, as they fondly suppose, but really, under a mightier 
 intelligence than theirs, mainly for the use and benelit of 
 labor, which works and thinks as little as possible, and saves 
 hardly at all. 
 
 Let us inquire now what are the plainly evident interests 
 of wage-working people, and upon them try to build logical 
 and useful principles of association with those of their fellow 
 men who, possessing brains, will always also control capital. 
 Those interests are, as I see them: 
 
 Employment. The laborer must have a job, furnished 
 him by some one else, for he has not the ability to create 
 one for himself. It must be continuous; for his time is all 
 he has, and every day lost is so much pay gone forever. He, 
 himself, should be the last man to interrupt or cripple his 
 own job; nor should it be subject to interruption by quar- 
 rels of other men with other jobs in which he has no con- 
 cern. 
 
 Freedom to work. If employment fails, does not pay, or 
 is unsuitable, it is absolutely vital that the laborer shall be 
 free to seek any other employment or locality without being 
 shut in or out by union walls. It is best for him, as for the 
 community, that labor, like capital, should be liquid, free to 
 flow where most needed; in ample supply everywhere, in 
 stagnation nowhere. 
 
 The highest going wages, regularly paid. As "going" 
 wages the world over practically absorb the product of each 
 country, it is idle to attempt to secure more. The only way 
 the laborer can induce, or indeed enable, his employer to pay 
 the highest wages to produce the utmost in return, and 
 make him prosperous. For, though it does not follow that 
 a prosperous business always pays the highest wages, a los- 
 ing business practically never does. Therefore, up to the 
 point of healthy fatigue, the workman in his own interest 
 should put his heart and back in his work, in fullest accord 
 with the brain that creates and pays for his job; doing his 
 level best to increase output and decrease unit-cost to his 
 employer and to the community. 
 
 As labor seldom saves, and figures ahead only from pay- 
 day to pay-day, pay-days must be regular and frequent, and
 
 172 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 the work steady. The employer, to be ideal, must be strong 
 and successful; in short, a capitalist as far as possible inde- 
 pendent of the troubles of other business concerns. 
 
 If these are the interests of labor, they are plainly iden- 
 tical with those of capital and of the community. There 
 will always remain justly to be determined, however, the 
 questions, what are "going wages" and "healthy fatigue." 
 
 These are questions of fact and of individual capacity, 
 whose determining factors, in spite of all our contrivances, 
 will probably always be those of supply, demand, and ef- 
 ficiency in open market namely, of competition: questions 
 whose mastery demands more study than average working 
 people are capable of. Nevertheless, to satisfy "Labor" 
 which nowadays "wants to know," and would cut loose from 
 simple and sound old methods, that labor-competition is 
 inevitable, as well as immediately and ultimately just, and 
 yet to mitigate as far as may be, its harshness, "Capital" 
 might well, it seems to me, utilize the fine principle of 
 brotherhood, of strength in union among laboring people; 
 devising for the larger industries, with its greater intelli- 
 gence, a form of union among employees more logical than 
 present unionism, wage-contracts more just to the individ- 
 ual, and more efficient than present collective bargaining, 
 and last, but not least, a practical method of enforcing such 
 contracts on both sides. For it is useless to make contracts 
 which cannot be enforced. The law will not compel a la- 
 borer to work, and neither he nor his union has any prop- 
 erty good for damages resulting from his breach of con- 
 tract. When the pinch comes, the union leaders calmly 
 say they "cannot hold the men" (which is perfectly true), 
 and that is the end of their contracts mere ropes of sand! 
 
 Capital prefers, therefore, to hire from day to day, and 
 take its chances of getting such labor as it wants in the 
 open market. If, now, labor desires that capital shall bind 
 itself by long-term contracts to stay out of the open market, 
 and deal only with particular bodies of laborers, it is not 
 only justice, but common sense, that the latter also shall be 
 bound, and that their side of the contract as well as capital's 
 shall be guaranteed by property. 
 
 To accomplish all this, let us suppose that the employer
 
 TRADE UNIONS 173 
 
 first, in order to disentangle his concern from the labor 
 troubles of others, himself quits all employers' associations, 
 and proposes to his employees to form a union of their own, 
 not tied to other unions and their wars; offering each man 
 who joins it a written contract providing: 
 
 1. For its termination only on three months' notice from 
 either party, or by common consent. 
 
 2. For steady work without strike or lock-out, while 
 trade conditions permit. 
 
 3. For the highest efficiency consistent with healthy 
 fatigue, and corresponding highest "going" wages; reasonable 
 maximum scales of efficiency and wages to be proposed by 
 the employer as conditions change from time to time, em- 
 ployees falling below maximum efficiency to draw reduced 
 wages pro rata to performance. 
 
 4. For the prompt acceptance or rejection, by represen- 
 tative members of the union, of trade conditions, scales of 
 efficiency and maximum wages, working rules, etc., from 
 time to time announced or proposed by the employer; fullest 
 facilities for investigation thereof to be afforded by him. 
 
 5. For the creation of a joint guarantee fund equal, say, 
 to five per cent of each employee's wages, to be contributed 
 on pay-days, one half by him and one half by the employer, 
 and placed in trust to accumulate at interest; its sum to be 
 divided between himself and the employer if he quits or is 
 discharged with the three months' notice, or by mutual con- 
 sent; or to be forfeited entire by or to him, if he quits or is 
 discharged zi'ithout the three months' notice, during his first 
 fifteen years' employment. After fifteen years he may at 
 any time either retire, and withdraw the whole as a savings 
 fund, or retire on a pension representing it, upon giving the 
 "three months" notice. 
 
 Employees who prefer not to join such a union are not 
 to be forced to do so, or to quit other unions; but to re- 
 main without benefits as ordinary employees by the day. 
 Those who join and sign contracts are, of course, free to 
 quit or strike without notice, if they think it worth while to 
 forfeit their 'half of the guarantee fund. In case of a dead- 
 lock between the employer and the union representative, the 
 employer as well as the men, if dissatisfied with existing
 
 174 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 scales or conditions, must give notice and wait three months 
 bjfore lock-out or strike, or forfeit the guarantee funds. In- 
 dividual men preferring not to give notice would, of course, 
 hold their jobs and their guarantee funds. 
 
 At the end of the three months' notice, should the dea<l- 
 lock continue, the men would draw their shares of the ac- 
 cumulated guarantee fund, and go their ways, sacrificing 
 their pension-standing, etc. The employer would have to 
 build up a new force. Probably both sides would try the 
 ordinary endurance test, to see which would yield first; 
 the men better financed than usual, and the employer 
 having had three months for finishing work in process and 
 preparing to shut down, with his share of the guarantee 
 fund as a financial anchor to windward. The possibility of 
 strikes would not be abolished, but would, in my judgment, 
 be greatly lessened under this plan. Nothing clears the 
 judgment like financial responsibility. 
 
 Such a form of unionism would, it seems to me, pro- 
 mote as well as human contrivance can the common inter- 
 ests of labor and capital, namely, continuous employment, 
 freedom for labor to flow where wanted, high efficiency and 
 high wages. under healthy conditions; and would add to the 
 general blessings of industrial peace the special blessings of 
 thrift and insurance. A prominent western actuary recent- 
 ly laid before his employer friends a plan under which the 
 employer's half of such a fiye per cent guarantee fund 
 would more than suffice, and might be used during the first 
 fifteen years to pay the premiums upon a death, accident, 
 and sickness insurance policy in one of the standard com- 
 panies, covering (in lieu of employers' liability) the same 
 scale of benefits as are now provided for working men under 
 the admirable German Compulsory Insurance laws. At the 
 end of the fifteen years the accumulations of the employee's 
 half of the fund and interest would suffice to take the place 
 of the insurance policy, which could then be dropped; and 
 thereafter the whole fund would accumulate to provide the 
 same benefits, and a savings fund or retiring pension at the 
 employee's option. 
 
 He would, however, .sacrifice all the accumulations and 
 the two and a half per cent of his wages, should he break
 
 TRADE UNIONS 175 
 
 his contract and quit without notice; or should he, in case 
 of accident or injury, elect to abandon his contract benefits, 
 and hold his employer liable under existing laws a strong 
 reason for doing neither. 
 
 Would the men sign such contracts, offering incompar- 
 ably greater benefits to themselves and the community than 
 are offered by existing trade-unions, laws, and charities? If 
 we may forecast their probable action from the foregoing 
 statistics, most of them would. It is certain, however, that 
 no union man would do so if the present union leaders could 
 prevent. Prying capital and labor apart with a wedge of 
 class hatred, and inserting themselves between, is now their 
 gainful, conspicuous, and interesting vocation. Permanent, 
 peaceful, and profitable relations between employer and em- 
 ployee would put them out of power. Therefore, when Mr. 
 Taylor, by long experiment, finds ways for men to do vastly 
 more work with less effort, and draw much more pay, Mr. 
 Mitchell promptly repudiates for labor the idea of doing so 
 much for the money. If Mr. Perkins offers Steel Corpora- 
 tion shares to its employees on easy payments, so that they 
 may be directly interested in its success and in the profits 
 from their own toil, Mr. Morrison denounces the offer as 
 bribery, and those who accept it as traitors to their class. 
 
 So there you have the issue sharply defined. However 
 sordid the motives of capital, its methods have been enor- 
 mously beneficial to the race. It has learned that human 
 efficiency means abundance for human needs, and abun- 
 dance low prices, and low prices larger trade, and larger 
 trade greater profits. With the purely selfish purpose of 
 garnering these profits, capital has for a century produced 
 and supplied to the race, in return for its daily toil, an ever- 
 increasing store of the necessaries and luxuries of life. 
 
 On the other hand, labor, equally selfish but less intelli- 
 gent, everywhere and always fights efficiency, discipline, 
 scientific management; in short, fights every means of in- 
 creasing output and reducing unit-cost. Everywhere and 
 always, strange as it may seem, labor stands for monopoly, 
 violence, and coercion, and against personal independence. 
 The non-union man has no right to life, libertj', and the 
 pursuit of a job. At the very moment of time when the
 
 176 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 world demands of capital the utmost commercial freedom, 
 the widest competition, the greatest energy, the cheapest and 
 best service, labor stands for the exact opposite, for tyran- 
 ny, combination in restraint of trade, high cost, inefficiency, 
 and sloth. To sum up, in hauling the heavy load of human 
 existence, it is the admitted principle and purpose of organ- 
 ized labor to balk and not to pull. 
 
 A priori, and from the broad experience, personal and 
 national, cited above, the conclusion comes to me irresisti- 
 bly, that the principle is false, the purpose wrong, and the 
 result inevitable; in fine, that existing trade-unionism is of 
 no value, to itself or to the community, and must make way 
 for something better. 
 
 Cassier's Magazine. 23: 434-40. January, 1903. 
 
 Labour Unions: Their Good Features and Their Evil Ones. 
 Charles W. Eliot. 
 
 It is of no use to try to educate the children of a tribe 
 which is nomadic, without settlement, without home. Edu- 
 cation, therefore, is a secondary instrumentality, habitual 
 labour coming first. Hence the importance of humane con- 
 ditions of employment, of humane conditions of the daily 
 labour by which the millions are supported, the daily la- 
 bour which forms the groundwork of the civilisation of the 
 people. 
 
 And now, what are humane conditions of employment? 
 That is a question on which the experience of university 
 men sheds some light. Naturally enough the conditions of 
 university employment are humane in all civilised nations. 
 Indeed, I believe them to be the most humane in the world. 
 Now I am going to try to state what I think to be the 
 humane conditions of employment, basing my delineation 
 on my own experience of university employment. 
 
 The first of these humane conditions I conceive to be a 
 rising wage, that is, a wage which gradually, it need not be 
 rapidly, increases with the labourer's increased experience, 
 attainments and age. This condition means for the labourer 
 hope, expectancy, recognition of merit, and gradually in-
 
 TRADE UNIONS 177 
 
 creasing reward of merit. It seems to me that this rising 
 wage should be regarded as an essential condition of satis- 
 factory employment. 
 
 The second universally desirable condition is steady em- 
 ployment, after adequate probation. I have never seen any 
 hesitation on the part of young men in accepting a reason- 
 able probation, and every intelligent person wants steady 
 work. Yet that method of steady employment after ade- 
 quate probation can hardly be said to exist in the ordinary 
 industries of the civilised nations. It applies dismissal only 
 for cause, for plainly visible, indisputable cause. It also 
 implies, on the part of the employer, a perfect readiness to 
 deal justly and fairly with complaints. I believe steady em- 
 ployment to be the sound condition for national human 
 development in all walks of life. It is the steady job which 
 develops fine human character, and, on the other hand, 
 spasmodic employment is a very unfavourable condition for 
 the development of character. It may seem strange to you 
 even to mention such a reasonable opportunity for the de- 
 velopment of character as steady work among conditions of 
 employment. We certainly are not accustomed to that view. 
 But is it not, after all, the only rational view of humane 
 conditions of employment? 
 
 A third humane condition of employment I hold to be 
 encouragement for the making of a permanent home. That 
 is just what the university conditions of employment en- 
 courage. The making of a permanent home means that the 
 home creator has opportunity to form local attachments, to 
 evince public spirit, and to win for himself local reputation 
 among his neighbours. Neighbourhood reputation is the 
 most rewarding kind of reputation. These aids to the de- 
 velopment of character and these sources of happiness the 
 normal workman loses completely. Therefore, a wandering, 
 unattached condition for labour is always unhappy and in- 
 expedient, whether we regard the interests of the individual 
 or the interests of society. 
 
 Fourth, among humane conditions of employment I put 
 the opportunity to serve generously and proudly the estab- 
 lishment or institution with which the labourer has been 
 connected. That is a high privilege for any human being.
 
 178 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 It takes him out of himself, and gives him a happy motive 
 for fidelity and zeal. You observe that this opportunity can- 
 not be had unless employment is steady and the home per- 
 manent. This is a satisfaction which all university men 
 win. It is a delightful part of the university man's life, a 
 privilege to be accounted much higher than large salary or 
 any form of luxurious living. It is one of the deep, per- 
 manent satisfactions of human life; and I should not call 
 any conditions of employment humane which made that 
 satisfaction unattainable by the humblest labourer. 
 
 The fifth right condition of employment is the pension 
 on disability. It gives security and dignity to the labourer; 
 it gives throughout life relief from one great anxiety; it 
 gives also that public consideration which goes with a steady 
 job and self-respecting, though humble or unobserved career. 
 Now there are five conditions of humane employment, 
 which I believe to be not theoretical or fanciful, but per- 
 fectly capable of realisation. But I think we shall have to 
 confess at once that these are not the common conditions 
 of employment in those large industries which require the 
 services of multitudes of comparatively unskilled labourers. 
 
 To-day the large services in which these principles are 
 adopted are few in number. I remember hearing an emi- 
 nent railroad president say, ten years ago, that there was 
 only one rule on which railroad service could be conducted, 
 and that was the rule of instant dismissal. Instant dismis- 
 sal characterises many employments to day. 
 
 Another serious difficulty with American employment is 
 that it is spasmodic. In almost all the large services it is 
 not steady, but spasmodic, first a rush, and then an abso- 
 lute stop. Again, in most industries, not all, I am happy 
 to say, complaints are not listened to, or, if listened to, 
 are made ground for dismissal. That is profoundly unrea- 
 sonable as a method of administration, and is an abundant 
 source of bitterness and discontent. Also, there are no pen- 
 sions except in a few fine services, which are beginning to 
 illustrate the proper conditions of employment. Moreover, 
 wages are fluctuating. Steadiness of wages, however, is an 
 immense object to all wage-earners. 
 
 Under such circumstances, then, labour unions have
 
 TRADE UNIONS 179 
 
 grown up among us. They have become more and more 
 aggressive, and are likely to extend constantly their fields 
 of operation. Against them are arranged the employers, 
 and sometimes the non-union men. Whose fault is this con- 
 dition of industrial strife? It is clearly the fault of both 
 parties. But it seems to me that the employers may justly 
 be held more accountable than the employed. On the whole, 
 the situation of the employers is generally more com- 
 fortable, their education superior, their intelligence greater. 
 Under these difficulties and with these justifications labour 
 unions have been organised and have struggled with more 
 or less success toward their remote good. 
 
 Before I take up the points at which I find labour unions 
 to be ill-advised, let me admit, as all persons must who have 
 studied their history, that the industrial community as a 
 whole is under many obligations to the unions. They have, 
 as a matter of fact, mitigated many evils. They have re- 
 duced what used to be the unreasonable number of hours in 
 a day's work. They have improved health conditions in 
 factories and mines, and have procured the legislation which 
 has enforced better health conditions. They have prevented 
 young children from working in factories, and they have 
 emancipated employees in many industries from the com- 
 pany store. Moreover, they hold in check combined capi- 
 tal; and combined capital is, from the democratic point of 
 view, a formidable oligarchy. The labour unions hold that 
 oligarchy in check. 
 
 The argument commonly used in justification of the or- 
 ganisations of labourers in unions is a sound one, capital 
 is effectively combined in certain industries, and, therefore, 
 labourers must effectively combine in those industries. That 
 argument is unanswerable. The great combinations of capi- 
 tal are very formidable to unskilled labourers much more 
 formidable than to the average man in the community at 
 large, and they are sufficiently formidable to us all. I think, 
 too, that we all believe that the labour union is going to 
 last. The facilities for uniting multitudes of men in one 
 organisation, for communicating on the instant with all 
 branches of the organisation, for bringing masses of men
 
 i8o SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 together for a common purpose, have increased wonderfully 
 even w^ithin the last ten years. 
 
 In view of this situation it is manifestly important to 
 discuss frankly and publicly any labour upion doctrines or 
 practices which seem dangerous to society or hurtful to the 
 men who adopt them. The first evil is the close limit put 
 on the number of apprentices in shops or factories or mines. 
 This seems to me a strange interference with a fundamental 
 democratic doctrine. It was Napoleon who gave it a very 
 compact expression: "Every career is open to talent." Now 
 that is a fundamental doctrine, one that we all thought 
 everyone of us heartily believed in. The labour union un- 
 dertakes to close the trade which it represents from young 
 men. It prescribes, for example, to a great printing office, 
 where hundreds of men are employed, that only an insignifi- 
 cant number of apprentices shall be allowed. I have read 
 many .constitutions of trades unions and I have never failed 
 to find in them this disposition to limit education for the 
 trade. It seems to be the common labour union doctrine 
 that the youth are to be kept out of the trade. It is the 
 exclusion of the newcomer for the protection of the old 
 hand. 
 
 I need not point out how inconsistent this is with all 
 practices in higher education. A group of eminent lawyers, 
 for instance, devote themselves to educating young lawyers. 
 A group of dentists devote themselves, at pecuniary sacri- 
 fice, to training as many young dentists as they can get 
 together, with the result that the young men immediately 
 begin to compete in practice with their teachers. All 
 through the higher education runs this conception of using 
 a talent for teaching to increase the number of men well 
 taught. It is the same spirit which makes the physician or 
 surgeon always give to the community any medical or 
 surgical discovery he may have made. 
 
 It is the disposition among liberally educated men to pro- 
 vide every facility for entrance to the learned and scientific 
 professions. The spirit of the educated class is to further 
 to the utmost every process of education which admits to 
 the class, while the spirit of the labour union seems to be
 
 . TRADE UNIONS i8i- 
 
 the exclusive spirit; it tries to protect the possessor of a 
 trade against the new aspirant. 
 
 Another pernicious doctrine held by many unions is the 
 doctrine of limiting the output or day's product of the indi- 
 vidual labourer. This doctrine seems to be based upon the 
 opinion that there is a definite amount of demand for the 
 product of any industry, and if that demand is satisfied by a 
 portion of the labourers in that industry there must be an- 
 other portion who get no work, who can get no work. If 
 one hundred thousand labourers satisfy the demand when 
 one hundred and fifty thousand are in the trade, the re- 
 maining fifty thousand will starve. Generosity teaches that 
 the one hundred thousand labourers should not satisfy that 
 demand, but should work slowly, say, at two-thirds their 
 natural speed, so that the fifty thousand may have a chance 
 to share the demand. The claim of the union is that the 
 limitation of output has a generous motive, the motive of 
 permitting those that would otherwise be unemployed to 
 share the fixed demand. 
 
 I need not point out that the theory of a fixed demand 
 is in the highest degree improbable; at any rate, it cannot 
 be computed or demonstrated. It is an assumption that it 
 is impossible to prove. But, on the other hand, it is obvious 
 that the effect on the individual labourer of habitually work- 
 ing at a rate below his natural capacity must be thoroughly 
 pernicious. What alert, ambitious man but desires to make 
 his daily output as large as possible, no matter what his 
 calling? What must be the effect on the individual labourer 
 of endeavouring, day after day and year after year, to do 
 less than he might do in the appointed hours of labour? 
 Must it not be degrading? Must it not gradually undermine 
 his own capacity for production? Will he not become, year 
 by year, a feebler and less useful man? The proper ambi- 
 tion for the labourer in any calling is to produce as much 
 as possible, of a quality as high as possible; and no other 
 purpose will foster the development of the best workmen 
 or the best men. 
 
 I object, therefore, utterly, to the limited output for the 
 individual, because it fights against the best instincts of the 
 best labourers. It also, of course, diminishes the produc-
 
 182 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 tiveness of the entire community, and tends to make the 
 whole community indifferent and ineffective. 
 
 A third doctrine of labour unions which seems to me to 
 fight against the true developing principles in human nature 
 is the doctrine of the uniform wage. This uniform wage 
 works in two ways: in the first place, it prevents the capable 
 labourer from earning as much as he might, which is not 
 only a misfortune to him, but a misfortune to society; and 
 secondly, it is cruel to the inferior workman. The labour 
 union establishes a uniform wage at as high a level as it 
 can, and in .every trade there will be many workmen who 
 really are incapable of earning that wage; that is, they can- 
 not satisfy the employer in the unionised shop. He finds 
 that he is paying some of his men a wage that they can 
 earn, and others a wage that they cannot earn. How does 
 he protect himself? He gets rid, whenever he can, of the 
 labourer that cannot earn the wage named by the union. 
 The consequence is that the inferior workman cannot earn 
 in a year any adequate wage, since he is often unemployed. 
 This is one of the greatest cruelties of labour unions. The 
 inferior workman, if permitted to work at lower wages, 
 might be steadily employed. He cannot be steadily em- 
 ployed when a wage must be paid to him which he cannot 
 earn. 
 
 There is, of course, another aspect of the uniform wage. 
 In times of pressure, which occur frequently in all indus- 
 tries, many men are taken on at the union wage who cannot 
 earn it, and the employer suffers very serious loss in the 
 process. This, however, is a totally different aspect of the 
 same false method. The uniform wage, in short, works 
 badly in all directions. It is a discouragement to the capa- 
 ble workman, it is a cruelty toward the less capable, and 
 from time to time it inflicts great injury on the employer. 
 
 I come now to a fourth objection to the labour union, 
 its teaching in regard to the use of violence during a strike. 
 This is a doctrine which is not always avowed; in fact, one 
 of the most serious objections to the public utterances of 
 labour leaders is that they endeavour to conceal the violence 
 which is actually resorted to. They even deny, in guarded 
 language, that there is violence. In their denial they use
 
 TRADE UNIONS 183 
 
 the phrase "overt act," for instance, meaning thereby a 
 public crime, like killing or blowing up a house. Now, 
 what is the fact with regard to the use of violence when 
 unskilled labourers strike? I say unskilled labourers, be- 
 cause the unions of highly skilled labourers have another 
 means of resistance. They can rely, many a time, upon 
 the fact that there is no large supply of labourers skilled 
 in their trade; and they are, therefore, not obliged to resort 
 to violence, or, at least, they may avoid resort to violence. 
 But that is not at all true of the union of unskilled labour- 
 ers. 
 
 To enforce a strike, they really have no other weapon 
 but violence, and they all know it, and their leaders know it. 
 They resort invariably to violence within a few hours, and 
 nearly every considerable strike for the past ten years has 
 been accompanied by violence. The reason for this lament- 
 able fact is that violence is inevitable. Such strikers have 
 no other weapons; I suppose most of us have seen this 
 with our own eyes. When a strike occurs on a street rail- 
 way, for example, there are always hundreds of men who 
 want to take the places of the men who have struck. There 
 is but one way of preventing them from doing so, namely, 
 by violently making it too dangerous for them. 
 
 These are but illustrations of a universal fact. Now, 
 what is the theory on which,, in labour unions, violence is 
 justified? It is justified. I heard the theory ingeniously 
 stated at a recent meeting of the Economic Club of Boston, 
 and I think I can give it to you accurately. The labourer 
 who has worked in a factory or shop for years, or even 
 months only, has acquired an equitable right in that factory 
 which is not discharged by the weekly payment of his 
 wages. He has made a part of the reputation of that fac- 
 tory and the reputation of its product. He has created a 
 part of the good-will of that factory. This claim is sub- 
 stantial, and it is not discharged by paying him weekly 
 wages. 
 
 He joins his fellows in declaring that for a time they do 
 not propose to continue to work in that factory on the con- 
 ditions which prevail at the moment. He then sees a man 
 taking his place. Now, that man is possessing himself of
 
 i84 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 that equitable claim on the factory of the right in equity 
 which the former labourer has acquired, and which he ought 
 not to lose by going on a strike. The incoming man is a 
 thief and a robber, and he can be dealt with as one deals 
 with a burglar in one's house. The scab, or strike breaker, 
 is a burglar, and if ever violence is justified between man 
 and man, violence is justifiable between the union man who 
 has gone on a strike and the scab who takes his place. 
 
 The argument is plausible, but has a fatal, weak spot. 
 It claims a right in the factory or business which depends 
 on continuous operation, and also claims the right to dis- 
 continue the business or shut up the factory. 
 
 This doctrine I believe to be a dangerous one, and one 
 that combats all principles with regard to freedom in labour. 
 I find that the principle that a man has a right to sell his 
 labour at whatever price he chooses to fix is earnestly dis- 
 puted. Indeed, it is said that no man has a right to sell his 
 labour at any price, without considering the effects of his 
 sale on associated labourers in the same trade or business. 
 The right to earn bread for his family by whatever oppor- 
 tunity which presents itself is denied. He must not earn 
 bread for his family without considering the effects which 
 his taking the price he is willing to accept may have on 
 thousands of other men who are not willing to accept that 
 price. This doctrine cuts deep, and the people have got to 
 consider and reconsider this contest of opinions. It is a se- 
 rious contest of opinions with regard to personal liberty. 
 
 The sort of violence which the labour unions justify is 
 various, and there has been a great development in the va- 
 riety of violence within the last ten years. The inevitable 
 violence now takes the form, first, of a few serious outrages 
 on persons and on property. It does not take many outrages 
 to alarm a considerable population. Three or four assaults, 
 three or four killings, a few blown-up houses, will terrorise 
 a large community. But these operations need not be nu- 
 merous, they need not be frequent. The more effective meth- 
 od, when combined with these assaults and outrages, is the 
 method of the boycott. 
 
 I have not time to describe the varieties of the boycott. 
 Suffice to say that the boycott, in a community .where the
 
 TRADE UNIONS 185 
 
 union men are in power, penetrates every nook and corner 
 of society. Every shop, every office, every professional 
 man's employment is assailable, and is assailed. But it does 
 not stop there in a community where the union has a large 
 majority. The police, the courts and the newspapers can 
 all be controlled. They have been repeatedly, and they are 
 to-day, in some localities. You see how much ground that 
 covers, the police, the courts and the newspapers. The 
 community at large is thus deprived of information and the 
 community on the spot is deprived of the ordinary protec- 
 tion of the courts and the officers of the courts. 
 
 One step remains to be taken in communities where the 
 labour unions are in command, namely, the control of the 
 militia. We shall probably see during the next few years 
 strenuous efforts, direct and indirect, on the part of the un- 
 ions to control the militia. There are two ways of control- 
 ling it, fill the local militia with union men, but legislation 
 may also be resorted to; and, thirdly, the boycott will be 
 effective to this end unless the public learns how to disarm 
 it. The formidableness of the boycott, except in a region 
 where the union men are in a clear minority, is* a singular 
 phenomenon in society. 
 
 The total number of labourers organised in unions of 
 the United States, for example, cannot possibly be placed 
 higher than 2,000,000. Colonel Wright, head of the United 
 States Labour Bureau, says that he cannot place it higher 
 than 1,700,000. It is, therefore, conceivable that the more 
 numerous non-union men, or the public at large, should 
 learn how to control or defeat the boycott. It needs to' be 
 defeated. It is a cruel, cowardly interference with the rights 
 of all the people. 
 
 Discussion of evils seems to me seldom expedient, un- 
 less it leads to the discussion of remedies. Now, there are 
 certain hopeful prognostications for industrial peace. In the 
 first place, whenever either party to the combat gives a 
 demonstration of unreasonableness and folly, that party pro- 
 motes the adoption of policies which are more rational, and 
 we had that demonstration to perfection from both sides 
 during the recent five months' American anthracite coal 
 strike.
 
 i86 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 When we reflect upon it, does it not seem wonderful 
 that at the end of this strife about mining anthracite, which 
 in bitterness exceeded the bitterness of many wars, in which 
 measures were proposed and attempted to be executed which 
 in actual warfare people generally abstain from, as, for in- 
 stance, the endeavour of the miners to force out of the 
 mines the engineers who kept the mines free from water, 
 while throughout the Transvaal war, surely a bitter strife 
 and a prolonged one, that operation was never resorted to 
 or even proposed by either party, isn't it wonderful, I say, 
 that at the end of five months of this extraordinary turmoil, 
 this infliction of perfectly unnecessary losses upon the en- 
 tire community, and especially on both combatants, we 
 should arrive at a solution which might just as well have 
 been arrived at before the strike began? This is a demon- 
 stration, I think, of a gross lack of intelligence in both par- 
 ties to the strife. 
 
 At the end of five months an arbitration commission was 
 appointed, certainly no better than the two parties could 
 have selected at the beginning. Such irrational conduct on 
 both sides should teach the public that this sort of industrial 
 strife is stupid, and, therefore, to be avoided by more in- 
 telligent policies and efforts. It teaches that it is better to 
 confer at the start than to fight first and confer afterwards. 
 
 The incorporation of unions is, of course, very desirable, 
 because arbitration between one body which is incorporated 
 and another bodj' which is not incorporated is not perfectly 
 fain A penalty can be enforced against one and not against 
 the other. But all the labour unions and all the labour 
 leaders, as far as I know, are opposed to incorporation. 
 They dread the action of the courts. They have had many 
 quarrels with the courts, and have often been defeated in 
 them, and they have a natural dread of litigation. The well- 
 kept agreements between incorporated bodies on the one 
 hand and unincorporated labour unions on the other are all 
 the more interesting because they may prove to be the 
 means of gradually bringing about the incorporation of .un- 
 ions when, by experience under these present agreements, 
 the unions learn to trust to a contract. When that trust
 
 TRADE UNIONS 187 
 
 has once been created, the unions may cease to fear a con- 
 tract enforced by the ordinary legal methods. 
 
 Lastly, I think there are many signs in important manu- 
 factures that labour unions can, by good judgment and good 
 feeling, make themselves a convenience to corporations en- 
 gaged in industrial work.' I have lately had conversations 
 with some large employers of labour who perceive the con- 
 venience in large industries of being able to procure the 
 assured delivery at a fixed price of any required number of 
 labourers on a contract covering a year or five years. It is 
 interesting to perceive that the urgencies of great business 
 seem to tend already to methods which have been developed 
 in the course of centuries in old China. The Chinese meth- 
 od is the delivery of any required number of labourers by a 
 company for a fixed price. In some respects there is a 
 curious resemblance between the common Chinese method 
 and the method toward which the labour union tends. The 
 union labourer of the future, once involved by the thousand, 
 may be hardly freer than the Chinese labourer, who is de- 
 livered to order by ' the thousand at an agreed price. All 
 the more important is it that joining the union should be 
 completely voluntary. 
 
 The first thing needed in every labour trouble is to learn 
 exactly what the difficulties are, and here it must be con- 
 fessed that there are obstacles. Both parties to industrial 
 strife as a rule distrust publicity. It is a general fact that 
 corporations wish to conceal their methods of doing busi- 
 ness, and that labour unions also wish to conceal their rea- 
 sons for demanding more pay or less work. Therefore, the 
 meaning of procuring publicity in regard to such matters 
 ought to be diligently sought by the people as a whole. 
 
 We have many means of publicity. The local newspaper 
 will not serve us. The great metropolitan newspaper might, 
 the magazines might, legislative comgiissions might. They 
 do not always, but they might. It is for the people to seek 
 thorough information on all these industrial struggles, and 
 to spread abroad among the people sound notions concern- 
 ing their causes and their results. Then, I think, we may 
 all hope that we shall find a way through these formidable 
 social dangers.
 
 i88 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 Century. 67: 298-304. December, 1903. 
 Daily Walk of the Walking Delegate. Franklin Clarkin. 
 
 The First Walking Delegate 
 
 In an old "American^ Federationist" you may read how 
 the first walking delegate came into being. He was James 
 Lynch of New York. He himself tells of learning his trade 
 as carpenter with his father, and of joining a union in 1872. 
 Hard times drifted him West. Seven years later, prosper- 
 ity returning, he was back in New York, serving on the 
 executive committee of the carpenters, and lobbying at 
 Albany, under pay, for new labor legislation. That was the 
 time when all New York wanted "brownstone fronts." Much 
 of the work was being sublet, or "lumped." Builders would 
 undertake a block of houses seven hundred feet long. They 
 would give the setting of door-frames to one lot of carpen- 
 ters, and'the making of casings to another, which led. Lynch 
 relates, "to special classes of workmen known as 'door- 
 hangers,' etc. These men were outside the union and 
 worked all sorts of hours." 
 
 Their offense is not clear: doing piecework, probably, 
 for piece-work means that a worker is paid for what he does. 
 He may be so deft that he can do twice as much as the 
 dull or lazy fellow at his elbow, and earn double the wages; 
 or so ambitious for a stouter pay-envelop at the end of the 
 week that he works as long as he pleases in a day. This 
 ever has been intolerable to unionism, which uses the daw- 
 dler to set the pace, so that in the long run more men shall 
 be required, and wages made the same for "those who do 
 well and wisely as for those who do ill and foolishly." I 
 must add that the intention is to take care of the man of 
 less capability. * 
 
 "In desperation," writes the first walking delegate, "it 
 was decided to pay a representative to keep after these 
 men; so in July, 1883, a walking delegate of carpenters was 
 authorized, and I was appointed." 
 
 Neither the carpenters nor the builders welcomed his 
 advent. "I found the position," he abruptly concludes, "any- 
 thing but pleasant. Although of a peaceful disposition, I
 
 TRADE UNIONS 189 
 
 was plunged into continual war. My presence on a job was 
 an irritation to the employer as well as to the non-union 
 men, and not infrequently some of the union men envied 
 me, little knowing the sorrows of my lot." 
 
 Sam Parks's Methods 
 
 Parks of the Housesmiths' Union, in boastings, testi- 
 monies, and interviews, has told of some of the distresses of 
 the present-day walking delegate. Parks has the notion of 
 some practical politicians, that to gain ascendancy among 
 men you must show yourself able to give hard knocks. He 
 early learned to fight, in logging-camps, on the lake boats, 
 along the docks, on the railroads, in construction camps. 
 "I like to fight," he declares. "It is nothing after you've 
 risked your life bridge-riveting at three dollars a day. In 
 organizing men in New York I talked with them at first 
 nice and pleasant, explaining how they could be better off 
 in a union. Bosses began to learn that I was about and 
 pretty busy; and they had men stationed around to 'do' me. 
 But they could not keep me off a job. I sneaked up ladders 
 and elevator-shafts, stole up on beams, waited for the men 
 on cellar doors where tH"ey ate dinner. Some did not be- 
 lieve unions would be good for them; and I gave tHem a 
 belt on the jaw. That changed their minds. Lots of men 
 can't be moved by any other argument." 
 
 He could not hold members in the union by the same 
 primitive method. Convinced against their wills, they were 
 impatient for promised benefits. So when his organization 
 was strong enough to "keep scabs off the jobs," Parks com- 
 pelled contractors, one at a time, to "recognize" and have 
 dealings with the organization he had produced. He made 
 it a point to learn when they were under bonds to complete 
 their undertakings within a certain time. Then, as he says, to 
 keep men contentedly paying dues to his union, he would 
 make a demand for increase of wages. "Contractors would 
 refuse, and I would order out the workers. We would win. 
 This year the scale was fixed at four dollars and a half a 
 day, which is half a dollar more than I promised. We are 
 going to get five dollars, and then we'll stop. Capital has 
 some rights."
 
 190 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 Reluctant as they had been to join, members became 
 tolerant of Parks and his union, and now when you marvel 
 how they can put up with a walking delegate like him, con- 
 victed of obtaining money by selling out a strike, they 
 answer: "He brought us four dollars and a half a day in- 
 stead of two, and if he 'soaked' the bosses for his own poc- 
 ket, why, it doesn't come out of us." 
 
 Parks's union was a machine. A membership of three 
 thousand sent scarcely sixty to the meetings, and there was 
 nothing in the constitution which said that a convicted 
 blackmailer should not boss it. 
 
 "Nothing in our constitution or by-laws," said a respons- 
 ible labor leader to me, "prohibits a pickpocket from being 
 a walking delegate or a walking delegate from being a 
 pickpocket. If he is caught picking pockets, it is the busi- 
 ness of constables and courts to deal with and punish him 
 not ours. All we ask is that he shall get us more pay for 
 less work." 
 
 The Rule of Personal Caprice 
 
 The easiest of all the walking delegate's shortcomings, to 
 illustrate by anecdote, is that arbitrariness, fickleness, of 
 preference, enforcement of mere personal caprice, which em- 
 ployers oftenest complain of. Indeed, there is something 
 of his most objectionable principle of rule in nearly every 
 account of his actual doings. This makes it difficult to 
 separate distinctly the faults of the walking delegate from 
 the faults of the union, since he is the approved embodiment 
 of its policy. Seldom is he unable to gain formal sanction 
 for his most self-willed exploits. Witness the recent hap- 
 pening in the cap-factory of R Brothers, New York, 
 
 where this supervisor of union affairs fined a cutter twenty- 
 five dollars for using a knife that was longer than the union 
 permits. "Why punish him so severely?" inquired a man 
 at the next bench. "Shut your mouth," returned the dele- 
 gate. "As a union man, I am entitled to an answer," in- 
 sisted the other. At that the delegate petulantly called all 
 the unionists out of the shop until the inquisitive cutter had 
 been dismissed. The manufacturers asked the delegate:
 
 TRADE UNIONS 191 
 
 "Why must this man leave our employ?" And he replied: 
 "Because I don't want to see his face again." 
 
 Two of the foremost New York architects were troubled 
 for some time to discover why, without any warning, one of 
 their buildings had been "struck." No one seemed to know. 
 "One day," they relate, "a subcontractor came in. 'If you 
 want to settle that strike,' he said, 'I'll tell you how.' 'Go 
 ahead,' we replied. 'Break your contract with Smith, who 
 is to do the painting.' 'But we have no contract with him; 
 we've merely talked with him about taking this job; and, 
 anyway, his part would not come for six months yet.' 
 'Never mind; it's because a walking delegate heard you had 
 a contract with him that he complained and had all the men 
 quit.' 'What led him to complain?' 'Why, if you really had 
 contracted with that painter it would mean that he would 
 employ a decorator that the walking delegate had a grudge 
 against.' " 
 
 The Whitehall Building in Battery Place was nearly com- 
 pleted when the superintendent hired an ordinary union 
 plumber. The walking delegate called a plumbers' strike 
 because the master plumber had not been asked to hire the 
 man. After a week a demand was made for the discharge of 
 the workman so irregularly engaged, and also for "waiting 
 time" for all the men who had struck. The plumber was 
 presently discharged; but the builder hesitated at paying 
 waiting time. Then all the men on the building, of all 
 trades, were ordered out. Weeks of bargaining brought a 
 proposal that the owners of the building should bind them- 
 selves and their "heirs and assigns" never to employ in that 
 building any plumbers except through a master plumber! 
 This the owners rejected. Then came another proposition. 
 It was that the owners should purchase all the required 
 marble basins from a certain man at seventy dollars each. 
 To this they agreed, although they could have obtained the 
 same basins elsewhere at fifty dollars. Following this came 
 dickering about other equipment, until the distracted owners 
 determined to put in no basins at all. 
 
 Overlapping Jurisdiction 
 
 President Gompers of the Federation of Labor has 
 cautioned his subordinates that "the danger which above all
 
 192 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 others threatens not only the success but the very existence 
 of the Federation is the question of jurisdiction." Now and 
 then one union absorbs another to do away with conflict, 
 but the walking delegate continues to figure in such inci- 
 dents as these: 
 
 Some electricians, union men, were drilling holes in an 
 iron elevator-frame to affix lighting-wires. Discovered by 
 a walking delegate of the Inside Iron Workers, a complaint 
 was presented that this was not permissible. . So, to avoid 
 trouble, the man responsible for the construction said: "All 
 right; let the inside iron-workers do it. What do I care?'' 
 The inside iron-workers came; but all they did was to stand 
 about while the electricians completed the task, and the only 
 difference was that two sets of workmen drew pay for the 
 same job. 
 
 In Pittsburg a builder, delayed, but at last successful, 
 in finding the proper workmen to remove from the rain 
 some delicate bricks intended for indoor decoration, anxious- 
 ly began himself to help them. He was interrupted by a 
 walking delegate, and warned that if he did not stop doing 
 such work himself a strike would be ordered on his whole 
 building. "It was," remarked the builder afterward, "as if 
 a farmer, trying to get his hay under shelter from a coming 
 shower, had been informed that if he touched a finger to a 
 rake he would be deprived of all farm-hands for the haying 
 season I" 
 
 On a recent Friday a New York builder prepared to lay 
 some cement so that it should solidify by Monday, and as 
 the mason's laborers, who usually do such work, were busy, 
 he got the excavators to help him out, "A walking dele- 
 gate came along," he relates, "and gave the whistle. All 
 the men went out. It cost me seventy-five dollars to set- 
 tle." Another contractor wanted to run a temporary pipe 
 on a building so that the plasterers who were at work could 
 get water on each floor. "I told the elevator man to put up 
 the pipe or get the hoisting man to do it. After a while he 
 called me up on the telephone: 'If I do that, the plumbers 
 will go out.' I answered, 'Then for the sake of peace, let 
 the plumbers do it.' Presently I received a message to the 
 effect that if the plumbers did it, the steam-fitters would 
 strike!"
 
 TRADE UNIONS 193 
 
 Agaitist Arbitration 
 
 Last year's experience having shown that unions could 
 not be trusted to keep agreements, a Rochester packing- 
 house declined to sign a new one unless the unions would 
 execute a bond for faithful observance. There was still in 
 force a contract with the sausage-makers, but next day 
 these men were ordered by the walking delegate not to 
 report for work. That violation of contract strengthened 
 the company in their purpose; they would pay union wages 
 and observe union rules, but they would not sign an instru- 
 ment which bound only the party of the first part. They 
 put new men in the strikers' place, and presently, as in so 
 many strikes where the sullen, unimproved intelligence of 
 the walking delegate is the directing and obstinate power, 
 and. failure means the dissolution of his machine, the butch- 
 ers' delegate proposed that all the men be taken back, the 
 agreement signed, and then, he promised, "the company 
 would be allowed to discharge them all the following day." 
 The object was to have a victory for the walking delegate 
 announced. He must win, even at the sacrifice of his poor 
 followers. 
 
 Agreements to arbitrate are an incentive to disturbance, 
 for the walking delegate has been surprised to find that 
 arbitration does not mean that his side will invariably be 
 favored in the decision. Investigation may reveal that, 
 instead of higher wages, the condition of a business may 
 rather urge a recommendation that wages be reduced. It 
 has ended in that unexpected manner several times. More- 
 over, the walking delegate becomes somewhat superfluous 
 after it has been agreed that a selected board shall deter- 
 mine the equities between employers and employed. 
 
 Of many authenticated records at hand of the calling of 
 strikes in violation of signed engagements, it is necessary to 
 cite but one. C & Sons, a firm of pipe-makers of Chi- 
 cago, dismissed a pipe-cutter because, on command of a 
 walking delegate, he suddenly refused to go on with work 
 he had been doing for more than union wages. They dis- 
 missed him because while in their pay he took orders from 
 an outsider. The walking delegate asked that the man be
 
 194 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 taken upon the pay-roll again. "We will leave it to arbi- 
 trators," conceded the firm. 
 
 "To with arbitration!" exclaimed the delegate. 
 
 "You forget we have a signed agreement with the union 
 to settle disputes that way." 
 
 "Agreement be ! I won't refer this to a committee. 
 
 It will be settled right now, with me. I'll call your men 
 out at once." He did; and they went. 
 
 Above Courts and the Union 
 
 T Brothers threw a walking delegate out of their 
 
 Chicago* office, with interesting consequences. When ex- 
 Mayor Pagan of Hoboken knocked one down in his mill-yard 
 for "making trouble among men on strike," a suit for three 
 hundred dollars' damages was brought in the criminal court, 
 and Mr. Fagan was required to pay the doctor's bill and the 
 delegate's loss of time forty-seven dollars altogether. But 
 
 in the matter of T Brothers the union set itself up as 
 
 court, imposed a "fine" of one hundred and fifty dollars on 
 the firm, and adjudged that they must give bond in another 
 one hundred and fifty dollars, to be deposited with the 
 union, that they would keep the peace. The details are of 
 some importance: the delegate had been thrust through the 
 office door because he was recognized as an anarchist, not 
 as a trade-unionist. He returned, took oflf his spectacles, 
 bristled for a fight, and was again put out. His companion, 
 who really represented the unions which had to do with that 
 shop, and who was listened to, called- a strike, and after- 
 wards got the union to impose the fine and bond. 
 
 "We won't pay money," answered one of the partners, 
 "but we will let Gompers decide between us." 
 
 The Federation's president advised a note "expressing 
 regret" and "promising to accord the usual privileges and 
 courtesies" thereafter. In precisely his terms the partners 
 wrote a letter, and with a committee of the union signed an 
 agreement as to hours, wages, etc. Scarcely had it been 
 signed before the walking delegate, holding himself superior 
 to his union, repudiated it. and the strike remained in force. 
 He seemed to need to be disciplined, but Gompers said he 
 could not undertake it; so T Brothers immediately sum-
 
 TRADE UNIONS I95 
 
 moned non-union workers, re-opened the shop, and are now 
 peaceably operating it, with no walking delegate at liberty 
 to enter. 
 
 Betrayal of the IVorkingtnan 
 
 The walking delegate has more methods of selling out 
 workingmen than the social reformer has of insuring them 
 advancement. ' 
 
 It must be known to many persons besides the District 
 Attorney of the County of New York how the construction 
 of the house of a prominent Fifth Avenue club was delayed. 
 Mr. Jerome found that seventeen thousand dollars had to 
 be paid to lift the ban upon its progress. The Brotherhood 
 of Painters and Decorators, which had ordered operations to 
 stop, had no membership in the Building Trades (walking 
 delegates') Council. Five members of that council are sup- 
 posed to have shared the seventeen thousand dollars; at any 
 rate, the Brotherhood of Painters and Decorators suddenly 
 became entitled to representation, and that central power 
 immediately was persuaded that the erection of the club 
 building should go on. 
 
 In the recent trial which resulted in the conviction of 
 Sam Parks of extortion, a Jersey City employer named 
 Plenty testified that he went to Parks's house to see if 
 there was a way to settle his strike. Said Parks: 
 
 "Yes, in a business way. That's the way all strikes are 
 settled. What's the size of your contract?" 
 
 It was five thousand five hundred dollars, which gave a 
 clue to the proper charge to make, and Parks fixed on two 
 hundred dollars, adding: "I have settled a big thing to- 
 day, and this is my share," and he pulled out a roll with a 
 five-hundred-dollar gold certificate for a wrapper. In the 
 back room of a saloon Parks was handed a check. 
 
 "You do not expect me to put my name on the back of 
 that, do you? Where's the money?" 
 
 Cash for the check was obtained "at Lynch's saloon." 
 Parks put twenty-five dollars in one pocket, and one hun- 
 dred and seventy-five dollars in another, and then called in 
 the delegate whose special beat was Jersey City. Pointing 
 his thumb toward Mr. Plenty, the employer, he commanded:
 
 196 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 "Now, you let Plenty alone, and we'll take care of you." 
 
 In the building trades it has not been unusual to "take 
 care of all walking delegates. One of them arrives at a 
 unionized uncompleted structure, and being privileged to 
 enter and consult each man, finds, perhaps, that a plasterer 
 has no card. The delegate looks up the builder, and he, 
 eager to complete his contract on time, proposes that the 
 non-union plasterer be made union. "Initiate him now," he 
 continues; "I'll pay his fee." The builder passes ten dol- 
 lars to the delegate, for his courtesy, and the non-union 
 plasterer is safely unionized, and the fee does not necessari- 
 ly go to the union. Another builder intercepts the delegate 
 before he has passed among the men, hails him jovially, 
 and takes him around the corner for a drink. "This build- 
 ing is all right," he assures the artless one, slipping a bank- 
 note to a ready palm; and the act betokens such a decent 
 sort of employer that the delegate cannot doubt his word. 
 
 Of a more downright kind was the Pittsburg tile-manu- 
 facturer, secretary of the Builders' Exchange League, of 
 whom a walking delegate requested a private interview. 
 
 "You are employing a non-union man," opened the dele- 
 gate. 
 
 The tilemaker hesitated, "Come down to business," said 
 he. 
 
 "I've been to some expense to go out to see whether the 
 complaint had any foundation." 
 
 "How much expense?" 
 
 "Fifty dollars." 
 
 "Much as that? Don't you know that you can't get a 
 bribe out of me?" 
 
 "There's no bribe about it. That's what you owe the 
 union." 
 
 "I intend to go on owing it; but I'll first get a formal 
 statement of account." 
 
 It was found that the union had not been consulted; 
 that no report had been made of it; and at a disurbed meet- 
 ign the delegate was rebuked (but not dismissed). 
 
 "I'll fix you tor that," he threatened the tilemaker. 
 
 "Not if I see you first," was the response. 
 
 "Anyway, I'll put you out of business!"
 
 TRADE UNIONS 197 
 
 Where the Money Goes 
 
 Union by-laws and constitutions do not divulge the walk- 
 ing delegate as he is. His activities, according to these, 
 are such benign ones as finding work for the idle, revealing 
 injustices, pleading with employers to be kind, carrying 
 benefits to the sick, providing decent burial for the dead 
 in short, to wipe every tear from every eye. What they 
 really are may be discerned in what those who deal with him 
 are willing, in fearless moments, to tell about the things he 
 does in his daily walk, and best perhaps in what the courts 
 reveal. 
 
 "'What right had you to demand the ten thousand dollars 
 from Colonel Baird and the Brooklyn employers?" Donald 
 Call, walking delegate, was asked on the witness stand. He 
 answered: 
 
 ''It was to pay for the expenses of the strike in 1894." 
 
 "For a strike eight years back?"' 
 
 "Yes." 
 
 "You testified that you first demanded fifty thousand dol- 
 lars." 
 
 "Oh, that was only a bluff." 
 
 "Has your union been in the habit of making these col- 
 lections?" 
 
 "Yes; it is done by all unions." 
 
 "Now tell me this: What did you men offer in return for 
 this ten thousand dollars?" 
 
 "We were going to unionize the employers' shops." 
 
 It was brought out subsequently that the money was de- 
 posited in shares to the personal accounts of six walking 
 delegates and leaders. It has been disclosed by various 
 actions that to have the power to order strikes or recom- 
 mend boycotts is a means of easy gain. 
 
 Conspiracy With Employers 
 
 After unionizing a trade, the walking delegate often en- 
 ters into negotiations with the contractors, and together 
 they form a coalition for mutual profit. Every one knows 
 that in several parts of the country brickmakers and brick- 
 layers are in close touch. Five months ago an "outside"
 
 198 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 firm took a contract for the work on a grain-elevator near 
 South Chicago. When they went to purchase the tiling 
 from members of the brickmakers' combination, none would 
 sell to them. They went to an Indiana tile-works and got 
 what they wanted; but when the tiling arrived in Chicago, 
 and they had men well started on the construction, a walk- 
 ing delegate appeared and told the layers that they must 
 quit, as there was an understanding with the brickmakers' 
 association that labor should not be done for "outsiders." 
 
 In New York and Chicago there have been such checking 
 and balancing of greedy knaveries that, unless one admits 
 the mercenary singleness of the interest which nine tenths 
 of unionists sustain toward their organization, the acts 
 would be past understanding, Chicago originated the variety 
 of "trade agreement" which engages unions on one side and 
 combinations of employers on the other to act exclusively to 
 each other's advantage against the employers outside the 
 pool and the workingmen outside the unions, directly in col- 
 lusion against the public. Labor-capital rings kept unions 
 small and manageable, deprived outsiders of workmen, 
 sometimes drove them by strikes and boycotts and other 
 harassments out of business entirely, which left the com- 
 bination able to pay increased wages, and perquisites to 
 leaders, because it could conspire to kite prices and thus 
 "take it all out of the customer." 
 
 W F was awarded sixteen sewer construction 
 
 contracts by the city of Chicago, involving one hundred and 
 ten thousand dollars. Advised that he ought to belong 
 to the Sewer Contractors' Association, which was favored 
 by the walking delegate, he sought admission. The con- 
 tractors informed him he must first pay one thousand 
 dollars' fine for having presumed to look for business before 
 he had joined the association. He declined to pay the pen- 
 alty; then a walking delegate gave aid against him by refus- 
 ing to allow unionists to work for him unless he paid the 
 
 contractors' fine. Non-union bricklayers being few, F 
 
 had to default on his contracts with the municipality and 
 leave Chicago. Under a re-advertisement for bids, the com- 
 bination got the contracts, and the city paid a higher price.
 
 TRADE UNIONS 199 
 
 Alienation of Public Sympathy 
 
 In various parts of the country, misgiving expresses itself 
 about disclosures of the walking delegate's pursuits. Vicks- 
 burg compelled one to extend his walk beyond the limits of 
 the town, unretraceably, for .inducing a street-car strike and 
 forming negroes into bands with a secret oath, and causing 
 servants to assert that their "society rules" forbade them to 
 begin work before eight or continue after four o'clock. A 
 committee called upon the walking delegate and ordered 
 him to leave town. He appealed to the mayor, and met an 
 uncompromising request that the command to depart be 
 complied with in the interest of order. 
 
 Birmingham made a similar demonstration, and at Idaho 
 Springs, after union miners had dynamited Sun and Moon 
 mine buildings, the Citizens' Alliance expelled fourteen 
 unionists from the community. At Cripple Creek working- 
 men themselves served notice upon the walking delegates 
 who had come down from Montana to unionize the mines 
 that they must "quit the camp," and the union's president 
 was put in jail for carrying concealed weapons. Injury al- 
 ready had been done to the town: twenty-five thousand 
 dollars a daji had been withdrawn from circulation; credit 
 was stopped at the stores; prices were cut; leases were can- 
 celed; and an idle winter lay ahead all for a sympathetic 
 strike demanded by the walking delegates from another 
 mining region. It is considered more effective to have the 
 walking delegate a stranger to the field of his proposed op- 
 erations, perhaps on the principle of Cartouche, who had 
 more success where he was still a romance than in places 
 where the people had had experience of him that was with- 
 out glamor. 
 
 Change in Name 
 
 After twenty years the walking delegate has come to his 
 apotheosis and to judgment. He was lifted to one by the 
 desire of unionists to get money, no matter by what means; 
 and pressed to the other by his folly and his fault his 
 pleasure in authority, his impatient vanity, his uneasy con- 
 templation of the "grafting" of the time. Pure devotion to
 
 rni^ 
 
 11 Owllvvi i^twi vi 
 
 '<Aft"j(^E . ^,)^tl^iW^'^ ARTICLES 
 
 ^laDor as a cause he rarely had, and he betrayed his union at 
 last for a few extra pieces of silver. His name became a 
 byword and reproach, and now unions everywhere are hur- 
 riedly substituting the term "business agent." 
 
 That this is more than a change in name alone there is 
 little to show. The business agent, like the walking dele- 
 gate, quiets complaint by saying, "Well, I raised your wages," 
 and keeps his place by the methods of machine politics. 
 The ordinary workmen seldom attend union elections, as 
 the general run of voters do not go to primaries. The keys 
 of the safety-vaults are in the business agent's pocket; 
 strikes are on or off at his bidding. To lay hand upon him 
 is offense so high that only the union not the established 
 courts can fix the penalty. To stand in with him, as the 
 saying goes, is to insure that your business shall proceed 
 without forfeiture of engagements. There is of course add- 
 ed expense in bribes, and miserable sacrifices of self-respect 
 and right standards. 
 
 Employers have not yet gone so far as to insist on elim- 
 inating him; they have only here and there restricted his 
 functions. 
 
 The Boston building trades showed what could be done 
 along that line by negotiating an agreement determining 
 that the business agent and walking delegate should not be 
 privileged to visit any works in business hours except to 
 interview the steward; that he must not issue orders con- 
 trolling the operations of workmen, nor attempt to proselyte 
 on the employer's premises. "Failure on the part of any 
 business agent to observe this rule shall make him liable 
 to discipline, after investigation by the [employers' and 
 unions'] joint committee." 
 
 Whether he and his labor machine will abide by such an 
 agreement, or the decisions of the joint committee, re- 
 mains to be shown. Twenty-two similar bargains were 
 broken in Chicago alone last summer. Discipline from the 
 executives of parent bodies, like a federation or an interna- 
 tional association, would be more effective than discipline 
 by a joint committee, but it is not to be counted on except 
 when, in some notorious instance, an alienated public with- 
 draws sympathy and leaves unionism to search its heart
 
 TRAl^E UNIONS 201 
 
 alone. Even then the parent federation, after the manner 
 of the structural iron-workers at Kansas City, may disavow 
 the action of its own pr-esident in rescinding a charter, 
 and by seating the representatives of the "local" so pun- 
 ished, reerect it in honorable standing. In that event, the 
 possibility of discipline reverts to the local's members. But, 
 like the citizen electorate, these are too disposed to stay at 
 home and let the machine rup itself and them. 
 
 Craftsman. 13: 375-84. January, 1908. 
 
 Guild Stamp and the Union Label. Gustav Stickley. 
 
 The guild idea, that is, the spirit of association uniting 
 individuals for common profit as well as preservation, is as 
 old as civilization, and has flourished among peoples differ- 
 ing widely from one another and at , periods separated by 
 hundreds and even thousands of years, but unquestionably 
 it reached its highest expression in the trades guilds of 
 mediaeval Europe, those great organizations which crushed 
 the power of feudalism, established free communication 
 throughout Europe, made possible a form of government 
 established upon a sound and lasting basis, ruled all the 
 operations of finance and fixed a standard for work, for art 
 and for literature that has made the thirteenth and four- 
 teenth centuries famous for all time. And all the power and 
 influence of the trades guilds resulted from the fact that 
 the success of their united action depended solely upon the 
 honesty of individual eflfort. A rigid industrial system that 
 was the law and life of the guild governed both the train- 
 ing of each individual workman and the quality of the goods 
 produced, and the eflfect of this was to develop such skill in 
 hand and brain that the workman could take honest pride 
 in what he made, and could feel that he as an individual 
 had achieved something that would add to rather than 
 lower the reputation of the guild. In short, instead of 
 being a cog in a vast system of industrial machinery, the 
 workman was accustomed to regard himself as legitimate 
 heir to a part of the business of the nation.
 
 202 SELECTED AHTICLES 
 
 There is no more interesting tale in all history than the 
 story of the Greater Guilds, which were little republics 
 within themselves, living under the strictest laws and en- 
 joying an influence so extensive that the wonderful com- 
 mercial prosperity, the artistic and industrial supremacy and 
 the intellectual acumen of the mediajval Florentines, tor 
 example, may be regarded as the outcome of the guild 
 system. As each guild was an independent, self-ruling in- 
 stitution, its members naturally took a continuous and eager 
 share in political life and obtained, as a consequence of such 
 varied political and economic training, a grasp of large mat- 
 ters that made them as adroit in diplomacy and parliamen- 
 tary practice as they were accurate in business methods, so 
 that on the occasion of upheavals in the existing form of 
 government, which frequently took place in the Italian 
 cities, they were able at once to step forward and meet the 
 emergency with well-advised and adequate provisional gov- 
 ernment until the crisis was passed. 
 
 It would take a volume to tell of the honors and achieve- 
 ments of the guilds, but only one sentence to show the foun- 
 dation of them all, which was efficient workmanship, thor- 
 ough honesty, the perfection of system and personal pride 
 in the reputation of the organization. These old merchants 
 and craftsmen made a religion of industry, and it was the 
 object of the guild not only to maintain and extend its 
 power as an organization, but to benefit each member in his 
 ind^ividual capacity, providing him with work, profit and 
 pleasure, but always with the understanding that his work 
 and his moral character were to be subjected to rigid scru- 
 tiny and that any one falling short of the standards of the 
 guild must submit to severe punishment. The great power 
 of the guilds lay as much in their close connection with the 
 conduct and details of every-day life as in their relation to 
 national or continental enterprises. They were no mere 
 formal organizations for purposes which began and ended 
 with commerce and industry. To borrow some vivid words 
 of description: "Their members sat together at the feast, 
 stood by one another's honor in the mart, lived in the same 
 quarter, shared the same purchase, marched side by side in 
 the pageant, acted together in the play and fought together
 
 TRADE UNIONS 203 
 
 on the part of the city walls committed to their care. The 
 merchant lived in his warehouse, which was also his factory 
 as well as his shop, the apprentice sat at his master's table 
 for seven years, somewhat after the manner of an adopted 
 son, and on attaining the membership of the guild he gained 
 a recognized and honorable position in the land." 
 
 That this last was so was due to the high, standard of 
 the guild. When the guild stamp was put upon any piece 
 of work it was accepted without question in all markets as 
 a guarantee against any falsification of material or any 
 flaw in workmanship. To quote from the history of the 
 Calimala, or the guild of Florentine cloth dressers: "The 
 statutes for the good of the guild, enforced by so many 
 magistrates, prescribed hard and fast rules for the exercise . 
 of trade. Very severe punishments were inflicted when the 
 merchandise was of inferior quality, defective or counterfeit. 
 Every piece was labeled, and any stain or rent not recorded 
 by this label entailed the punishment of the merchant con- 
 cerned. Above all, there was great strictness as to accur- 
 acy of measure. Every guild had a tribunal composed either 
 solely of its members or jointly with those of another for 
 the settlement of all disputes connected with the trade, and 
 enforced severe penalties on all who referred such disputes 
 to the ordinary courts of justice. The punishments were 
 usually fines, and persons refusing to pay them, after receiv- 
 ing several warnings, were excluded from the guild and 
 practically ruined, for from that moment their merchandise, 
 being unstamped, was no longer guaranteed by the associa- 
 tion, and they themselves were unable to continue their 
 work in Florence, and often were debarred elsewhere." 
 
 This was the significance of the guild stamp, which being 
 affixed meant that the goods reached the standard estab- 
 lished by the guild, and had the whole power of its reputa- 
 tion behind them. In these days we have the union label, 
 and the difference between it and the guild stamp symbolizes 
 the whole change in standards. Everybody is familiar with 
 the efforts of the unions to force the use of the label through 
 appeals to the public to patronize union-made goods to the 
 exclusion of all other, and also through threats of boycotts, 
 strikes and every form of warfare known to those who con-
 
 204 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 trol the campaigns of union labor against the manufacturer 
 or dealer who refuses to recognize the label. 
 
 Remembering the significance of the guild stamp, the 
 question naturally arises: What does the union label stand 
 for? It is a shop mark to indicate a standard of excellence 
 of which the manufacturer is proud and which serves to 
 advertise thg fact that his goods are of a quality that he is 
 willing to acknowledge and to guarantee, or is it simply an 
 indication that men who have banded themselves together 
 lor the purpose of monopolizing the production of that 
 particular article have been successful in forcing some man- 
 ufacturer to come to their terms? In the present day, of 
 course, we have no guild stamp to serve as a general stand- 
 ard and guarantee, but when a manufacturer makes honest 
 goods, he generally wants the consumer to know it, and his 
 label or shop mark is as important to him as a means of 
 identification as the guild stamp was to the guildsmen of cen- 
 turies ago. It is also to be noted that shoddy goods are seldom 
 identified in this way. for if the goods do not come up to the 
 standard demanded by the consumer the label would only 
 have the eflfect of identifying them to the detriment of their 
 sales. But in the case of the union label there can be no 
 possible significance as a mark of excellence in quality. 
 That is a matter entirely beyond the control of the work- 
 man or of the union to which he belongs. The label of a 
 manufacturer is, in a sense, a personal guarantee of cjualit}'. 
 It means a certain grade of material, a certain .style in the 
 make of the article, and may, in some cases, be worth mil- 
 lions to the man who owns it. It is the direct descendant 
 of the old guild stamp, while the union label has nothing to 
 do with the standard of the goods produced and, save for 
 the fact that it guarantees the exclusion of sweat-shop 
 goods, it carries no meaning to the consumer beyond a re- 
 minder that an organization of workmen is using every 
 means to enforce the recognition of the union shop, there 
 being not one iota of difference in quality between goods 
 that bear the union label and those that do not. The manu- 
 facturer having entire authority as to designs, materials, 
 quality of goods and the apportionment of tasks to the 
 workmen in making these goods, it follows that the purpose
 
 TRADE UNIONS 205 
 
 of the union label is purely coercive, and that its sole value 
 to either workman or consumer lies in the recognition of 
 the union that is implied by its use and the revenue derived 
 by the union from the sale of it to the manufacturer. 
 
 If the trade union of today is ever to return to the stand- 
 ards of the mediaeval guilds and to attain to the power 
 which resulted from the strict and honest maintenance of 
 these standards, it must abandon its policy of attempting to 
 secure monopoly prices, of unfair methods of keeping down 
 membership and of intimidation and violence toward noi]^- 
 union men, and return to the principle that no organization 
 can be organic and constructive in its nature unless it be 
 founded upon the principle of efficiency, upon honest in- 
 dividual effort, out of which effective united effort naturally 
 grows. To do this would, of course, demand a thorough 
 reorganization of our whole industrial system. The high 
 standards of the old guilds were possible because the guilds 
 themselves were not organizations of workmen arrayed 
 against employers, or organizations of employers excluding 
 the workmen, but bodies which included every member of 
 the trade or craft, from the wealthiest master craftsman or 
 merchant down to the humblest apprentice whose indentures 
 had just been signed. All alike were responsible for the 
 honor of the guild, and the esprit de corps that resulted 
 from the personal contact of the master and workmen and 
 the freedom and encouragement given to all individual ef- 
 fort made vital and natural the growth of the whole organi- 
 zation. 
 
 Yet, false as are the standards which actuate most of 
 the efforts on the part of modern labor organizations to 
 control the industrial situation, they are by no means all to 
 blame for the meaninglessness of the union label and the 
 fact that it has nothing behind it worth fighting for. If a 
 standard of efficiency in which the unions have a share is to 
 be established in manufactures, it must be one in which the 
 men as individuals are intereste4, which they take a per- 
 sonal pride in maintaining and for which they receive a just 
 proportion of the reward. The effect upon the men of the 
 present system, by which they are able through certain co- 
 ercive measures on the part of the union to obtain shorter
 
 206 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 hours and higher wages in return for careless and incom- 
 petent service, cannot be otherwise than harmful. It shel- 
 ters the lazy and inefficient workman and it denies to the 
 ambitious and skilful man his right to advance to the posi- 
 tion which naturally belongs to him. Consequently, the 
 great weakness of the labor union of today is that it tends 
 to drag all its members down to the level of the slow- 
 est and the stupidest. While they belong to the union 
 there can be no acknowledgment or higher payment for the 
 production of superior goods for which there is a legitimate 
 demand and which are worth more money than the inferior 
 product of less skilled workmen; in fact, their work as 
 individuals has nothing to do with the price or standard of 
 the product. The business of each man is to run his ma- 
 chine, get through his day's work, draw his pay and stand by 
 his union. He can have no possible interest in the thing 
 made. When matters are shaped so that the individual 
 workman may find some scope for the expression of his 
 own ideas, for the use of his knowledge and experience in 
 opportunities given to study the need for which the article 
 is produced and to share with his employer the responsibil- 
 ity of its design and its quality, it will be time to talk of 
 returning to the standards of the old guilds and also of en- 
 forcing the use of the union label on goods made by union 
 men. But the only way to gain energy, honesty and intelli- 
 gence from the workman is to make it worth his while to 
 exercise them. Under the present system he is little more 
 than a part of the machinery of the factory he works in. 
 There is absolutely no reason why he should feel any in- 
 terest in his work beyond the daily wage he earns for per- 
 forming the monotonous task set for him. It is a universal 
 law that work is not alone a means to keep body and soul 
 together, but also a means of growth through self-expres- 
 sion, a means by which individual capacity and industry 
 gain individual recognition and bring an adequate return, 
 and if the opportunity for growth is denied, the work is 
 hardly worth the doing. 
 
 If such reorganization were possible, and employers and 
 employees would realize that their best can be done only 
 when they work together toward a common end, the labor
 
 TRADE UNIONS 207 
 
 unions might hope to provide themselves with the "real 
 leaders" spoken of by Dr. Butler, and, founded on the 
 solid basis of efficient work, to grow healthily along the 
 lines of personal development and of sound citizenship. 
 This is a question that affects not only the workingmen, 
 but the whole of our natural life, for our workmen are our 
 citizens, and under the present system our workmen are 
 becoming less and less efficient. When a man depends not 
 on his own efforts but on the efforts of some one else, that 
 is, on the power or influence of his union to do for him 
 what he is too indifferent or too inefficient to do for him- 
 self, he is sinking in the scale as a man and a worker and is 
 losing all the power of individual achievement which might 
 be his were he allowed to depend upon himself. 
 
 As it stands now, the whole policy of the labor union 
 seems to be tending toward disintegration. The walking 
 delegate is supreme, and the walking delegate is the na- 
 tural prey of the great money powers. Many an honest, ca- 
 pable workman is sent unwillingly out on strike, not because 
 there is any real grievance to be fought, but because the 
 vanity and cupidity of the labor leaders have been used to 
 further the ends of some unscrupulous captain of industry 
 who wishes to overwhelm his competitors or to shut down 
 for a time upon his own expenses. Even when this is not 
 the case, the rule of passion and prejudice in the persons 
 of glib-tongued demagogues is often responsible for wide- 
 spread disaster that comes to working people as the result 
 of their loyalty to the union. 
 
 As a nation we are now using every possible effort to 
 destroy or reorganize the trusts and start afresh upon a 
 sounder basis. It would be easier and perhaps better in 
 the long run to destroy or reorganize the labor unions, for 
 the trusts, whatever industrial evils have arisen from their 
 unchecked growth, are organized on principles that are es- 
 sentially constructive. They unquestionably are created to 
 serve individual greed, but they are also the greatest expres- 
 sions of individual efficiency. Whatever the captain of in- 
 dustry may or may not be, there is no question as to the 
 efficiency of his method of doing the work that he has set 
 himself to do, or of his interest in the performance of it.
 
 208 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 Witli fhe standards which now form the basis of its action, 
 the labor union can oppose to cool generalship only brute 
 force; to well calculated and sound business principles and 
 methods only prejudice and feeling. If efficiency could be 
 made the warrant of advancement for each individual, and 
 honest conviction the basis of united action, as in the days 
 ot the mediaeval guilds, there is no question but what the 
 organizations of workers could rank among the most im- 
 portant powers in the land. History teaches us no more 
 significant lesson than that the rulers of a nation, when they 
 become weak or unworthy, are always replaced from the 
 ranks of the workers. It is a fundamental law of progress 
 that no development is possible save through interest in 
 work, and the problems that come up concerning it, and 
 that the man who wrestles most vigorously with these prob- 
 lems is the man who is best able to grapple with great 
 things. 
 
 If labor would follow the example of capital and com- 
 bine for greater efficiency, it would be more in accord with 
 the old American spirit that made this country what it is: 
 the spirit of independence, of self-confidence and of ambi- 
 tion to rise in life by force of ability, intelligence and hon- 
 esty. The labor unions have relaxed the moral fiber of 
 their members even while striving honestly to benefit them. 
 The union man is provided with easy work, good pay and 
 short hours when well, and is sure of some help from his 
 organization should he fall ill, but as a penalty he is re- 
 stricted to the level of the weakest member of his union, 
 and can never hope to rise by excellence of workmanship or 
 the use of his brain to a leading position or to the acquiring 
 of a competence by superior industry or frugality. 
 
 As the matter stands now, the principles and policies of 
 the unions are directly opposed to intelligence, indepen- 
 dence, industry and ambition on the part of their members. 
 In place of encouraging these, the union as a body en- 
 deavors to coerce and to overreach, to gain every advantage 
 and to give as little as possible, to produce class hatred 
 and antagonism between employer and employee, instead 
 of acknowledging that capital and labor are mutually inter- 
 dependent, and that a single standard for both would go far 
 to remove the antagonism that now exists between them
 
 TRADE UNIONS 209 
 
 Independent. 53: 2128-30. September 3, 1901. 
 Wherein They Fail. 
 
 Labor organizations have always been subjected to a hot 
 fire of criticism. Not only employers, but also the literary 
 and professional classes, including the writers for newspa- 
 pers, have ever been ready to expose any tyranny or fool- 
 ishness of which trade unions have been guilty. Neverthe- 
 less, by the year 1895, the unions, after protracted fighting, 
 had succeeded in living down a great deal of popular preju- 
 dice, and in winning influential support from disinterested 
 and intelligent onlookers. One had only to compare the 
 attitude of the public seven or eight years since toward 
 organized labor in general with that of England of a gener- 
 ation ago, as brilliantly portrayed by Charles Reade in "Put 
 Yourself in His Place," to realize that, notwithstanding much 
 remaining hostility, trade unionism was no longer hated 
 with the bitter hatred of earlier days. 
 
 It is quite unnecessary now to insist that the more 
 thoughtful and dispassionate observers of social tendencies 
 had come not only to look tolerantly upon the organization 
 of labor but also to see in it elements of positive good, that 
 seemed to be indispensable to a safe and normal develop- 
 ment of democratic institutions. No one class in any so- 
 ciety can enjoy unlimited power without becoming over- 
 bearing and bringing the traditions of republican equality 
 and simplicity to naught. Under modern conditions the 
 employing classes in England and America, commanding 
 as they do fabulous amounts of capital, and understanding 
 as they do the methods of efficient business organization, 
 would soon become intolerably arrogant, and would con- 
 vert republican institutions into a mockery, if, from time to 
 time, they were not confronted with organized resistance. 
 
 It is, therefore, a matter for sincere regret that for five 
 years past the great labor organizations of this country and 
 of England have so often behaved with an almost incredible 
 foolishness. They have once more started a strong reac- 
 tion of public opinion against themselves, and in certain in- 
 stances they have even awakened in some degree the old 
 spirit of bigotry and bitterness. There never was a time
 
 210 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 when a strong and efficient organization of labor and a wise 
 policy on the part of its leaders was more needed than now; 
 and yet, at the critical moment, the leaders are making 
 blunders that are almost crimes and for which they can 
 hardly be forgiven. By the great strike of 1897 the English 
 iron and steel workers knocked England's industrial primacy 
 in the head. They precipitated a disaster which will never 
 be retrieved while civilization endures. By what looks like 
 a deliberate breach of contract the Amalgamated Iron and 
 Steel Workers of this country have now given to the most 
 powerful combination of capitalistic interests in the world 
 an opportunity to develop and to make use of arbitrary 
 power which the most wise and patient democratic endeavor 
 may not be able to curb for years to come. 
 
 There are three distinct ways in which organized labor 
 miserably fails, to the keen disappointment of its best friends 
 and well wishers. 
 
 In the first place, it attempts to extend the principle of 
 unionism by coercion. The temptation undoubtedly is great. 
 The men who have struggled to .build up a union cannot be 
 expected to feel kindly toward men who, as the trade union- 
 ist looks at the matter, are ready to profit by any gains 
 which trade unionism has conquered for the wage-earning 
 classes, but who are unwilling to do their share toward 
 supporting the unionist movement. Frail human nature is 
 not to be blamed overmuch when men who feel bitterly 
 resort to force to compel those whom they regard as dis- 
 loyal, or hostile, to act with the majority, or even at times 
 with the minority, for what is believed to be the common wel- 
 fare. Nevertheless, the policy of coercing non-union men 
 has always been and always will be absolutely fatal to the 
 trade-union cause. By its very nature the organization of 
 labor can be effected and maintained only by intelligence 
 and reasonableness. It makes no real gains except as it 
 convinces workingmen themselves and the general public 
 that it is both expedient and just. The American people 
 will never extend their hearty sympathy and co-operation to 
 any movement that attempts to accomplish by violence 
 what can be satisfactorily accomplished only by education.
 
 TRADE UNIONS 211 
 
 So long as the labor leaders counsel a coercive policy they 
 kick against the pricks, and irreparably injure their cause. 
 
 In the second place, it seems to be well established that, 
 in recent years at least, the labor unions have been indif- 
 ferent, or worse than indififerent, to the binding force of 
 their agreements. From every part of the country we hear 
 complaints from employers who, on the whole, have been 
 friendly to the trade union principle that there is no longer 
 any use in making agreements or contracts with a labor 
 organization because the leaders of the organization have 
 lost or thrown overboard all sense of business honor, and 
 make their promises in the deliberate expectation of break- 
 ing them. Where there is so much smoke there undoubted- 
 ly is some lire, and it is a deplorable thing that the unions 
 have by any conduct, whether deliberately dishonorable or 
 merely negligent, brought upon themselves such fatal criti- 
 cism. Whether merited or not, this criticism is sure to op- 
 erate with deadly effect, and to turn into hostile opponents 
 many influential men who would gladly support the trade 
 union principle if they could do so without seeming to coun- 
 tenance dishonor. 
 
 The third way in which the labor organizations fail is in 
 their attitude toward the amount and quality of work done 
 by trade union members. In the days of medieval guilds 
 every workman felt an intense pride in the quality of 
 his work. Unskillful or dishonest workmanship would have 
 subjected him not only to the wrath of his employer, but 
 also to the contempt of his fellow craftsman. We hate to 
 say it, but, so far as our observation has extended and it 
 has extended over a pretty wide field the spirit of the old 
 craft guild has entirely disappeared from the modern trade 
 union. Not only does the bricklayer, the carpenter or the 
 plumber who belongs to the union fear to work a moment 
 overtime, or to work too fast, lest he incur the disfavor of 
 the labor leaders, but he even fears to do work that shall 
 be thoroughly good of its kind lest he incur the criticism of 
 men who believe that it is the duty of loyal trade unionists 
 to "make work" for one another. Bad work has to be 
 done over. Therefore the bad workman befriends his fel- 
 low unionist!
 
 212 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 That this simple logic as it lies in the minds of many 
 workmen is more a matter of ignorance than of immorality 
 we are willing to believe. But in either case it is disastrous 
 in the long run to the trade union cause. There is no one 
 thing which the trade unions could do which would more 
 certainly make them popular with mankind in general than 
 the adoption of a policy of first-class workmanship under all 
 circumstances. When the employment of a trade-unionist 
 carpenter, mason or plumber means the certainty of thor- 
 ough and honest workmanship the trade unions will have 
 little cause to complain of an unfriendly public, if in other 
 respects also they deal fairly and honorably. 
 
 Journal of Political Economy. 14: 129-42. March, 1906. 
 Unions versus Higher Wages. J. Laurence Laughlin. 
 
 This case is now on trial before the tribunal of the in- 
 dustrial world. It promises to be a cause celcbre. The de- 
 cision in this matter is of vital importance to millions of 
 people, and untold millions of dollars are at stake. There 
 have been many advocates pleading before this court who 
 have told but one side of the question. In a plain and 
 simple way, as a friend of those who wish higher wages, I 
 ask to be permitted to make a plea for the defendant. I 
 wish to have this chance to present the economic argument 
 in favor of higher wages. It seems to me that the plaintiffs 
 in this case now on trial the labor unions have not ren- 
 dered full justice. I ask judgment for higher wages. 
 
 In the past the unions have presented the grounds of 
 their actions; and they report they have had many difficul- 
 ties in raising, and sometimes even in keeping up, wages. 
 The position of the unions should be carefully examined, 
 because as we are pleading the cause of higher wages it 
 should be ascertained whether the union policy has been 
 one which is likely to result in higher wages. Because of 
 errors on the part of the unions, because of a misunderstand- 
 ing of the causes regulating wages, the unions, while seem- 
 ing to be working in favor of the workingmen, havfe been 
 acting against the real interests of the laborers, and against 
 
 i
 
 TRADE UNIONS 213 
 
 tlie future improvement of their standard of living. I shall 
 try to enumerate briefly the things which have been wrong- 
 ly managed: 
 
 1. The unions have stimulated, rather than attempted to 
 remove, the antagonistic class-feeling between the employer 
 and the employee. The antagonism has not always existed. 
 In earlier decades of our history the antagonism between 
 the employing and the laboring class was far less in evi- 
 dence. With the great increase of wealth, with the conse- 
 quent envy excited by its proud display, with the growth of 
 large cities, and especially with the influx of foreign immi- 
 grants steeped in the socialistic tenets of Europe, there has 
 come a pronounced change. The talk of arraying the mass- 
 es against the plutocrats is now frequently bandied about. 
 
 In the earlier days the gap between the ordinary work- 
 men and the employer was inappreciable; and comparisons 
 between their possessions were not suggestive of ill-feeling. 
 About 1840, daughters of self-respecting Americans worked 
 in the cotton mills of New England; and yet the wages 
 were small as compared with those now earned by workers 
 many grades lower in intelligence. In fifty years the actual 
 money wages have doubled; the money buys more of goods 
 lowered in price; and at the same time the hours of labor 
 have fallen from fourteen to sixteen per day to eight or ten. 
 These gains, moreover, were obtained before the activity of 
 labor unions, and must be attributed directly to the in- 
 creased productivity of industry, which, by increasing the 
 efficiency of labor and capital, increased the quantity and 
 value of the output, and thus allowed the capital its old re- 
 muneration, while adding largely to the wages of labor. 
 The standard of living among workmen is higher than it 
 has ever been, higher than it is among most competing na- 
 tions. 
 
 2. The unions have encouraged the theory of a right to 
 ownership in the product made by labor, capital, and man- 
 agement. So long as great fortunes are accumulated in the 
 United States, the fact itself is taken as a proof that labor 
 is not receiving its due share of the results of production, 
 without any real attention to the economic principles regfu- 
 lating the payments to capital and the other factors of pro- 
 duction. It is believed that additions to the wages of labor
 
 214 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 can be exacted as long as any large profits are taken out of 
 a business by the owners. The rank and file of the labor- 
 ing class fully believe that there is no economic reason 
 why the wages, for instance, of a plumber, now receiving $4 a 
 day, should not be increased to $10, or even to $50 a day. 
 As a consequence of this widely accepted belief, when by 
 strikes and pressure the employers are led to give an in- 
 crease of wages, it must not be supposed that this rise will 
 produce satisfaction and peace. Far from it; the grant of 
 the increase is regarded as evidence that more will be dis- 
 gorged of what belongs by rights to labor, if only pressure 
 enough is applied to the employers. Give an inch, and very 
 soon an ell will be demanded. The theoretical basis, there- 
 fore, of much of the agitation for higher wages is to be 
 found in the belief that large fortunes are necessarily ac- 
 cumulated at the expense of the laboring class, without re- 
 gard to the other necessary elements in production. And 
 this point of view explains clearly why there is such eager- 
 ness in certain quarters to legislate against large fortunes. 
 
 3. The unions feed their members chiefly on socialistic 
 and un-American literature. In the main, the literature of 
 socialism and unionism is indistinguishable. Of course, 
 many unionists are not socialists; but the literature actually 
 read, if at all, by the unions, is the inheritance of Marxian- 
 ism, a brew of all the different theories of European radi- 
 cals, assuming specific form or expression according to the 
 individuality and eccentricity of the prophets of the "new 
 order." From this source is derived the common belief that 
 it is labor which has created the value in the product of in- 
 dustry. There is no denying the widespread diffusion of 
 this idea; and it inspires the unions to make practical de- 
 mands based upon this theory. In the Homestead strike, 
 some years ago, a very emphatic claim was made by the 
 laborers to ownership in the establishment. Such points of 
 view may be visionary, but their enforcement by unions in 
 specific acts makes up a part of the practical situation which 
 employers have to face. 
 
 4. They have approved the mistaken policy of "making 
 work." There is no doubt whatever that restriction of the 
 output or "making work" is widely prevalent; and yet its
 
 TRADE UNIONS 215 
 
 existence is frequently denied by the unions. The basis of 
 this policy seems to be found in the history of its origin 
 given by labor leaders. It is claimed that the employers, 
 wishing to get the maximum work out of the laborers, intro- 
 duced an unusually swift workman, called a pace-maker, 
 whose results must be equaled by all other workmen. Or, 
 if piece-work were introduced, when very active men began 
 to earn high daily wages, the price paid per piece was re- 
 duced, so that ordinary effort earned very low wages. To 
 meet this policy of grasping employers, it is said that the 
 unions found the limitation of output to be necessary. This 
 explanation, however, is disingenious. With most laborers 
 there is a belief that work, or employment, is limited, and 
 if a particular job can be prolonged, they get so much more 
 out of the employer; that such acts are ruinous to the 
 efficiency of production, raise the prices of products, and 
 prevent employers from getting contracts and offering fu- 
 ture employment, seems beyond the vision of many unions. 
 As a rule, they demand all they can get, by dint of threats 
 and force, and leave it to the employer to overcome the 
 increased cost as best he may. 
 
 5. Finally, the unions have wrongly based their whole 
 course of action on the principle of a monopoly of the supply 
 of laborers in a given occupation. A monopoly is obviously 
 effective in regulating the price of anything only if the 
 monopoly is fairly complete; it must control the whole sup- 
 ply. Moreover, there must be a demand sufficient to take 
 off all the existing supply, or the price is likely to fall. 
 Thus, there must not only be an active demand for labor 
 from employers, but, in order to regulate the price, the un- 
 ions' must control all of the labor then available. This, in 
 brief, is the real stumbling-block of unionism in America. 
 In fact, the unions include only about 7 per cent, of the total 
 body of laborers. This result is true in spite of the pro- 
 claimed intention to include in a union each worker of some 
 occupation, and then to federate all the unions. In some 
 one locality, however, it is possible that all of a certain em- 
 ployment may be included in the membership. 
 
 In view of these facts, the theory of a monopoly effec- 
 tive on the whole supply, fails, and becomes a theory of an
 
 2i6 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 artificial and only partial monopoly, working to establish a 
 price above that which will insure the employment of the 
 whole supply of competing laborers. This situation, conse- 
 quently, means always and inevitably the existence of non- 
 union men, against whom the unions must constantly wage 
 war. Under this system, high wages for some within a 
 union can be maintained only by the sacrifice of others 
 without the union. In short, the union scale of wages can 
 be kept only by driving all other competitors from the 
 field. The monopoly is only artificial, not real. 
 
 It will be objected by union leaders that it is their policy 
 to gather every laborer into the union, and thus eventually 
 control all the supply in an invincible monopoly. The un- 
 ions, however, although the practice varies, do not admit 
 all comers. But, if all laborers were unionists, the situa- 
 tions would be the same, as regards supply, as if there were 
 no unions. In that case, could the unions maintain the 
 "union scale" of wages? Not if the union scale is above the 
 market rate. If the whole supply of laborers is thus intro- 
 duced into the field of employment, then the rate of wages 
 for all in any one occupation can never be more than that 
 rate which will warrant the employment of all that is, the 
 market rate. Also wholly aside from the influence of de- 
 mand, in order to control the rate of wages, the unions 
 which include all laborers must effectually control, not only 
 immigration, but also the birth-rate. The impossibility of 
 such a control everyone knows. Hence there is little hope 
 for permanently higher wages by this method of action. 
 
 6. The outcome of such an attitude has been a series of 
 acts of violence which have shocked the civilized world. 
 
 Inasmuch as the unions, particularly those composed of 
 the unskilled classes, contain only a fraction of the available 
 labor force, the existence of a large body of non-union men 
 is a rock of offense standing in the way of the demands 
 for a rate of wages, above that market price at which all 
 of the supply would be employed. Hence a passionate 
 hatred of the non-union man, or "scab," who is charged with 
 being a traitor to his class, if he accepts less than the union 
 scale. Although* possessing only a partial monopoly, the 
 unions act as if they had a complete monopoly of the labor
 
 TRADE UNIONS 217 
 
 supply; and, in spite of certain failure, they have created a 
 code of ethics which justifies any act, whether illegal or un- 
 just, which helps to maintain the artificial monopoly. The 
 whole point of the union demand is admittedly that the 
 "union scale" is above the market rate fixed by open com- 
 petition. Obviously the union rate can be maintained only 
 by limiting the supply of labor to members of the union and 
 by driving out the non-union competitors. Consequently, 
 the inevitable outcome of the present policy of many labor 
 organizations is lawlessness, and an array of power against 
 the state. Having only an artificial monopoly of labor, 
 their purposes can be successfully carried out only by force 
 and intimidation. 
 
 An account of the brutal war carried on between union 
 and non-union men would form very unhappy chapters in 
 the life of oiir people. It calls forth the lowest passions of 
 men who have not yet found the way to any moral growth; 
 and, worst of all, it seems to befog the ethical vision of 
 those who have had full opportunity for knowing what is 
 right and wrong, and what is good and bad for the state. 
 The great mass of the laboring body are honest and law- 
 abiding; the responsibility for the erroneous policy and its 
 criminal consequences must be placed on their leaders, and 
 on some economic advisers who have more heart than 
 brains. The crux of the whole matter is in the incomplete 
 control of the supply of labor by the unions. 
 
 It is an indisputable fact today that, if law and order 
 were enforced, if an employer were allowed without hin- 
 drance to hire any man he chose, if these' men could go 
 peacefully to work and be unmolested in the streets, if their 
 families were not boycotted, a strike would almost never 
 succeed. This is due to two things: (i) the large supply of 
 competing labor; and (2) the fact that the very general in- 
 troduction of machinery into all industries has reduced the 
 necessity of having especially skilled men in as many pro- 
 cesses as before. "A non-union contractor, with his lower 
 wages and imported labor, would soon drive the union con- 
 tractor out of business." "The non-unionist is always the 
 danger to the wage scale." There is no doubt upon this 
 point. It is therefore sheer stupidity to keep on trying to
 
 2i8 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 force the adoption of the union scale with no control over 
 the whole supply of labor. It is not the fault of the non- 
 union man that he must accommodate himself to the mar- 
 ket conditions of labor. He is a human being; and he has 
 rights as well as union men. Moreover, non-union men can 
 soon better the output of union men who restrict product. 
 In certain shops in Chicago making printing-presses, heavy 
 conveying machinery, sewing-machines, machine tools, 
 steam valves, mill and mining machinery, and the like, a 
 strike threw out of employment some 1,500 of presumably 
 skilled workers. Almost immediately the shops were filled 
 with new men, few of whom had ever done this kind of 
 work. Within three months, with the same hours per day, 
 the green hands equaled or exceeded the output of those 
 who had had years of experience. In fact, the potential adap- 
 tability and ingenuity of the great body of American la- 
 borers must always be taken into account, as well as the 
 fact of the whole supply. 
 
 In short, the unions act as if an increase in the rate of 
 wages could be determined by demands upon the employ- 
 ers, when in reality it is prevented by the actual facts of the 
 supply of labor. Under these conditions the necessity of 
 intimidating non-union men, of catching employers at a 
 critical emergency when refusal is well-nigh impossible on 
 any grounds, has become a fine art. 
 
 7. Finally, as a result of an erroneous theory of unions, 
 there has grown up a body of unwise and brutal leaders, 
 demanded by the futile policy of an indefensible monopoly. 
 Wrong-headed leaders are the inevitable consequence of a 
 wrongly devised theory of unionism. 
 
 There has thus been created a situation out of which has 
 arisen a dangerous class of labor leaders. It is not claimed 
 that all leaders are of this kind far from it. But the situa- 
 tion wrong and artificial though it is demands a leader 
 who will not stop at anything to gain his point. "Peaceful 
 picketing" has become only, a synonym for threats of vio- 
 lence. For a long time it has been believed that unions 
 employed professional thugs to intimidate "scabs" and em- 
 ployers; but recently this has been carried on openly. The 
 funds have been appropriated under the head of "educational
 
 TRADE UNIONS 219 
 
 methods." In fact, picketing, boycotts, breaking heads, even 
 murder, have been resorted to, to carry out the demands 
 of the union, based on a theory that is economically inde- 
 fensible. "I do not consider anything," says C. P. Shea, 
 president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, "a 
 violation of an agreement that is done to uphold the prin- 
 ciples of trades-unionism." He represents the w^orst type 
 of labor leader. 
 
 ^ It is a sad outlook for the honest majority of the laboring 
 class. They are not to blame. Untrained in economic an- 
 alysis, they necessarily trust themselves .to the policy set by 
 their leaders. Among these there are many notable excep- 
 tions men of character and force; but, on the other hand, 
 there are some dishonorable, unscrupulous, lecherous and 
 pig-headed men, who would be a disgrace to any penal col- 
 ony. Corrupt leaders of this sort threaten employers with 
 strikes and obtain "blackmail" which is appropriated for 
 their personal use and indulgence. The ignorance, lack of 
 business habits, and helplessness of the laboring classes has 
 been seized upon by clever and designing men as a means of 
 fattening their own purses, and getting the resources for 
 the indulgence of their lowest vices. Leaders of this sort, 
 who would never be trusted with a dollar in business life, 
 find themselves in possession of tremendous power over the 
 prosperity of great industrial concerns, over the convenience 
 of the public, and over the very security of women and 
 children in the highways and busy streets of the community. 
 They will even embezzle the union funds contributed pain- 
 fully in small sums by the men who toil and join in 
 schemes for looting other union treasuries, by calling strikes. 
 Unscrupulous employers have not been slow to see how to 
 use such men for their own interest; and a group of em- 
 ployers in agreement with a group of unions have formed a 
 combination to monopolize the work and trade in certain 
 occupations. 
 
 Nor has the bad influence of such leaders ended here. 
 They have not hesitated to solidify their positions by bar- 
 gains with local political managers to deliver the vote of the 
 unions to certain tickets. In some cities the mayor, who is 
 dependent on the labor vote for his re-election, has been
 
 220 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 put under such pressure by these leaders that the police 
 force has been kept from preserving order when the union 
 men are assaulting "scabs." In ways such as these, acts of 
 violence and forms of rioting are tolerated or winked at, 
 which are a disgrace to civilized society. And the effect of 
 such doings are far-reaching. When youths of the laboring 
 class observe that arrogance, bluff, and the appearance of 
 force are a sufficient protection for inefficiency or even for 
 crime they are not likely to grow up with a respect for the 
 law. 
 
 Nothing more than the above seems to be needed to 
 show to anyone of common-sense that something is wrong 
 with the case of the labor unions. Therefore it is now 
 high time to present the case of the defendants higher 
 wages and to ask the court of last resort the Court of 
 Public Opinion to overrule the false contentions of the 
 unions, and to order an obedience to the principles which 
 will not only insure higher wages now, but also provide a 
 steady rise in the wages of future generations. In behalf of 
 higher wages I here submit the following arguments: 
 
 I. Productivity, or efficiency, is a reason for higher 
 wages. To all students of economics this proposition has 
 long been familiar; and why it has not been taken up and 
 adopted by the labor unions is passing strange. Perhajjs it 
 reveals better than anything else the unfortunate unwilling- 
 ness of certain groups of persons to train themselves in 
 economics, and it shows their habit of reading only the 
 literature which supports their preconceived opinions. The 
 mental attitude of many persons is not one of inquiry and 
 fipen-mindedness, but one of rigidity and narrowness quite 
 mediccval. 
 
 As long ago as Ricardo and it was clearly expressed by 
 John Stuart Mill it was explained that an increase of pro- 
 ductivity on the part of a laborer was a reason why wages 
 could be increased without reducing the profits of the em- 
 ployer; while in recent literature, from F. A. Walker to J. 
 B. Clark, the whole emphasis has been put upon the produc- 
 tivity of labor as the explanation of the causes of the fluctua- 
 tions in wages; increase productivity and wages rise. This 
 is not an abstruse, or difficult statement; it is only another
 
 TRADE UNIONS 221 
 
 way of saying that a skilled man gets more than an un- 
 skilled man. Every man's experience will bear testimony 
 as to the truth of this proposition. 
 
 Now, having reached a general truth, based not only 
 upon the thinking of the best economists, but also upon a 
 common experience of all men, we may next ask: What is 
 the explanation of this fact? In other words, why should 
 increased productivity bring increased wages? Productivity,' 
 it is scarcely necessary to say, is the power to add to the 
 quantity of product turned out in any industry, or to im- 
 prove the quality of the article. The point then, is: Why 
 is productivity worth more to the employer? The answer 
 is as plain as day: Because, on merely selfish grounds, the 
 employer will pay more for labor which returns better re- 
 sults in product, for exactly the same reason that any man 
 will pay more for a good horse than a poor one. Or, in 
 the language of the economists, the thing which yields the 
 greater utility, or satisfaction, will have the stronger de- 
 mand, and other things being equal will bear the higher 
 price. 
 
 2. Here, then, we have the conclusion arrived at by the 
 brightest minds in the economic world, who have devoted 
 their lives to the study of the causes of wages. Have these 
 conclusions been adopted by the labor unions as the basis 
 of their conduct? If not, are the leaders of the unions, such 
 as Shea, Driscoll, "Skinny" Madden, and the like, better 
 fitted by brains, study, and experience to lay down the ac- 
 tion of unionists than these others I have just mentioned? 
 Evidently they think they are; and they have proceeded to 
 enforce the futile theory of an artificial supply of the mar- 
 ket when, in reality, the supply cannot be controlled. The 
 assumption must inevitably be that the headstrong, self- 
 seeking, brutal leader who freely counsels slugging and mur- 
 der, is not a safe investigator into the principles regulating 
 wages. 
 
 And let me say here that I am not arguing against un- 
 ions, which are a power to the workmen. I am speaking, 
 not against unionism itself which I believe in but against 
 the abuses and mistakes of unionism. 
 
 3. If it be seen that, owing to the existing large number
 
 222 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 of non-union men, the unions always have had trouble in 
 gaining their demands, what is to be done? How can union- 
 ists escape the inevitable competition of non-union men 
 whose numbers keep down wages? Remember that I am 
 making a ^ea solely in the interests of higher wages, be- 
 lieving that the unions are unfortunately working against 
 that result, because of a limited understanding of the prin- 
 ciples by which wages can be raised. The escape from the 
 influence of over-supply, let me insist, can be effected solely 
 by adopting the principle of productivity. By making en- 
 trance to a union dependent solely on efficiency in adding 
 to production; by seriously setting to work to improve the 
 quality of their workmanship; by furnishing the latest in- 
 formation to members as to new devices, and new tricks by 
 which dexterity, efficiency, and product can be increased; 
 by systematically aiming to reduce friction with employers; 
 by putting a premium upon honesty, sobriety, punctuality, 
 and steadiness by these, and countless other ways which 
 need not be mentioned, the membership can be made a 
 picked body into which no shiftless, drunken, incompetent, 
 or trouble-making man can gain admission. These latter must 
 drop into the class of non-union men; and thus we should 
 have a readjustment of laborers, by a natural and just evo- 
 lution, in which union men are the exponents of produc- 
 tivity, and favored by employers, while the non-union men 
 are the inferior class who are no longer capable of com- 
 petition with unionists. 
 
 4. It is next in order to emphasize one element of pro- 
 ductivity which is of pre-eminent importance. A sympathetic 
 relation and a helpful attitude between laborers and employ- 
 ers is an absolute essential to productivity. If two men are 
 rowing in the same boat, can they afford to waste their 
 strength in pulling in opposite directions? But that would 
 be no more absurd than the violent struggles of today be- 
 tween employees and employers. The very first thing to do 
 is to get together, and to stop fighting each other. An 
 antagonistic attitude is wholly asinine. On the part of la- 
 borers, let them say to employers: What is there that we 
 can do to increase the units of product, reduce the cost of 
 manufacture, and help in increasing the sales? And, if we
 
 TRADE UNIONS 223 
 
 join you in these improvements, what consideration will you 
 allow us, apart from the gains of living peacefully together? 
 On the side of employers, also, an improved attitude is 
 necessary. The employers have very often been thinking 
 selfishly only of increasing their personal fortunes at the 
 expense of their laborers; they have taken all they could 
 get, and have given nothing in return; they have failed to 
 reward increased efficiency, and have done many things 
 superciliously to hurt the self-respect and manhood of their 
 operatives. If, on the other hand, they make a point of re- 
 warding increased efficiency, of picking out men who have 
 done most to add to productivity, they will unmistakably 
 raise the morale of their force, and meet, in the end, with 
 a general response from their men. These things, however, 
 cannot be accomplished in a day. At present there is an 
 armed neutrality and suspicion on bqth sides, which must 
 be banished by intelligence and good feeling. But let me 
 repeat that some employers must learn a new spirit of help- 
 fulness if they wish to escape labor difficulties. 
 
 5. Before a better understanding can be brought about 
 on both sides, one subject of more or less difficulty must be 
 threshed out. If you advise the laboring body to increase 
 their productivity, they will reply: "What is the use of add- 
 ing to the employer's output, if we get nothing for it?" 
 Now, as to this, we must frankly admit the presence among 
 us of some employers who do not always know what is for 
 their own interest; but it is inconceivable that for any length 
 of time, or by many men, the improved quality, or quantity, 
 of product in any establishment, could remain unrecognized. 
 There are stupid employers just as there are stupid laborers. 
 But I do not hesitate to say emphatically, from my own 
 knowledge of manufacturing establishments, that the em- 
 ployer who does not discriminate in favor of the more pro- 
 ductive employee, and reward him accordingly, does not 
 know properly how to manage his own business, and must 
 inevitably go to the wall in the competition with his rivals 
 who do know. In these days few people realize the grind- 
 ing, eager, intense, and minute competition which goes on 
 between producers in the same business. It is about as im- 
 possible for a laborer who looks out for his own interests.
 
 224 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 to escape being rewarded for growing efficiency, as for a 
 man who is honest to escape the respect of his neighbors. 
 
 But, if there is the slightest difficulty in obtaining this 
 recognition for increased efficiency, it is precisely at this 
 point that the pressure of intelligent unionism should be 
 applied. If the unions wish to enforce payment in propor- 
 tion to the productivity of laborers, their success will be 
 quick and easy as compared with some of the present at- 
 tempts to insist on the same uniform rate of wages for all 
 alike, competent or incompetent. The failure of many 
 strikes, and the antagonism of employers, is the inevitable 
 consequence of a blind pressure for higher wages, quite in- 
 dependent of the differing productivity of different laborers, 
 and their eflfect on the total output. It is about as silly to 
 suppose that a business house could afford to pay all their 
 salesmen the same wages, irrespective of the amount of 
 sales made by each man, as to suppose that each of a hun- 
 dred, or of a thousand, men should be paid equal rates of 
 wages, irrespective of their addition to the general result. 
 As a matter of fact, every well-conducted business today has 
 a record of the cost of every sort, in each separate depart- 
 ment of its works, and can immediately recognize the ef- 
 ficiency of any particular part of its force. And it is also a 
 fact that those establishments which have the least trouble 
 with their employees have adopted a system by which in- 
 dividuals are rewarded for improved work, for suggestions 
 as to improvements and inventions, and for anything which 
 will cheapen the output, or increase the sales. 
 
 In conclusion, let me make a plea for tolerance of the 
 man at the bottom of the ladder. He may be narrow; he 
 may be uneducated; he may be unable to reason correctly 
 from the limited data at his disposal; he may not know 
 much of the trials and difficulties of running a great busi- 
 ness; but, in the main, he is a man who responds to fair 
 and reasonable treatment; he will, in most cases, do the 
 right thing, if he sees it plainly. Honor, honesty, and fair- 
 ness are as common in him as in the man of any other 
 class. Therefore, a responsibility lies upon the intelligent 
 and helpful class in the community to do all that in them 
 lies to enable him to see the labor question in its true light.
 
 TRADE UNIONS 225 
 
 His acts should be judged in the Hght of his means of 
 reaching just conclusions, and not as if he had all the 
 knowledge and wisdom of society. He needs light and dis- 
 interested help in solving his hard problem of how to get 
 on in life, quite as much as he needs higher wages. 
 
 McCIure's. 22: 30-43. November, 1903. 
 Trust's New Tool the Labor Boss. Ray Stannard Baker. 
 
 After four months of struggle, costing untold millions of 
 dollars, the building strike in New York has at last worn 
 itself out. Sam Parks, the union leader, broken down by 
 an incurable disease, convicted of blackmail, is awaiting sure 
 return to State's Prison at Sing Sing. The men are at work 
 again; the employers are counting their losses; the public 
 draws a long breath of relief, the public really believes that 
 somethmg has been settled. 
 
 Sam Parks, indeed, has been settled; he will ride his 
 white horse at the head of no more labor parades; he will 
 'pull out" no more "jobs." Nine-tenths of the people of 
 New York fully and earnestly believe that Sam Parks and 
 his friends were the chief cause of the strike. Many of the 
 employing builders and not a few of the union workmen 
 themselves, closely familiar with all the conditions, will 
 assert the same conviction. 
 
 Well, if Sam Parks has really blocked for months the 
 building industry of the greatest American city in the time 
 of its most spectacular growth and that at a time when 
 there was no dispute between employer and employee as to 
 wages, or hours, or recognition of the union; when the 
 workmen were never better paid, never so thoroughly or- 
 ganized, never more independent then this man Parks is 
 surely worth knowing. It is an irresistible conclusion that 
 he must either be a genius of extraordinary force or else he 
 must have represented some vital basic condition or prin- 
 ciple, which, in the inevitable expression of itself, forced up- 
 ward from the mass the strong man who best represented 
 it. Is Parks the god in the machine or is he the tool in 
 some mightier hand?
 
 226 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 IV ho is Sam Parks f 
 
 Who is this Parks? Last May his name, now grown to 
 such resounding importance, had never been heard outside 
 of a limited circle of the building industries in New 'York 
 City. He is one of the four walking delegates or business 
 agents of the Housesmiths' and Bridgemen's Union. For 
 many terms now he has been duly elected by his 4,500 fel- 
 low workmen to conduct their collective business with their 
 employers in New York. All unions have such an officer 
 a paid agent receiving, usually, the wages of an ordinary 
 workman in the trade a necessary, useful, important officer, 
 recognized and favored by employers as well as by work- 
 men. The walking delegate is supposed to be strictly ac- 
 countable to his union, to make full reports at each meet- 
 ing, and to receive instructions as to what he shall do in the 
 intervals between meeting days of the union. I say he is 
 "supposed to be accountable," and in the best unions he 
 really is accountable; in the HousesmithsV however, Sam 
 Parks was delegate. 
 
 As one of the representatives of his union Sam Parks 
 had a seat and a vote in the 6oard of Building Trades, a 
 central body composed of walking delegates from each of 
 thirty-nine trades connected with the New York building 
 industry. This body was supposed to discuss questions 
 looking to the betterment of conditions among all em- 
 ployees on buildings, to settle disputes between unions, and, 
 on occasion, to enforce the demand of any one union there 
 represented by a sympathetic strike of all the other unions; 
 it was also supposed to be wholly under the direction of the 
 great body of unionists which it represented. 
 
 The JValkitig Delegate in Theory and in Fact 
 
 In short, this organization was built upon the lines of our 
 political system. Here was the delegate elected to repre- 
 sent the wishes of his constituents, here was the congress 
 composed of these representatives. A visitor from Mars, 
 examining the wise constitutions and by-laws of these un- 
 ions and this central body, might conclude that we had 
 reached the millennium of perfection in the self-government
 
 TRADE UNIONS 227 
 
 of our workingmen. When Mr. Steffens went to Phila- 
 delphia they showed him with pride their magnificent city 
 charter, perfect in every regulation, a model for the nations: 
 but Philadelphia, none the less, is the worst governed city 
 in America if not in the civilized world. The difficulty with 
 constitutions and by-laws is that they regulate everything 
 except human nature. 
 
 According to all the rules, Sam Parks, the faithful serv- 
 ant of his constituents, was worrying along on the wages 
 of an iron-worker, reporting regularly to his union, taking 
 his instructions with earnest meekness, meeting the employ- 
 ers in the quiet, dignified manner of a business man, and 
 never calling strikes when there was any other way out. 
 
 In reality, however, Sam Parks was riding about in his 
 cab, wearing diamonds, appearing on the street with his 
 blooded bulldog, supporting his fast horses, "treating", his 
 friends. How this reminds one of the familiar, affluent 
 aldermen or police captains of our cities building $50,000 
 residences on salaries of $1,500 or less and living happily 
 ever after*! 
 
 Robbing His Union 
 
 And this man, elected to carry out the instructions of 
 his union, actually reversed the process and bossed the un- 
 ion. His four thousand iron-workers obeyed like children. 
 He called strikes when and where he pleased, often deigning 
 to give the men no reason why they were called out; he 
 spent the money of the union lavishly and made no ac- 
 counting. Once, when an overbold member ventured to 
 inquire in open meeting what had become of a certain sum 
 of money. Parks replied by hurling a table at him. Several 
 others who opposed him were "beaten up" in near-by sa- 
 loons. Others mysteriously lost their jobs. When a man 
 disagreed with him, he "gave him a belt on the jaw," as he 
 has said, "and that cleared his mind." Of $60,000 received 
 in fees and dues by the union in 1901, over $40,000 disap- 
 peared without detailed accounting, mostly Under Parks' 
 direction. Of $75,000 received in 1902, some $60,000 was 
 spent practically without accounting. What these great 
 sums went for (strikes. Parks said, vaguely), no one but
 
 228 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 Parks really knew, and he wouldn't tell. Every member f 
 the union knew the exact character of Parks, that he was a 
 "grafter" and yet he could not be displaced. Even alter 
 being arrested for blackmail, he was reelected by his union; 
 when he went to State's Prison his salary as walking dele- 
 gate was continued, and when he was released under Court 
 orders he marched at the head of the Labor Day para<lc, 
 cheered by his followers. 
 
 Blackmailing Employers 
 
 But the money he received from the union treasury prob- 
 ably did not equal the amount he got from the employers. 
 Behold the extraordinary spectacle of builders and manuiac- 
 turers of large interests summoned by this former coal- 
 heaver to come to his house or to the saloon of his appoint- 
 ment and pay him two hundred or nine hundred or two 
 thousand dollars for his personal use to secure permission 
 ot go on with their business! This happened not once, but 
 many times, as the evidence presented to District Attorney 
 Jerome has abundantly shown. And if a builder was re- 
 calcitrant his jobs were "struck" and the men kept out until 
 he "settled." 
 
 I am not entering here into the question of the justice of 
 these strikes; some of them may have been warranted; I 
 suspect they were; but the point is that Sam Parks and 
 other men of his type called them without consulting any- 
 thing but their own personal pleasure, with no instructions 
 from their unions, often without giving any reasons to the 
 men who were thus compelled to lie idle, and, worse still, 
 strikes were often accompanied by a demand for money or 
 to enforce payment of money. Did this money go to the 
 men who struck and lost their wages? Not a bit of it; 
 they won the battle. Parks pocketed the spoils, though he 
 sometimes spent it liberally "setting up" for his friends at 
 near-by bars. I heard a housesmith say: 
 
 "Sam Parks is good-hearted all right; if he takes graft 
 he spends it with the boys." 
 
 A curious conception, surely, of good-heartedness, but 
 one that is already familiar in political circles: robbmg his
 
 TRADE UNIONS 229 
 
 constituents of their rights and perhaps of their wages, he 
 is "good-hearted" because he treats some of them to beer! 
 
 How the Graft was Worked 
 
 We find Parks approaching the superintendent of the 
 Hecla Iron Works, of Brooklyn, by appointment in a saloon. 
 
 "You've never done anything for the walking delegates," 
 he remarked. "Ain't it about time?" 
 
 He accused the company of violating certain union rules, 
 but said he "would leave them alone for $1,000." They gave 
 him two minutes to get out, and he used the time; then he 
 called strikes which cost the company some $50,000 and 
 threw 1,200 men out of work for weeks. President Poulsen 
 finally tried to make terms, meeting Parks by appointment: 
 
 "I'm it; you pay me," said Parks. "You can go to 
 work when you pay Sam Parks." 
 
 "What about the men who are striking?" asked Mr. Poul- 
 sen. 
 
 "To hell with those " responded this leader, con- 
 cerning his constituents. 
 
 Without entering into the many complications of the 
 case, which have no real bearing on the attitude of our 
 hero, the Hecla people finally paid Parks $2,000 and the 
 men were allowed to go back to work. I am not saying 
 that this money was blackmail, nor a bribe, nor that it was 
 not a just payment for "waiting time." Confusion here 
 exists in definitions that must be settled in the courts. But 
 of one thing we are certain : Parks got the money ; the 
 check endorsed by him is now in the hands of District At- 
 torney Jerome. Owing, however, to the publicity given the 
 case, the union is reported really to have received some of 
 this money after Parks had been provided with a diamond 
 ring bearing the legend "Victory, Strike Hecla Iron Works." 
 
 The Croker of the Building Trades 
 
 And, truly, the more closely one examines the situation 
 the more striking the parallel between the government of 
 the trade unions and our politics. We have to-day the 
 Labor Boss and the Industrial Machine in many unions (the 
 germs of them in all) with much the power and founded
 
 230 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 on exactly the same basic defects that we find in our polit- 
 ical organizations. Why not? The union is a voluntary 
 elective association and its offices are prized places. We 
 find it, therefore, subject to all the approved American elec- 
 tioneering methods. Sam Parks is the Croker of the build- 
 ing trades. Other bosses there are in other trades: Carvill 
 of the derrick-men, for instance, who was second only to 
 Parks in his appetite for the money of the employers, and 
 Murphy of the stone-cutters, who stole $27,000 of the union's 
 money and is now in Sing Sing. There was a ring in most 
 of the unions and a ring in the Board of Delegates, just as 
 there are little political bosses in the election districts and a 
 big boss in Tammany. 
 
 In the first place the union is composed of the same ele- 
 ments as the political party of American citizens, the ma- 
 jority of whom, perhaps, are honest, intelligent, conserva- 
 tive and well-to-do, but also too often criminally selfish, 
 stupid, willing to be led by the nose so long as their busi- 
 ness is not disturbed. This majority in politics does not go 
 to the party primary, often does not vote; in the union it 
 does not attend the meetings, takes no interest. Of 4,500 
 members of the Housesmiths' Union there were rarely 500 
 in attendance at a meeting, and never, even at important 
 elections, anywhere near the full number. Mannerchor Hall, 
 where the union met, does not seat comfortably 600 men. 
 As a result the business was conducted by a very small 
 minority, composed largely, as in the political organization, 
 of the young, unattached fellows, the out-of-work, and those 
 who would rather play politics than drive rivets. The other 
 men, the workers, some of whom lived twenty-five miles 
 from the meeting hall, were tired at night and wanted to go 
 home and play with their babies. Oh, it is the old familiar 
 American story, bragging that we can govern ourselves, 
 and then not governing. 
 
 .in Honest Labor Leader Helpless 
 
 The real quality of the majority of the housesmiths finds 
 expression in the election and reelection of a thoroughly 
 honest and able president, Robert Neidig, who, in the face 
 of threats of personal injury and loss of work, has mar-
 
 TRADE UNIONS 231 
 
 shalled a steady opposition to Parks. Neidig has taken high 
 grounds of civic patriotism. 
 
 "I have got to be a union man," he says. "Should I let 
 the union run itself, and not attend meetings because I do 
 not like its methods, or should I turn in and do my best to 
 help change the methods?" 
 
 And Neidig really has done his best, working patiently 
 without a cent of salary, though he has not succeeded in 
 arousing the honest majority to overthrow the Boss. So 
 our political parties elect some fine, honest, ingenuous, not 
 over energetic man as mayor or governor and "point with 
 pride" to him, while the Boss stands behind him grinning, 
 runs everything, and steals the people poor. 
 
 A Boss cannot come to power unless he really does 
 something to help his party, his union. After all, his sway 
 must have some basis of good service. It is Parks who is 
 chiefly chedited with the present effective organization of 
 the iron-workers, and it was he also who led in the fight 
 for advanced wages; he has been largely instrumental in 
 nearly doubling the income of the iron-worker in five years. 
 In 1897 the housesmith received $2.50 a day. In 1903 he 
 receives $4.50 a day. Parks has made life better worth liv- 
 ing at least in a rnaterial sense for 25,000 New Yorkers. 
 
 How Unionism Excuses Parks 
 
 You will hear honest men saying: "Yes, Parks is a graft- 
 er, but see what he has done for us! Yes, he steals, but he 
 steals mostly from the employers. What difference is it to 
 us if he makes the employers give up? They get more than 
 their share anyhow." 
 
 It takes high moral stamina to resist such speciousness 
 as this. 
 
 Gratitude, however, never kept a man in office, especial- 
 ly in political office, and we find Parks engaged in all the 
 familiar electioneering devices to maintain his power. A 
 meeting hall holding only a small fraction of the member- 
 ship was easily packed by friends of the boss when he need- 
 ed a vote of confidence. We find him securing his own 
 judges at elections, once even rushing the polls so that the 
 city police were called in to quell the riot. We hear of
 
 232 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 repeaters and purchased votes, even of fraudulent ballots 
 and fraudulent counts. I was told of one instance in which, 
 after the adjournment of a meeting, when President Neidig 
 and many other members had gone home, the Parks ring 
 called the union together again at 2:30 o'clock in the morn- 
 ing, suspended the constitution, elected Parks fpr another 
 term as walking delegate, and voted him a three months' 
 vacation at full pay. Alarmed by this scandal, however, a 
 subsequent meeting reversed the action. 
 
 Pursuing all these approved bruiser and criminal methods 
 of the ward politician, Parks, nevertheless, could not have 
 held his place without drawing around him a ring of ad- 
 herents (heelers) who would support him through thick and 
 thin. 
 
 The Other Side The Grafting Employers 
 
 It has its humorous aspects the astonishment and horror 
 with which we heard the stories of graft given out by 
 members of the employers' association we Americans who 
 take credit for knowing ourselves so well! Here was a 
 builder doing his million or two million dollars' worth of 
 business a year indignantly telling how he paid $200 or 
 $2,000 to a walking delegate six months or two years ago! 
 Why has he kept his indignation to himself so long? and 
 why did he pay the money, anyway? 
 
 We are asked to look upon these things as if bribery and 
 graft and blackmail were nezv in the building trades of New 
 York. 
 
 Why is it that for years the building department has 
 been notably one of the most corrupt branches of the city 
 government? Why have several former high officials of this 
 department, employed at a modest salary, gone out of office 
 after a few years of service with fortunes large enough to 
 make them resplendent for the remainder of their days? 
 Why are the positions of building inspector even to-day in 
 such demand? The inspector is paid only $1,200 a year, 
 out of which he must buy his uniform, pay his own expenses 
 (and his political assessments) and he must, if he is an 
 efficient officer, be a man of experience and ability as a 
 builder. Why, his earnings are not more than an ordinary
 
 TRADE UNIONS 233 
 
 carpenter or blacksmith will make not so much, perhaps. 
 On this exact point the new superintendent of buildings, 
 Henry S. Thompson, has said: 
 
 "With $100,000,000 worth of building being done every 
 year in this city, and every dollar of it subject to the super- 
 vision of inspectors of this department, the opportunities 
 for graft and blackmail in the building department are 
 equaled by no other department in the city, except, possibly, 
 the police. 
 
 "These $i,2oo-a-year men overlook $3,000,000 buildings. 
 They are the ones to pass on the materials being used. If 
 inferior material is put in, if the plans are deviated from, if 
 the plumbing is not placed properly, if there is the least 
 deviation from the prescribed plan, or from the law, the in- 
 spector on the ground is the man to bring it to notice and 
 require the builder to comply with the law. How wide a 
 field this opens if the inspector is not an honest man any 
 one may see." 
 
 Bribery in the Building Departvient 
 
 For long there was a regular schedule of bribe money: 
 So much for the construction inspector, so much for the 
 plumbing inspector, so much for the iron work inspector, 
 and so on. Ofter the bribes were contemptible five-dollar 
 bills for breaking little laws, and sometimes as high as 
 $2,000 paid to high officials for breaking big laws. And who 
 has made the building department for years a favorite place 
 for grafting? The builders no one else. Not all builders 
 no one' may accuse a whole class but enough of them to 
 give a great city department its evil reputation. Why have 
 they paid graft and bribed building superintendents and in- 
 spectors? ' 
 
 Because they ivanted to break the law. 
 
 That, indeed, is the secret of all graft. They wanted to 
 put in cheaper materials than the law called for, they did 
 not want to make their building really fireproof, they did 
 want to hurry and scamp their work and increase their 
 profits, or they were too cowardly to resist the demand of 
 corrupt officials; so they used bribe money. 
 
 Similarly there were times when the purchase of the labor
 
 234 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 boss also became "a regular business expense." And this is 
 not new; it is as old as the unions themselves. 
 
 In the case of the walking delegate, the builder wants to 
 break, not a law, but his agreement with the union; he 
 wants to deal unfairly, he wants to "keep in" with the un- 
 ion, but at the same time he, wants to prostitute the union 
 to his own private ends; or he is too cowardly to resist in 
 court the demands of the corrupt delegate. 
 
 Here, for instance, are non-union men working on a job, 
 or laborers doing the work of skilled artisans; the delegate 
 protests, as his duty requires; how much simpler and cheap- 
 er it is to hand out a hundred-dollar bill, quiet the delegate, 
 and keep the non-union men and laborers working at cheap 
 wages. No matter if it is the purchase of a man's honor, np 
 matter if the delegate sells out his friends, business has not 
 been interrupted. 
 
 Do Employers Want Honest Labor Leaders? 
 
 And does any one really suppose that all builders really 
 want honest delegates? Does any one suppose that our 
 street railway owners, our gas concessioners, our owners of 
 dock privileges, really ivant honest aldermen, honest city 
 officials? No, sir; they do not. If the delegates and of- 
 ficials were honest, profits would be decreased, the builder 
 would not be able to beat his competitor, and the street- 
 car capitalist to rob the public of franchises. After all, this 
 is a republic, a government by the people; if, as a people, 
 we really did not want bosses we should not have them. 
 Grafting is only one expression of our American lawlessness. 
 
 New York was deeply stirred the other day over the 
 revelation of the demands made by the stone-cutters' union 
 on their employers for a large sum of money which the 
 union called a "fine" for disregarding union regulations. 
 Fifty thousand dollars was at first demanded from Andrew 
 J. Baird and his associates of the Stone Dealers' Associa- 
 tion, but employers and employees finally compromised on 
 ten thousand dollars. I am not here entering into the dis- 
 cussion as to whether this payment was "graft" or not, or 
 whether the union has a right to demand this large sum. 
 The significant fact was that the public would never have
 
 TRADE UNIONS 235 
 
 heard of this transaction which surely meant something 
 if the union treasurer, Murphy, had not stolen the money, 
 with the result that the whole affair was dragged into the 
 courts. At no time in the proceedings was there an accusa- 
 tion of employer against employee, or employee against 
 employer. Here was a curious, unaccountable sum of money 
 passing, and the men who paid it making no public protest. 
 After Murphy was in State's Prison he made the statement 
 that there was a secret agreement and understanding be- 
 tween the union and the employers' association, similar to 
 the combinations which I have described in my article on 
 Chicago labor conditions. 
 
 The fact is, the employers wanted to use the union to 
 fight their competitors and to form a monopoly, and the 
 union was willing to be used, if paid for it. 
 
 No ; the dishonest Labor Boss, if not too greedy, is very 
 often a useful tool for the employers. A single instance, a 
 story told by District Attorney Jerome, from evidence in 
 his posssession, will show how happily the Boss serves the 
 employer when he does not want to meet the demands of 
 the union squarely, fairly, honestly; it also throws an im- 
 pressive light on some other ugly conditions of our modern 
 building system. 
 
 A Story of Graft 
 
 For years the Amalgamated Association of Painters and 
 Decorators worked in amity under agreements with the 
 employers' association of their trade. To the Amalgamated 
 Association belonged practically all the painters and decora- 
 tors in New York City and vicinity. In the summer of 
 1902 the Amalgamated Association demanded an increase 
 in wages and a half holiday on Saturday as they had a 
 perfect right to do. I am not here questioning the justice 
 of these demands or the provocation of the employers; the 
 plain point is, that instead of meeting this demand of their 
 old partners in the industry fairly and squarely with argu- 
 ment or refusal, or offer of arbitration, the employers be- 
 thought themselves of an evasive scheme a business 
 scheme to fight the demands. In other parts of the coun- 
 try, having headquarters in Indiana, there existed a national
 
 236 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 organization of painters called the Brotherhood of Painters 
 and Decorators. The employers opened secret negotiations 
 with this organization to come to New York, organize, and 
 fight the Amalgamated Association. When the members of 
 the Amalgamated Association heard of this plan they pre- 
 pared at once, and not unnaturally, to wage a bitter fight, 
 finally striking against all the members of the Association 
 of Interior Decorators and Cabinet Makers, tying up, among 
 other buildings, the new Union Club. The employers knew 
 that they could not fight the Amalgamated Association, 
 backed up as it w^as by the Board of Building Trades, un- 
 less the new Brotherhood could also get a representation 
 in the board. The natural way to get this representation 
 at least no one seemed to think of any other way was to 
 use graft, and plenty of it. 
 
 President Bahlhorn of the Brotherhood came on from 
 Indiana and offered $2,500 in cash to be used' in the proper 
 manner. It wasn't nearly enough. The opulent New York 
 labor bosses sniffed at this western money, and President 
 Bahlhorn himself began, as a labor leader expressed it, "to 
 have cold feet." He expected to appear soon for reelection 
 by his organization and ugly questions might be asked by 
 honest members as to where and how that $2,500 was ex- 
 pended in New York and he couldn't well explain. So 
 fifteen members out of seventeen of the employers' associa- 
 tion two refused to pay subscribed $450 each, the Union 
 Club, which was anxious to have the work on its building 
 go forward, made a handsome contribution, and this, with 
 other funds subscribed elsewhere, a total of some $17,000, 
 was used among the Labor Bosses, chiefly in the credentials 
 committee as an "initiation fee." 
 
 Unions "Grafting" on Each Other 
 
 After this money had passed influences favorable to the 
 Brotherhood began curiously to ferment in the board. An 
 umpire Boss Richard Carvill was appointed to decide cer- 
 tain questions between the two painters' organizations. Af- 
 ter many significant delays and charges of "graft," Boss 
 Carvill decided in favor of the Brotherhood. As a condi- 
 tion of its admission to the board, on December 20, 1902,
 
 TRADE UNIONS 237 
 
 the Brotherhood agreed not to work for less wages than the 
 Amalgamated Association was demanding, $4 and $4.50 a 
 day. Three days later the Brotherhood deliberately signed 
 a secret agreement for one year with the employers' asso- 
 ciation to work for $3.25 and $3.50 a day. The $450 paid by 
 each employer was thus a first-class investment; it was soon 
 returned to him, with much more, in the saving of wages. 
 "1 kn'ew that the end was coming," said a prominent labor 
 leader, "when the unions began to graft on each other." 
 
 Every step in this transaction was marked by graft, by 
 bad faith, by indirect dealing; and one side was exactly as 
 bad as the other. Yet the employers call upon the public 
 for sympathy in their fight against union corruption. A lit- 
 tle common honesty and determination, a good deal less 
 greediness on both sides to meet business issues squarely, 
 and such a sickening transaction as this, would never have 
 occurred. 
 
 "Only a higher conception of business honor among the 
 building contractors themselves," says the New York Evening 
 Post, "will lead to an absolute and enduring reform." 
 
 The Cause of Graft Higher Up 
 
 Bossism and venality, then, existed in New York long 
 before the great lockout of May, 1903. The builder had 
 long paid money to break the law or his agreements, and 
 the delegate had long taken money to sell out his union, 
 and neither had fared so poorly. It was a sort of balanced 
 venality which might have continued to this day if another 
 element an outside, unrelated influence had not entered 
 the field and disturbed the evil equilibrium of the industry. 
 It is of little importance what the immediate causes of the 
 hostilities really, were, of no more importance than the 
 shots fired on Fort Sumter in 1861. This, too, was an ir- 
 repressible conflict; if it had not come in May it would have 
 come in June, or July, or later. The same issues have al- 
 ready been fought out in Chicago and San Francisco, are 
 now being contested in Pittsburg, and will have to be met 
 in Boston. They are fundamental and national, not special 
 and local issues. 
 
 The cause given by the employers' association for the
 
 238 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 lockout was that the exactions of the Parkses and Carvills 
 and of the Board of Building Trades had become absolutely 
 unbearaBle, and the only way out was to smash the Boss 
 system. No one who knows anything of the senseless 
 strikes, trade disputes, and blackmail which the builders un- 
 questionably had to suffer, will minimize this provocation or 
 excuse the Labor Boss. 
 
 But there is much more to say in regard to the po'sition 
 of the employers' association, an organization hardly older 
 than the lockout itself some things that may have escaped 
 the attention of the casual reader of the newspapers, to 
 whom the fight may seem a plain issue between the high- 
 minded and abused employer and the blackmailing Labor 
 Boss. If the real truth were known it might be found that 
 these extortions of the Labor Boss, never very large com- 
 pared with the millions and milions of dollars involved, and 
 not half so hateful, be it whispered, as we have been led 
 to believe, that these petty strikes and trade disputes, while 
 maddening enough, were not to be compared in seriousness 
 with one other tremendous fact of the building industry of 
 New York and other cities. The gnat stings of the Labor 
 Bosses won public sympathy for the employers' association; 
 the other thing, if generally admitted, would have merited 
 none at all. 
 
 Enter the Trust 
 
 The plain fact is, a gigantic hand had reached into New 
 York and was revolutionizing the building industry of the 
 city the hand of the Trust. 
 
 During the whole time of the lockout the man on the 
 street may have noticed that work on many new buildings, 
 some of the most important in New York, went forward 
 without interruption, quietly, persistently. I'"arther inquiry 
 would have shown that all, or nearly all, of these buildings 
 were under contract by a single concern the George A. 
 Fuller Construction Company. Now, why was this company 
 working when all the other builders of New York were idle? 
 How did it rise superior to strikes and lockouts? Had it 
 solved at last the labor problem?
 
 TRADE UNIONS 239 
 
 The George A. Fuller Construction Comany, the first of 
 several great concerns of a similar character, all of Chicago 
 origin, based on Chicago ideas and experience and backed 
 by Chicago push, came to New York several years ago, its 
 advent, curiously enough, being contemporaneous with that 
 of Boss Parks. Starting with no business at all, it has, 
 within some five or six years' time, become the greatest 
 construction company in the world, with the largest single 
 building business in New York and important branches in 
 Chicago, Baltimore, and Philadelphia. 
 
 The Fuller Company, itself capitalized at $20,000,000 is 
 to-day owned and operated by a. gigantic corporation known 
 as the United States Realty and Construction Company, 
 with a capitalization of $66,000,000. It is the trust idea ap- 
 plied to the building industry. 
 
 It was as inevitable sooner or later that such combina- 
 tions should appear in the building trades, as in the steel or 
 oil industries; they were the logical result of the era of the 
 sky-scraper. And it was also inevitable that their advent 
 should work mighty changes, that the old-line builders and 
 contractors their competitors should suffer before the cen- 
 tralized management and unified purpose of the new cor- 
 porations. 
 
 Indeed, the independent contractors faced a similar dan- 
 ger on both sides. On one they had the leviathan combina- 
 tions of capital, which were taking their business and cut- 
 ing into their profits; in six years' time they saw half the 
 important building business of New York pass into the 
 hands of these new corporations; on the other side they had 
 the hardly less formidable preying combination of labor 
 levying blackmail and forcing up wages. What could they 
 do but organize? They were literally whipped into organi- 
 zation; that it must have required tremendous pressure to 
 drive these contractors together, no one can doubt who 
 knows the fierce competition and rivalry which exists among 
 them. In short, it was a part of the common struggle of 
 the times; organization and combination against disorganiza- 
 tion, a clashing of great elemental forces, not the gnat 
 stings of a little insignificant, bullying Boss Parks.
 
 240 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 How the Trust Worked 
 
 There was a vital idea and high-class brains behind the 
 L^nited States Realty and Construction Company. The 
 managers devised new methods of economy doing away in 
 many instances with middlemen, tending to eleminate inde- 
 pendent architects and contractors; they had new schemes 
 for dealing with labor, learned in the Chicago strike of 1900, 
 and they cunningly contrived new avenues of getting politi- 
 cal influence for the building business hangs on the will of 
 a political appointee, the City Superintendent of Buildings. 
 And, instead of waiting for business, they went out and 
 made business; they organized neglected opportunities. 
 Here was a man who had land, but no money to build; they 
 supplied the money and built for him; often they bought 
 the land themselves and built. 
 
 The new corporation was, moreover, fortified in its posi- 
 tion in a hundred ways. In the first place it was intimately 
 related to most of the other great trust and financial in- 
 terests, which, after all, are nothing more than a family 
 party, with headquarters in Wall Street. Naturally, there- 
 fore, when any of these interests were concerned in impor- 
 tant new buildings, they favored the Fuller Company, for 
 thus, in some degree, they paid the profit of one pocket 
 into the earnings of another. 
 
 Forces Behind the Fuller Company 
 
 Here we find the Standard Oil Company represented in 
 the person of James Stillman, president of Rockefeller's 
 bank, the greatest money institution in America. Mr. Still- 
 man is chairman of the executive committee. It was well 
 for a large consumer of steel like the Fuller Company to 
 have a steel connection, and we find, accordingly, that the 
 LTnited States Steel Corporation is represented in the direc- 
 tory by Charles M. Schwab and E, C. Converse; and that 
 the Fuller Company owns $550,000 of stock in the Steel 
 Trust. At one time the Fuller Company is said to have had 
 a contract whereby it got its steel at especially favorable 
 rates. Railroad interests (the railroads haul the steel and 
 other materials) were represented by Cornelius Vanderbilt
 
 TRADE UNIONS 241 
 
 and John W. Gates. Banking and other huge financial in- 
 terests found a voice in James H. Hyde, vice-president of 
 the Equitable Life Insurance Company; in James Speyer, 
 one of the most conservative bankers in New York; in Au- 
 gustus D. Juilliard and G. G. Haven, of the Mutual Life In- 
 surance Company all large owners or agents of real estate 
 and buildings, who might need the services of a building 
 company. Thus, we find the new Equitable Life building in 
 Broadway going naturally to the Fuller Company. But 
 perhaps the most important of all its connections was with 
 the real estate interests of New York the men who are on 
 the inside, who know when and where buildings are to be 
 built, and who is to build them and who know these 
 things first; so we find Bradish Johnson, an acknowledged 
 real estate expert, as president of the company, and Albert 
 Flake, Robert E. Dowling, Henry Morganthau, all very 
 prominent real estate men, represented in the directory. 
 Stockbroking interests an important department in such a 
 concern were represented by Henry Budge. Nor did the 
 company omit to cast a political line to windward. The city 
 regulates building, and it is well to have influence where it 
 will count. So we find among the directors Mr. Dowling, Mr. 
 Flake, and Hugh J. Grant, former mayor of New York, a 
 big politician, and an associate in a trust company composed 
 largely of Tammany interests. It is common talk in the 
 building trades that the new Superintendent of Buildings, 
 Mr, Thompson, was appointed through the influence of 
 these directors, though there are no charges of maladmin- 
 istration against him. Legal acumen, of which such a com- 
 pany have urgent need, is represented by one of the ablest 
 New York lawyers, B. Aymar Sands. Also we have repre- 
 sentatives from Chicago and Boston, where the company 
 does a large business. The actual management of the build- 
 ing interests was in the hands of Judge S. P. McConnell, 
 president of the Fuller Company, and Harry S. Black, a 
 relative of the founder, George A. Fuller, both Chicago men. 
 
 Buying a Supply of Labor Bosses 
 
 When the Fuller Company first came to New York and 
 introduced the "department store idea" in building, the old-
 
 242 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 line contractors naturally did their best to fight it. So the 
 old-line storekeeper has waged a losing war against the de- 
 partment store. In several trades there existed combina- 
 tions between the associated employers and the unions (like 
 those in Chicago) which fought the new companies with 
 effect; in other trades, not so well organized, there came to 
 be a wholesale bidding for labor. The old-line contractors 
 would raise wages and get the man away from the Con- 
 struction Company, and the Construction Company would 
 bid up and get the men back again. Here were sown still 
 other seeds of corruption, for both sides sought the favor 
 of the walking delegates. There can be no doubt that the 
 arrogance of the Labor Boss, knowing his power, is largely 
 traceable to this courting of the labor monopoly by both 
 parties to the gigantic struggle between trust and indepen- 
 dent builder. 
 
 The Fuller Company, fresh from bitter strike experiences 
 in Chicago, had learned the simple business lesson that the 
 labor union has come to stay quite as surely as the trust, that 
 it is better to work with it than to fight it. Instead of antag- 
 onizing labor it went out of its way to win labor or at 
 least the Labor Bosses. It yielded to the demands of labor 
 and, doing not a little of its work on a percentage basis, it 
 simply charged the added expenses up to the owner in other 
 words, "took it out of. the public," as the pools in certain 
 Chicago building trades are doing. Also, it made a policy 
 of quick work, which is always worth a premium to the 
 owner. But it went a step farther, perhaps the next uni- 
 versal step; the Chicago "pools" were mere voluntary agree- 
 ments of competing contractors with the unions "gentle- 
 men's agreements" in which, in spite of oaths, and promises, 
 and bonds, the gentlemen would not remain gentlemen. 
 The Fuller Company was a corporation, a unit in which 
 there could be no internal dissension, which could deal with 
 the union as a single man. 
 
 It is a significant fact that the Fuller Company brought 
 Sam Parks from Chicago when it came and, curiously 
 enough, as a "scab," to help assist the trust's entry into 
 New York and there is evidence that he was on their pay- 
 roll long after he became a leader of the union: that while
 
 TRADE UNIONS 243 
 
 he was drawing wages from his union to look after its in- 
 terests he was also drawing money from the Fuller Com- 
 pany to look out for its interests. Rather strange, perhaps, 
 but modern! The check paid by the Hecla Iron Works to 
 Parks I have told why this check was paid was cashed 
 by the Fuller Company. One of the officers of the Fuller 
 Company was the go-between in the payment of money for 
 the admission of the Brotherhood of Painters to the Board 
 of Delegates. 
 
 Trust at IV ar 
 
 The Fuller Company, as a labor leader expressed it to 
 me, "went the old builders one better on their own game." 
 Instead of buying delegates occasionally, they were able to 
 own a supply outright. It is commorT talk in the building 
 trades that the Fuller Company, through its influence with 
 the labor bosses, could and did cause strikes against their 
 competitors, and even invited strikes against themselves 
 when they wished to secure immunity from penalties under 
 the "strike clause" in their contracts, but I could not find 
 any specific evidence, even from the company's worst ene- 
 mies, of this dastardly sort of warfare. But this idea of 
 being friends with labor, good or bad, has kept the Fuller 
 buildings going through all the strikes, has made good their 
 claim to getting their buildings done on time at any cost of 
 money or honor. Other construction companies, like the 
 Thompson-Starrett Company, more conservatively man- 
 aged, buried their differences with the old-line contractors 
 temporarily, and joined the employers' association in their 
 fight to down the blackmailing Labor Boss. 
 
 Who is Responsible? 
 
 Mr. Jerome has said: "This corruption in the labor un- 
 ions is simply a reflection of what we find in public life. 
 Every one who has studied our public life is appalled by the 
 corruption that confronts him on every side. It goes 
 through every department of the national, State, and local 
 government.
 
 244 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 Outlook. 84: 615-21. November 10, 1906. 
 Walking Delegate. Luke Grant. 
 
 An automobile stopped before a great business block 
 which was building. It was on the Wide. Side in Chicago. 
 Three men and the chauffeur were seated in the vehicle. 
 
 '"I'll be gone but a minute," one said, as he stepped to 
 the curb. "You fellows wait for me." 
 
 He was flashily dressed. His trousers were fresh from 
 the ironing-board of the tailor, and his coat was the latest 
 cut. He "sported" a fancy lavender-colored waistcoat, and 
 in his shirt-front a diamond sparkled. Patent-leather shoes 
 adorned his feet. His whole appearance indicated that he 
 had no lack of money and spent much of it upon himself. 
 
 Entering the buildfng, he glanced around until his eyes 
 found what they sought. He beckoned to a young man in 
 greasy overalls, extending his hand as the other approached. 
 
 "This job's on strike," he announced. "You tell the 
 other fellows to quit until the trouble is straightened out." 
 
 The workmen without demur obeyed the order, and with- 
 in five minutes the building was "tied up." 
 
 "Did ye pull the job?" inquired one of his companions 
 as the walking delegate climbed into his automobile. 
 
 "What d'ye suppose I came' out here for?" was the reply. 
 "We'll let them sweat for a while," and the chauffeur was 
 ordered to return to the city. 
 
 The buildings in question are situated about five miles 
 from the business center of Chicago. On the way out a 
 number of bottles of champagne had been emptied by the 
 walking delegate and his friends. More wine was consumed 
 on the return trip. The walking delegate "did the honors," 
 explaining: "We might as well do things right. I may have 
 my faults, but I never was accused of being cheap." 
 
 This particular walking delegate is not representative of 
 men of his calling. He illustrates, however, an exception 
 frequently accepted as a type. 
 
 The walking delegate is the product of conditions for 
 which employers who are to-day loudest in their condemnar 
 tion of him are largely responsible. When in the early 
 days labor unions were struggling for "recognition" or for
 
 TRADE UNIONS 245 
 
 the right of collective bargaining, in the' days before the 
 evolution of the walking delegate, the more aggressive 
 spirits who volunteered to represent their fellows usually 
 paid the penalty for their temerity. When a committee ap- 
 proached an employer with a request for increased wages 
 or improved working conditions, the spokesman, if not the 
 entire committee, had to seek other employment. 
 
 "We propose to conduct our business in our own way," 
 said the employer. "We want no union interference." 
 
 The earlier unions tried to counteract the penalizing by 
 paying full wages to the men thus "victimized" until the 
 latter found other employment. This condition became re- 
 sponsible for the walking delegate, since the unions learned 
 by experience that to protect their interests they needed a 
 representative who could not be discharged. This attitude 
 of employers toward unions not only made the walking dele- 
 gate a necessity, but in a degree determined his qualifica- 
 tions. He had to be a man possessed of physical courage, 
 who would not be intimidated. 
 
 The walking delegate is elected by popular vote. It does 
 not follow, however, that the man best suited for the posi- 
 tion is always the one chosen. The 'popular vote system has 
 its defects in the labor world, as in the world of politics. 
 The influence of the "good fellow" is powerful among un- 
 ion men. In many unions the man who freely spends his 
 money over the bar can get elected to any position he as- 
 pires to. As the citizen who most strongly condemns cor- 
 ruption in civic affairs is often the one who stays away 
 from the polls on election day, so the union man most ready 
 to criticise the acts of the walking delegate usually takes 
 no part in his election. Whether a walking delegate is 
 elected by ballot in a meeting of his union, or by the Aus- 
 tralian ballot system, rarely does the vote cast exceed thirty 
 per cent, of the membership. 
 
 In unions of skilled workmen it is an almost invariable 
 rule that the walking delegate is a competent workman in his 
 trade. "He is a good mechanic and understands his busi- 
 ness" is an expression frequently heard among skilled 
 workmen when discussing the qualifications of a candidate. 
 "He can't hold a job anywhere" is an eflfective argument to
 
 246 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 use against an aspirant for office. It is not unusual, how- 
 ever, for the good workman to be also the "good fellow." 
 If he is not a "good fellow" when first elected, he is ex- 
 ceedingly apt to become one if he wishes to retain his popu- 
 larity. 
 
 The powers vested in the walking delegate by his union 
 vary according to custom and to the peculiar conditions ex- 
 isting in the craft he represents. In some unions his au- 
 thority is almost supreme, in others he is given instructions 
 to carry out. Much depends on what is believed most ex- 
 pedient to bring results, and not a little depends on the 
 character of the individual walking delegate. There are no 
 unions which permit their walking delegate to initiate a gen- 
 eral strike of the trade in a city. That must be voted on by 
 the membership. At the same time, the walking delegate 
 in most unions has authority to call a strike on a particular 
 building or factory without consulting the membership. At 
 times this leads to serious abuses; at other times it is an 
 advantage to the membership. If the walking delegate of a 
 building trades union had to wait for a meeting of his 
 union to get authority to order a strike, the opportune mo- 
 ment might pass in the interval. His idea is to call a 
 strike at the moment it will work the greatest hardship on 
 the man he is fighting. Every strategic position must be 
 taken advantage of to insure success. Realizing this, the 
 members of a union allow the walking delegate to call 
 "individual" strikes at his discretion. 
 
 As the powers of the walking delegate vary in the dif- 
 ferent unions, so do his duties. In a union of street-car 
 men, for instance, it is unnecessary to have a walking dele- 
 gate constantly going around among the men. All the mem- 
 bers of the union are employed by the same corporation. 
 Once a working agreement is signed, the working condi- 
 tions are definitely settled. The wjilking delegate is seldom 
 required to adjust grievances. He acts as secretary of his 
 union in addition to his other duties. 
 
 In a building trades union the duties of the walking dele- 
 gate are altogether diflferent. Contractors will sign an 
 agreement to pay a certain scale of wages, but it lies with 
 the walking delegate to see that the agreement is enforced.
 
 TRADE UNIONS 247 
 
 He is required to watch the members of his union as well 
 as the contractors who employ them. The members of a 
 union will vote unanimously to uphold a scale, but in the 
 fierce competition for work union pledges are often forgot- 
 ten. The "law" of supply and demand may be recognized 
 by economists, but it is not recognized as a law by the walk- 
 ing delegate and his constituents. His daily work is fight- 
 ing the so-called law> He believes in free competition with 
 limitations. Members of the union are free to compete 
 with one another for work, provided they insist on receiving 
 the minimum scale of wages. Contractors may compete for 
 contracts as fiercely as they choose, but they must pay the 
 minimum rate of wages to their workmen. The fair em- 
 ployer must not be made to suffer because of the unscrupu- 
 lous one who will cut wages. The honest union man who 
 stands out for the scale must not suffer because of the less 
 honest member who is willing to work for less. The walk- 
 ing delegate must see that competition is not "free," but 
 fair. 
 
 Employers and workmen frequently connive to deceive 
 the walking delegate. The paying of rebates is not confined 
 to the railways. It exists in many building trades. When 
 the walking delegate suspects that the scale is not being 
 paid, he will surprise a contractor by appearing on a build- 
 ing or at the office on pay-day. The pay envelopes have to be 
 opened in his presence, and if the amounts are incorrect a 
 strike is called. Knowing this, contractors frequently place the 
 correct amount in the pay envelope and receive a portion of 
 it back the following day. 
 
 A more ingenious method resorted to is to mark on the 
 envelope a lesser number of hours than the man receiving it 
 has actually worked. For instance, the union scale is fifty 
 cents an hour and the mechanic has worked forty hours in 
 a week. His pay would be twenty dollars. If he is secret- 
 ly working for forty cents an hour, his pay would be sixteen 
 dollars, and his envelope is marked thirty-two hours at fifty 
 cents an hour. 
 
 Such practices are daily discovered by the walking dele- 
 gate, and when he orders a strike to break up such a com- 
 bination he is denounced not only by the employer but by
 
 248 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 the guilty men in his own union. "My men were perfectly 
 satisfied until the walking delegate appeared," the contractor 
 will say. "Other contractors are doing the same thing. I 
 guess the trouble is I didn't hand him a little money." 
 
 In most unions the walking delegate is compelled to be 
 an employment agent. If he can find work for but one man 
 when ten are idle, he makes enemies of the other nine, who 
 want to know at the next meeting "what they are paying a 
 walking delegate for." 
 
 "The walking delegate is the policeman of the union," 
 said an old trade-unionist to me recently. "The honest em- 
 ployer does not fear him, but the unscrupulous dread him as 
 a thief does a policeman." 
 
 The remark was made by one of the most intelligent 
 members in a union of skilled workers. While his character- 
 ization is perhaps too broad, it illustrates the regard in which 
 the walking delegate is held by his fellows. Incidentally it 
 may be mentioned that the man quoted was one of a minor- 
 ity bitterly opposed to the introduction of the walking dele- 
 gate in his own union several years ago. At the time he de- 
 nounced walking delegates on the floor of his union hall as 
 "loafers," and declared he would never contribute to the 
 support of one. 
 
 Taken from the shop or factory, as he generally is, there 
 is a complete change in the life of the walking delegate 
 when he assumes office. Under the eyes of a taskmaster in 
 a shop or a factory he may have been sober and industrious. 
 The unaccustomed freedom from restraint may, however, 
 change his whole nature. He finds himself suddenly trans- 
 ferred from a position of servitude to one of authority. He 
 has a small army of men at his command. With an exag- 
 gerated opinion of his own importance, he is apt to abuse 
 his power before he realizes his responsibility. 
 
 "Do you know who I am?" said a walking delegate to an 
 employer who questioned his right to interfere with work- 
 men. As he spoke he threw open his coat and displayed a 
 star. He called a strike at once, "just to show the employ- 
 er." It was his first day's experience. 
 
 "My men were stopped without apparent cause," said the 
 employer, an hour later, at the headquarters of the union.
 
 TRADE UNIONS 249 
 
 "I'll have the matter looked into at once," said the Presi- 
 dent of the District Council, who was responsible for the 
 conduct of all the walking delegates from the various local 
 unions in the craft. Calling in one of his trusted men, the 
 President requested him to go and make an investigation. 
 The men were at once ordered back to work. 
 
 As the inexperienced walking delegate sometimes calls 
 strikes to show his authority, so the inexperienced employer 
 frequently provokes trouble by his manner. 
 
 ''If you set your foot inside that store I will kill you," 
 said a merchant to a building trades walking delegate on one 
 occasion. The merchant had rented a store, and it was be- 
 ing fitted up by non-union men. The walking delegate was 
 a man of experience, and a fair judge of human nature. 
 
 "I don't want to get killed, so I won't trespass," he said. 
 
 "You had better not," said the merchant, who was having 
 his first experience with a walking delegate. "When I was 
 a young man," he continued, "if I could not get three dollars 
 a week I worked for two dollars." 
 
 ''Times have changed since then," replied the walking 
 delegate. 
 
 "I should think they have changed, when loafers like 
 you are permitted to interfere with workmen. You will not 
 work yourself, or allow others to work." As a result of this 
 merchant's pugnacity, the non-union men were put of? the 
 building by the architect. 
 
 The abuse of suddenly acquired power is not the only 
 danger which confronts the walking delegate when he first 
 assumes office. Temptations are daily thrown in his way 
 from different directions. His duties necessitate his keep- 
 ing late hours. Employers who, for reasons best known to 
 themselves, desire to be on friendly terms with the walking 
 delegate will ask him to meet them in the bar-room of a 
 hotel. Beer, something of a luxury to him in the days when 
 he worked in a factory or sat on the seat of a wagon, is no 
 longer considered good to drink. The employer will insist on 
 buying wine. It requires a strong character to resist such 
 temptations, and the walking delegate does not always re- 
 sist them, for he is human. There is not a city of impor- 
 tance in the country that does not contain its quota of men
 
 250 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 whose lives have been wrecked by their careers as walking 
 delegates. In such a complete change of atmosphere it is 
 perhaps not to be wondered at that some walking delegates 
 acquire habits that are not commendable. 
 
 By a wrong psychological deduction, many people believe 
 that because a walking delegate visits questionable resorts, 
 as many of them do, and is untrue to his family, he must 
 necessarily be dishonest and faithless to those he repre- 
 sents. There are many walking delegates who cannot be 
 purchased to do a dishonorable act where their union is in- 
 volved, but who have extremely loose ideas on morality in 
 other respects. 
 
 There is as wide a difference between walking delegates 
 as there is between statesmen and ward heelers. Public 
 opinion however, releases the statesman from responsibility 
 for the misdeeds of his '"henchmen," while it condemns 
 walking delegates in wholesale on account of the sins of a 
 particular few. The average walking delegate is much like 
 the average man in other walks of life. He may be coarse, 
 brutal and unscrupulous. If he is, he is likely to be pilloried 
 before the public as a type of his class, and others of his 
 calling who are honest, honorable men suffer in reputation 
 therefor. 
 
 The publisher of a newspaper is a man of education and 
 intelligence. He has to be met with intelligence. The team- 
 owner is apt to be a man with business capacity but with less 
 politeness. He is accustomed to order his teamsters in 
 language he and they understand. He has in all probability 
 driven a team himself at some time in his career, and he 
 deals with his men in the manner experience has taught him 
 to be the most eflfective. The walking delegate meets the 
 team-owner, not with soft words, but with plain speech, 
 coarse speech, man-to-man fashion. 
 
 A notion prevails that the walking delegate is an agitator 
 who stirs up trouble to keep himself in office. It is an er- 
 ror. While it is true that the most radical man in the union 
 frequently gets elected, it is equally true that he soon be- 
 comes conservative. It does not require long experience in 
 office to convince him that radical utterances in union halls 
 do not accomplish results. When he worked in a factory, he
 
 TRADE UNIONS 251 
 
 believed that there was only one side to the labor problem, 
 and that the employer had no rights which the workman 
 was bound to respect. As walking delegate he gets a broad- 
 er view of the world than he could ever have obtained when 
 looking through the factory window. Incidents in his daily 
 life give him an insight into human nature that he could 
 never have acquired at the work-bench. He learns by 
 practical experience that the existing order of things cannot 
 be changed in a day or a week. He finds out that the em- 
 ployer really has rights in the matter. After he reaches 
 this stage, which takes him weeks or months, according to 
 his ability and to the conditions which he has had to con- 
 front, he changes his attitude in his union meetings and en- 
 deavors to hold back his constituents, instead of urging them 
 on as he did in the days when he worked in a factory. 
 
 "I would like to hear what the walking delegate has to 
 say on this question," said a union man in a meeting when 
 a wage scale was under discussion. The walking delegate 
 said that he believed the employers were in a position to 
 resist a demand, and that it would be wisdom to let the old 
 scale stand for another year. 
 
 Hardly had he resumed his seat when another man who 
 wanted to be elected to the position arose and said: "It 
 seepis to me the walking delegate does not w&nt us to get 
 more money. He gets more than the scale himself, and 
 does not care about the rest of us. We are entitled to ten 
 cents an hour more than we are getting, and there is no rea- 
 son why we shouldn't have it." 
 
 The speech was greeted with cheers. A strike was voted, 
 and shortly after it was called the walking delegate was 
 asked to resign. The less conservative man was elected in 
 his place. The strike was lost. The men had to return to 
 work at the old scale, while they sacrificed some of the fav- 
 orable conditions they had before the strike. But t^e new 
 walking delegate retained his position. They said of him: 
 "Well, he wasn't afraid of the bosses, anyway." 
 
 This illustration is not unusual. When the experienced 
 walking delegate tries to keep his union from engaging in a 
 strike the success of which appears doubtful, he is accused 
 of being "afraid of the bosses," or even of being "bought."
 
 252 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 Seldom does any position appear unreasonable to the mem- 
 bers of a union when they are in a meeting hall. They 
 want certain things, and the question of whether the de- 
 mands are reasonable does not enter into their calculations. 
 "We are entitled to all we can get," and "We never got 
 anything without fighting for it," are the rules by which they 
 
 go- 
 One of the most interesting studies of the walking dele- 
 gate, and one that is not well understood, is his attitude 
 toward the "slugging" of non-union men. Wherever sys- 
 tematic "slugging" of non-union men is carried on during a 
 strike, it can always be charged to the knowledge of the 
 walking delegate, if not to his instigation. 
 
 While "slugging" is not to be condoned or excused, some- 
 thing is to be said, not in defense of those responsible for it, 
 but in explanation. It is commonly supposed that the men 
 who commit assaults on non-unionists during strikes are 
 naturally vicious and criminal. That the assaults are vicious 
 and criminal is beyond doubt, and that the "professional 
 slugger" is a low type of the human race may be admitted. 
 Many of the assaults committed during strikes, however, 
 are not committed by "professional sluggers," but by zealots 
 who are neither vicious nor criminal in intention. Their 
 action proceeds from blind devotion to a cause. The walk- 
 ing delegate is often a zealot. He lives in an atmosphere of 
 unionism. He preaches it by day and he dreams of it by 
 night. He gradually reaches a stage where unionism be- 
 comes to him more than a religion. Anything done in the 
 name of unionisrn is to him holy if he believes it will fur- 
 ther the cause. At sight of an act of cruelty to a horse on 
 the street he will protest, while he will look upon an assault 
 on a "scab" with gratification. He may have a generous 
 nature and a sympathetic heart, and yet be positively cruel 
 and cold-blooded in furthering, as he believes, the cause of 
 his union. 
 
 "You are a strange combination," I remarked to a walk- 
 ing delegate. "I believe you could beat a "scab" and repeat 
 the Lord's prayer at the same time." 
 
 "I could," he replied; "and I believe the Lord would bless 
 me for doing it."
 
 TRADE UNIONS 253 
 
 In many respects this particular walking delegate is an 
 ideal citizen. Devoted to his wife and children he would 
 rather die than wrong them. He does not taste intoxicating 
 liquor nor use tobacco in any form. He is constantly preach- 
 ing temperance among his fellows. He is absolutely honest, 
 and no inducement could tempt him from the paths of recti- 
 tude in that direction. Human misery touches him deeply, 
 and he will give from his wages, at the expense of his family, 
 to relieve distress. 
 
 Notwithstanding these admirable traits in his character, 
 he will beat a "scab" into insensibility and take pride in it. 
 This picture is no exaggeration, and it illustrates the blind 
 fanaticism I have attempted to describe. 
 
 This singular and dangerous trait of human nature is not 
 produced by trades-unionism. The same insensate devotion 
 which places an organization above every other considera- 
 tion was seen in the church centuries before labor unions be- 
 came a factor in industrial life. It is observable in politics 
 to-day. 
 
 Few walking delegates are naturally criminal and vicious. 
 While men like to be led, they follow a leader because of 
 qualities in hijii that attract them. Cruelty and viciousness 
 are not attractive to a majority. Neither does the walking 
 delegate hold his position through fear which keeps his 
 constituents from opposing him, although it is frequently 
 charged that his rule is despotic. By trickery and unscrupu- 
 lous methods he may occasionally get elected to office, but 
 unless he fairly represents a majority in his union, his career 
 is short. 
 
 Usually a man with little education, the walking delegate 
 is often called upon to plead the cause of his union before 
 men of trained intellect. That he acquits -himself creditably 
 under such circumstances many employers can attest. 
 
 Much of the abuse to which the walking delegate is sub- 
 jected to-day proceeds from ignorance. A majority of hu- 
 man institutions, although founded on correct principles, 
 have nevertheless developed abuses in the course of their 
 history. The labor union is no exception to this rule. 
 
 But with the almost general recognition of labor unions 
 of skilled workers by employers, there has come a change
 
 254 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 in the walking delegate. Commonly speaking, he is an im- 
 provement over his predecessor of former days. 
 
 "It is not a 'bruiser,' but a diplomat, that we need for a 
 walking delegate," said a man in a meeting of his union 
 recently, when nominations for walking delegate were being 
 made. "The day of 'slugging' is past, and intelligence must 
 take its place. We must select our representative with that 
 idea in our minds if we are to meet with success." 
 
 Outlook. 97: 465-71. February 25, 191 1. 
 Case Against the Labor Union. Washington Gladden. 
 
 Another fact has some significance. Twenty-five years 
 ago there was much inquiry among employers about indus- 
 trial partnership, or profit-sharing, as it was rather unhap- 
 pily named. I had written something about it, and I used 
 to get letters from employers very frequently asking about 
 the working of such plans. These methods are not much 
 talked about in these days. The impulse to associate the 
 men with the masters seems to have spent its force. The 
 lessening importance of this feature in the industries of the 
 present day is an indication of the growing alienation of the 
 two classes. 
 
 This condition of estrangement this growing hostility 
 between the wage-workers and their employers is the se- 
 rious fact with which the country is confronted. The fact 
 may be questioned, but those who have been familiar for 
 thirty years with the drift of public feeling can have no 
 doubt about it. The relations between the men who work 
 for wages and the men who pay wages are distinctly less 
 friendly than they were twenty years ago. 
 
 Who is to blame for this? Each class blames the other; 
 probably they are both to blame. There are not many quar- 
 rels in which the fault is all on one side. Let me see if I 
 can state the case as it lies in the mind of the average em- 
 ployer. There are many employers below the average, in- 
 tellectually and morally, whom I do not hope to convince: 
 there are some quite above the average who do not need to 
 be convinced; I am not trying to represent either of these
 
 TRADE UNIONS 255 
 
 classes, but rather that large majority whose opinions and 
 practices tend to prevail in the employing class. 
 
 In the judgment of these gentlemen, the trouble in our 
 industries is largely due to trade unions. It is the miscon- 
 duct of the trade unions that is the cause of all this aliena- 
 tion and hostility which now prevails in the industrial 
 world. Many of these gentlemen say that they are not op- 
 posed to trade unions; that they believe in them when prop- 
 erly constituted and managed. Others frankly declare that 
 trade-unionism in all its moods and tenses is an unmitigated 
 evil; that the only hope for the country is in its extermina- 
 tion. I have lately heard employers who, on all other sub- 
 jects, are as kind-hearted and fair-minded as any men I 
 know, saying that, rather than permit any kind of trade 
 union to get a footing in their works, they would close their 
 factories and go out of business. What all these gentlemen 
 chiefly lay emphasis upon is the misconduct of the unions, 
 many instances of which are specified. 
 
 The indictment is easily sustained. It cannot be denied 
 that in the attempt to protect themselves against oppres- 
 sion the unions have made many rules and restrictions which 
 are often extremely vexatious to all who deal with them. 
 All our neighbors are ready with tales of the annoyances 
 and injuries which they have suffered by the enforcement of 
 these petty rules by trade unions. A woman of fine intelli- 
 gence living in a country village not long ago rehearsed to 
 me her own experience with a gang of men who were work- 
 ing on a drain that ran from her house across her lawn. The 
 ditch had been dug and the pipe nearly laid when their quit- 
 ting time came, at half-past four in the afternoon. A violent 
 storm was approaching, and the ditch would be flooded with 
 water and great inconvenience and expense would be caused 
 if the ditch were not filled in; and the good woman begged 
 these men to throw back the dirt; but they sat down on the 
 bank and would not lift a finger. She took up the shovel 
 herself and filled in a considerable part of it, but they re- 
 fused to come to her relief. Conduct of this sort is not rare 
 on the part of trade-unionists, and it has done much, not 
 only to exasperate employers, but to alienate the good will 
 of the community at large. The kind of rules which are of-
 
 2S6 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 ten insisted upon, regulating the co-operation of the trades, 
 forbidding a plasterer to drive a nail or a plumber to do the 
 simplest task which belongs to a bricklayer, rigidly fixing 
 the hours of labor and making it a misdemeanor for a work- 
 man to finish a job if fifteen minutes of work remain at the 
 closing hour all such petty restrictions are a just cause of 
 complaint. They require men to act in outrageously dis- 
 obliging and unneighborly ways; they are a training in ill 
 nature and unfriendliness. Cases frequently come to my 
 knowledge of the behavior of union men acting under the 
 rules of their trade, by which intolerable inconvenience is 
 inflicted, not only upon their employers, but upon customers 
 for whom the work is done. When I hear such stories, I am 
 able to understand why it is that many employers and many 
 persons who do not belong to the employing class are so 
 bitterly hostile to trade unions. I do not believe that these 
 petty restrictions are necessary to the success of organized 
 labor. On the contrary, I believe that they are a serious 
 hindrance in the way of its progress. The small advantages 
 which are secured by means of them are more than neutral- 
 ized by the ill will which they engender in the breasts of 
 , those whose good will the unions greatly need. 
 
 The opposition of the unions to prison labor is another 
 count in the indictment. This rests upon a narrow view of 
 advantage which helps to discredit the unions. Here, again, 
 a small gain to a class is suffered to outweigh a heavy loss to 
 society. The injury which prison labor could inflict upon or- 
 ganized labor is inconsiderable; the damage which would be 
 done to the prisoners by keeping them in idleness is enor- 
 mous. The anions greatly injure their own cause when 
 they adopt a policy which sacrifices the general welfare to 
 their own interest in a manner so flagrant. 
 
 It is often charged against the unions that they cripple 
 production by restricting the output of industry through de- 
 liberately reducing the speed of their labor and conspiring 
 to make the job last as long as possible. There are those 
 who believe that it is the conscious policy of all unionists to 
 get the largest possible wage and do the least possible work 
 in return for it. I think it quite possible that there arc some 
 workingmen who would regard this as a legitimate policy,
 
 TRADE UNIONS 257 
 
 just as there are not a few employers who mean to give the 
 laborer no more than they must and to get out of him as 
 much work as they can. Undoubtedly the notion has pre- 
 vailed among workingmen that there exists a definite amount 
 of work to be done, and that it is good policy for those , 
 who are working by the hour to use up as many hours as 
 possible in the performance of the work. That policy, how- 
 ever, does not contro! all unionists. The more intelligent 
 among them are fully aware of its foolishness. "To do too 
 much work," says John Mitchell, "is supposed, sometimes, 
 to be 'hogging it,' to be taking the bread out of another 
 man's mouth. This may occasionally be more or less true, 
 although even in such cases the employer has rights which 
 should be respected and a man should do as he ordinarily 
 does do a fair day's work for a fair day's wage. For the 
 whole of society, however, the theory is not true. Within 
 certain limits, the more work done, the more remains to be 
 done. The man who earns large wages in a blacksmith's 
 shop creates a demand for labor when he spends his wages 
 in shoes, clothes, furniture, or books; and a large production 
 tends to make these products cheaper. To render work 
 more expensive merely for the sake of restricting output is 
 to lessen the amount of work that will be done, and it is 
 only by doing a fair day's work that a fair day's wage 
 can be permanently maintained. The wages of workingmen, 
 sooner or later, fall with any unreasonable restriction on the 
 output; and, what is of still more importance, the habit of 
 slowing up work permanently incapacitates the workman for 
 continued and intense effort." This extract shows that one 
 labor leader, at least, recognizes the fatuity of do-lessness, 
 and a fact so patent is not likely to be long concealed from 
 the rank and file of unionists. 
 
 In one respect the policy of restriction is justifiable. In 
 piece-work the tendency is always toward an unjust and op- 
 pressive reduction of wages. The most rapid and skillful 
 workers set the pace, and the employer is inclined to fix the 
 price so that they can make only a reasonable day's wages. 
 This brings the average workman's earnings down to a very 
 low figure. In such cases the protest of the unions against 
 speeding and price-cutting is not unreasonable. Some ad-
 
 258 SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 justments need to be made by which ipen of exceptional skill 
 may get the advantage of their superior ability without un- 
 fairly lowering the compensation of those who are equally 
 faithful but somewhat less expert. 
 
 It is, however, in connection with the enforcement of their 
 demands for improved conditions by means of strikes that 
 the gravest charges are brought against the unions. There 
 are those who deny the right of the unions to use the wea- 
 pon of the strike; who assert that the resort to this method 
 of industrial warfare is wholly unjustifiable. The discussion 
 of this question must be deferred until the following article; 
 I must ask my readers to let me assume that this right be- 
 longs to organized labor. Perhaps they may be willing to 
 allow, for the sake of the argument, that if one man may 
 decline to work for less than a certain wage or more than 
 a certain number of hours, several men may unite in this 
 refusal; and that it is only by uniting with others that any 
 workingman can secure consideration of his claims. I do 
 not, therefore, admit that their assertion of the right to 
 strike is any part of the case against the unions. At present 
 I am concerned with those concomitants of strikes which 
 are rightly held up to reprobation the violence and brutal- 
 ity, the coercion and vandalism, which frequently attend in- 
 dustrial conflicts. 
 
 The existence of such conditions is undeniable and de- 
 plorable, and the greater part of the odium from which 
 unionism is suffering in the public mind is due to- these con- 
 ditions. Workingmen who take the places which the strik- 
 ers have left are insulted, beaten, sometimes killed; the 
 property of the employer is destroyed; his buildings are 
 burned or blown up by dynamite; his business is assailed by 
 criminal depredation. 
 
 For all such deeds of lawlessness there is neither justi- 
 fication nor excuse. They are utterly and brutally wrong; 
 they simply mark a reversion to barbarism. Men have a 
 right to unite in a demand for better industrial conditions 
 and to unite in a refusal to \\ork unless those conditions 
 are supplied; they have a right to dissuade other men from 
 taking the places which they have vacated, and to use all 
 the moral influence at their command to this end; but when
 
 TRADE UNIONS 259 
 
 they resort to coercion and violence in enforcing this de- 
 mand they pass beyond the limits of toleration, and become 
 enemies of society. There is no room in American civiliza- 
 tion for practices of this nature; and the unions have no 
 business on their hands more urgent than that of putting 
 an end to coercion and violence in connection with strikes, 
 no matter at what cost to themselves. They can never win 
 by these methods. They succeed only in arraying against 
 themselves the bitter and determined opposition of those 
 classes in society without whose support they cannot hope 
 to establish their claim. 
 
 It is not the enemies of unionism who say this. The men 
 who have the best right to speak for unionism are as clear 
 and positive in their denunciation of violence as could be 
 desired. Take these words of John Mitchell: 
 
 "Above all and beyond all, the leader intrusted with the 
 conduct of a strike must be alert and vigilant in the pre- 
 vention of violence. The strikers must be made constantly 
 aware of the imperative necessity of remaining peaceable. 
 . . . Under no circumstances should a strike be allowed to 
 degenerate into violence. ... A single act of violence, 
 while it may deter a strike-breaker or a score of them, in- 
 flicts much greater and more irreparable damage upon the 
 party given than upon the party receiving the blow. . . . 
 It is sometimes claimed that no strike can be won without 
 the use of physical force. I do not believe that this is true, 
 but if it is, it is better that the strike be lost than that it 
 succeed through violence and the commission of outrages. 
 The cause of unionism is not lost through any strike or 
 through any number of strikes, and if it were true that all 
 strikes would fail if physical force could not be resorted to, 
 it would be better to demonstrate that fact and to seek 
 remedy in other directions than to permit strikes to degen- 
 erate into conflicts between armed men. . . . The employers 
 are perfectly justified in condemning as harshly as they de- 
 sire the acts of any striker or strikers who are guilty of 
 violence. I welcome the most sweeping denunciation of 
 such acts, and the widest publicity that may be given to 
 them by the press." 
 
 I hope I have made it clear that the resort to violence is
 
 26o SELECTED ARTICLES 
 
 not an essential element in trade-unionism; that its leading 
 representatives discountenance and denounce it. Some of 
 the greatest and most successful strikes have been attended 
 by little violence. This was true of the anthracite strike 
 and of the recent strike of the cloakmakers in New York, 
 In connection with many strikes much violence has oc- 
 curred, and it is the common habit of the newspapers and of 
 a class of social moralists to charge all this upon the strik- 
 ers. In the great majority of cases, however, the strikers 
 have little or nothing to do with it. Much of this lawless- 
 ness is the work of disorderly and turbulent persons who 
 have no interest in the contest, but who seize upon this op- 
 portunity for indulging their destructive propensities. 
 
 All that I now wish to insist upon, however, is that the 
 strikers in any given labor conflict are not to be held wholly 
 responsible for the superheated social atmosphere which sur- 
 rounds them, and which produces the acts of violence by 
 which strikes are often disfigured. For that dangerous so- 
 cial condition the people who are so eager to put down the 
 violence with an iron hand might often find themselves 
 pretty largely to blame. And in such a disturbance the by- 
 stander is sometimes reminded of the story of the wolf who 
 was going to devour the lamb because the lamb had roiled 
 the water. I do not doubt that the hot words of the strikers 
 in such cases often add fuel to the flame of social discontent, 
 and that the strike is made the occasion of outbreaks of dis- 
 order; my only contention is that the deeper causes of this 
 angry feeling must not be ignored. No strike in these days 
 is an isolated phenomenon with a purely local cause; and 
 no one can rationally deal with it who does not comprehend 
 its relation to the prevailing social unrest. 
 
 Two other counts in the indictment against unionism 
 must be treated very briefly. The first is the sympathetic 
 strike. I am unable to join in the unqualified condemnation 
 of this method of industrial warfare. The act of a trade 
 union in supporting an affiliated union in its struggle for 
 better conditions, when no advantage to itself can be hoped 
 for as the result of its sacrifice, is certainly generous and 
 heroic. The motive is not unworthy. It may be doubted, 
 however, whether it is wise as a general rule for the workers
 
 TRADE UNIONS 261 
 
 in one union to take up the quarrel of another union. They 
 may be supposed to know the conditions of their own trade; 
 it is nearly impossible for them to know equally well the 
 conditions of other trades, and they may be supporting de- 
 mands which are unjust and impracticable. Sometimes such 
 a strike involves the violation of a contract, expressed or 
 implied, with their own employers; in such a case they are 
 putting generosity before justice, which is bad morality. 
 The bituminous coal miners were right when they refused 
 to violate their trade agreement with the operators by a 
 sympathetic strike in support of the anthracite miners. And 
 Air. Mitchell is teaching good doctrine when he says: "There 
 can be no doubt that, upon the whole and in the long run, 
 the policy of striking in sympathy should be discouraged." 
 
 The other case referred to is that of the secondary boy- 
 cott. It is quite true, as the unionists point out, that the 
 boycott, in one form or another, is in almost universal use. 
 The withdrawal of patronage from those whose conduct, for 
 one reason or another, we disapprove, is not a thing un- 
 heard of. It is by no means uncommon for groups, profes- 
 sional or commercial, to express their dislikes after this 
 manner. And there are few among us who are in a position 
 to throw stones at a trade union which refuses to patronize 
 an employer with whom it is in controversy. The primary 
 boycott is a weapon which may be greatly abused and which 
 a severe morality would be slow to commend, but in exist- 
 ing industrial conditions the unions cannot be severely cen- 
 sured for using it. 
 
 The secondary boycott is quite another story. The un- 
 ion may boycott the employer with whom it is at war, but 
 when it proceeds to boycott all who will not boycott him, it 
 is carrying its warfare beyond the limits of toleration. "To 
 boycott a street railway which overworks its employees and 
 pays starvation wages is one thing," says Mr. Mitchell; "to 
 boycott merchants who ride in the cars is quite another 
 thing, and to boycott people who patronize the stores of the 
 merchants who ride in boycotted cars is still another and a 
 very diflferent thing." The dealer who can be coerced by 
 such a threat is a man whose friendship is not worth much 
 to the union, and the enormous accumulation of ill will in
 
 262 TRADE UNIONS 
 
 the community which such a practice always engenders is a 
 heavy price to pay for such advantages as it may secure. 
 There is no gainsaying that the frequent resort to the secon- 
 dary boycott is costing the unions much in the loss of friends 
 whom they greatly need. 
 
 I have not mentioned all the charges which are made 
 against imionism, but I have dealt, as I believe, with the 
 most serious of them. It has been made to appear that 
 unionism is subject to some serious abuses. I hope that it 
 has also appeared that these abuses are not ess'ential parts 
 of the system, and that they are not incurable. Neither the 
 petty restrictions upon work, nor the ban on prison labor, 
 nor the lessening of the output, nor the violence attendant 
 upon labor struggles, nor the sympathetic strike, nor the 
 secondary boycott can be counted as a necessary feature of 
 unionism. All are perversions of its true functions, excres- 
 cences which may be purged away.
 
 DATE DUE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CAVLORO 
 
 
 
 PRINTCOINU.S.A.
 
 AA 000 029 956 
 
 . t " 
 
 
 .aLIFORNI