HP 7854 H8 UC-NRLF $B SD Ell THE CRISIS Trade Unions and the Courts The Tyranny of Injunctions The Power of Unity i BY ROBERT HUNTER AUTHOR "POVERTY," "SOCIALISTS AT WORK," ETC. 55 UNITED WE STAND DIVIDED WE FALL SAMUEL A. BLOCH The Bookman 681 N. OAKLEY AVE. CHICAGO, ILL. 1909 Do you read the Chicago DAILY SOCIALIST or the New York EVENING CALL? They are powerful and earnest advocates of the rights of all who labor. They fight the battles of the Unions, and have already achieved striking results for the benefit of the workers. Some of the best writers in the country contribute to their pages, and no man who appreciates the great issues of the time can afford to be without one of these dailies. The articles in this pamphlet are taken from their pages, and Mr. Hunter now writes exclusively for those dailies. The following comments upon his writings show in what esteem they are held: "It is the best editorial writing done in this country today. Bris- bane's is no better, and not like Hunter's, always up to the standard. Hunter's work is clear and direct, logical and full of force. His writing is for the day, and for the mind of that day. That's journalism." LINCOLN STEFFENS. "Not since before the War, when a reader of Greeley's TPJBUNE, have I felt the inspiring words of a writer as I have those of Mr. Hun- ger. His work continued will rouse the nation to action." K. E. BRAKEY, Ventura, California. "I am not a Socialist, but I like their papers because they tell the plain, blunt truth. I hate to do without Mr. Hunter's writings. He has a wonderful faculty for analyzing men." "I read Mr. Hunter's short articles with exceeding satisfaction. They are crisp and pointed, and admirably adapted to the purposes of popular propaganda. His name has become very familiar in all the cottages and cabins of the working class, and an inspiration to many and many a poor fellow on the edge of despair." EUGENE V. DEBS. SUBSCRIPTION RATES. One Year $3.00 One Month 25 Six Months 1.50 Three Months $ .75 YOU need these papers — why not subscribe? SAMUEL A. BLOCH, The Bookman, 681 N. Oakley Ave., CHICAGO THE CRISIS THE UNIONS AND THE COURTS THE TYRANNY OF INJUNCTIONS THE POWER OF UNITY BY ROBERT HUNTER Author "Poverty", "Socialist at Work", Etc. 55 UNITED WE STAND DIVIDED WE FALL SAMUEL A. BLOCH The Bookman 681 North Oakley Avenue CHICAGO, ILL. 1909 SPREGKELS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF I. My union friends, you have not one scrap of manhood left if you quietly submit to the judicial efforts now being made to deprive you of every liberty. It is no longer a case of a few wretched miners in Colorado. Every working man from coast to coast is now up against the real thing. Your unemployed and starving brothers are clubbed in Chicago, branded as criminals in Los Angeles, and deprived of the right to come forth into the streets to say, "Our children starve ! ' ' Union men are being arrested. Injunctions are being used like cudgels to beat you into insensibility. Union funds are being placed at the mercy of every predatory employer. The great Sherman Anti-Trust Law has at last got into action — not against the trusts, but against you. Your employers can blacklist you and force your militant brother to tramp from town to town in search of work, only to find that the employers are combining to see that he slowly starves to death. The constitution guarantees the right of free speech. 193477, 4 THE CRISIS What is picketing but the right of free speech? To pur- suade your brother workman not to take the food out of the mouths of your families ? What is the boycott but the right to express to your friends the injustice inflicted upon you by an unfriendly employer? The constitution declares that you have these rights. A thousand little corporation-owned czars are annulling these rights. If there is a scrap of manhood left among the workers they will see that these decisions do not stand. In every city, town and hamlet there should be mass meetings of Socialists and trade unionists to fight together against the common enemy. Working-class solidarity saved Haywood. If every man that loves liberty joins with every other man who loves liberty they will send up a protest to the powers that be that will fill this land with consternation. II. A crisis, a momentous crisis, faces labor. No one doubts that. The leaders and the rank and file agree to that. A decision must be made. A foolish act means ruin ; a wise act means salvation. What shall this action be? That is a question which every union in this broad land should be discussing. There must be a change of policy. The old game won't work. What, then, is to be done ? For twenty years Samuel Gompers has said that politics would destroy the unions. What did he mean by that? He meant that when the union leaders began to work for THE CRISIS 5 democratic or republican politicians the labor movement would be sold to the highest bidder. He meant that corruption would eat its way into the ranks of labor. He meant that leaders would desert their union brothers for the sake of good fat political jobs. He meant that Tammany would have its representatives in the unions ; that Morgan and Rockefeller would have their representatives in the unions ; and that organized labor would be torn asunder and slaughtered in a futile and corrupt war- fare between these political forces. Politics in the unions meant that every corrupt leader could become rich. The union movement would become the tail of a political machine, and the organization that had cost so much toil and anguish and sacrifice to build up would end in chaos and destruction. This is what Samuel Gompers meant. And he spoke the truth. But he spoke these words when all was smooth sailing for the unions. To-day they are in rough seas, threatened by a tempest of adverse winds. He begins now to question his former judgment and is on the point of revising his former decisions. The dangers ahead are great; something must be done. All right; something must be done. Now, what is to be done? The question can be answered right, and it can be answered wrong. Anything which divides the forces of labor will be a wrong answer. Anything which corrupts the leaders of labor will be a wrong answer. Anything which gives fat jobs to a few will be a wrong answer. It is a big question that has been answered, and answered right by the workmen of nearly every country of Europe. They have answered it by adopting the same independent action in politics that they have adopted in their trade unions. 6 THE CRISIS They have massed the forces of labor in one mighty and united party of labor. They have put their trade union leaders into polities, inde- pendent of all other political parties. A labor leader who helps one of the old political parties is looked upon as a scab and a traitor. The workers have united. They have elected their own representatives, paid their political expenses out of their own funds, and they control their representatives as they now con- trol their trade union leaders. Their political organization is their own, and to voice the wrongs of labor and to support the demands of labor they have their own press, owned and con- trolled by the workers. The workers of Europe are in politics good and strong, and they will be there at the finish. There is no corruption, and no inter-fraternal warfare. The John Mitchells and the Samuel Gompers are in the parliaments of Europe, not representing a Tammany machine or a republican oligarchy, not working underground alongside of corporation attorneys, traction thieves and trust magnates. They are in parliament as the representatives of the working class, hostile to the old political machines, and to every man and every institution that represents capitalist exploitation. A crisis faces American labor. A new policy has to be formulated. A decision has to be made. It can be made right, and it can be made wrong. If it is made wrong, the unions will be destroyed and the working class crucified. If it is made right, it will mean the unity of labor and the onward march toward emancipation. THE CRISIS 7 in. There is one word that labor needs to learn. ''Trust yourselves and yourselves alone. ,, Hearst is for all I know a good and sincere man. Bryan is for all I know a good and sincere man. Roosevelt is for all I know a good and sincere man. But they cannot help you. You alone can help yourselves. Hearst and Bryan and Roosevelt do not know what you want as you yourselves know what you want. There are doubtless Republicans here and Democrats there who would like to befriend labor ; but how can any man expect to have others befriend him when he does not befriend himself? There was a time when labor was ignorant, stupid, fitted for but little else than slavery. To-day labor can stand on its own feet ; can express its own will; can fight its own battles. And the sooner it stops seeking for some Moses to lead it out of the wilderness the better for labor. In the past it has been looking for friends. It has been begging for sweet words, flattering phrases, and loving acts. It has not demanded its rights. It has begged for its rights ; it has pleaded for its rights. The time arrives for it to realize that it must build up an organization of its own; it must have its own party; go to its own ward meetings and express its own will. It must have its own representatives in every legislature in this country. It must learn to fight, to be brave, self-reliant, and deter- mined. It must be suspicious of friends, and confident of itself. It must cease to beg, and become proud of its own power. 8 THE CRISIS It must learn that every man who labors is a friend, and that every man who exploits labor is an enemy, no matter with what sweet words he speaks or how friendly and loving he may appear. If labor cannot help itself, then God help labor. IV. Some trade unionists are up in arms against the Democratic "anti-injunction" plank, and they ought to be. It is a direct evasion and an infamous attempt to delude labor. The papers report that Gompers applauds that plank. If this is true he is applauding the defeat of labor. The plank is a flagrant, and I have confidence enough in the intelligence of labor to believe, a vain attempt to betray labor. An anti-injunction plank was demanded. A pro-injunction plank was obtained. Labor has declared rightly, wisely and constitutionally, that an injunction should never be issued in an industrial dis- pute. Such injunctions are a violation of our liberties, issued in aid of the employing class to the injury of the working class. But what have the Democrats given us ? After lauding to the skies the judiciary the Democratic program declares that "injunctions should not be issued in any case in which injunctions would not be issued if no industrial disputes were involved." Gompers says he is content with that statement. He says he does not want any special legislation. He does not ask the abolition of injunctions. He only wants them to be used against labor in the same way they are used against others. THE CRISIS Well, here is an injunction that was not used against labor. A gentleman in Texas asked a judge to enjoin another man from alienating the affections of his wife. The injunction was granted. It commanded the intruder neither to speak to nor otherwise to communicate with the wife, nor to go near her house, nor near any other house or place in the city of Dallas or in the state of Texas where this woman happened to be. That I take it was not an industrial dispute. It was not an injunction used to assist capital at the expense of labor. It was a domestic affair into which a judge insinuated himself and his authority as I think not even the Czar or Kaiser would attempt. Yet Samuel Gompers says he is willing to leave to judges the power to issue such injunctions. But if a judge can issue an injunction like the above he can enjoin (as judges have done) the Brotherhood of Carpen- ters from handling nonunion materials. He can enjoin a quar- ryman's union from soliciting new members. He can dissolve unions as conspiracies. He can even enjoin a union from pay- ing an eight-hour strike benefit. Furthermore, he can enjoin Samuel Gompers from writing editorials or from having a private conversation with the Pres- ident of the United States. If a judge can enjoin a man from alienating the affections of another man's wife he can enjoin Samuel Gompers from alienating the affections of an employe for his master. The Socialists do not want any special legislation. Labor does not want any special legislation. They want a funda- mental legislative act — an act abolishing government by in- junction. Whether Samuel Gompers wants that or not we are reason- ably certain that labor will be content with nothing less. * THE CRISIS V. When Gompers was trying to get an anti-injunction plank from the Democrats and Republicans he often repeated a cer- tain phrase. He said again and again that labor did not want special legislation, but would be content with laws that applied equally to all. Had the Democrats and Republicans agreed with him on that proposition they would have abolished injunctions. But the Democrats and the Republicans do not intend to give labor rights which other men enjoy. When workingmen commit crimes they are punished. But that does not satisfy the Democrats and the Republi- cans. They want the power of injunction so that they can make anything a workingman does a crime and punish him at will. Our courts, as we know, often leave rich men go unpun- ished even when they commit a statutory crime, while poor men are given the full extent of the law. But that does not satisfy the Democrats and Republicans. They want the injunction also that any judge can make a new law at a moment's notice and punish at will he who violates it. Try for a moment to get some conception of the tyrannical power that lies in the injunction. If the Republican or Demo- cratic party passed a law making free speech, peaceable assem- bly, striking, picketing, or any similar constitutional right illegal such a party would inevitably meet defeat at the polls. However much they would like to pass such laws, they dare not. But with the injunction they are able at will to pass laws to meet just such specific cases. In this way they get around the difficulty. A judge enjoins you from doing what you have a perfect right to do. So that if you exercise your right you do it at your THE CRISIS 11 peril. The question of your rights never enters into the matter, and you are condemned for contempt of court. In this way the Republican and Democratic parties through their judges make workingmen punishable not only when they commit crime, but even when they commit no crime. If there is an outcry neither party is to blame, and only some miserable little judge, obeying orders from above, is condemned for such high-handed action. You can see, then, what a powerful weapon the injunction is. With such power a judge can make or unmake laws. He can declare anything illegal which the employer desires to have illegal. He can override the constitution, and his word is of supreme power. Gompers seems to fear that to demand the abolition of the injunction is to demand special legislation. That is a peculiar stand for a trade union leader to take. Every injunction is a piece of special legislation. It is so special and so undemocratic that no political party would dare become responsible for it. Yet our wily politicians have pulled the wool over Mr. Gompers' eyes, and he leaves Denver grateful for a few words that promise nothing. VI. Gompers is quoted as greatly pleased that the Democrats promise trial by jury for cases of indirect contempt. This means virtually that in case a union man offends a judge who has enjoined him from doing his duty and exercising his constitutional rights he may be tried by jury. Union editors have been enjoined from writing editorials ; 12 THE CRISIS union men have been enjoined from striking, enjoined from peaceable assembly, from picketing, even from joining unions. But Gompers surely knows that a jury has no right to pass upon the law. The jury accepts the law from the judges. It takes its instructions from the courts and it passes solely upon the question of the guilt or innocence of the accused. That is to say, if a judge enjoins Gompers from calling a strike the jury will not decide whether Gompers did or did not have the constitutional and legal right to call a strike. It will only decide whether or not Gompers disobeyed his royal emi- nence the judge. In other words, trial by jury does not affect the writ of injunction in the slightest. In any case, how much is gained in industrial disputes by a trial by jury ? Moyer and Haywood were tried by juries, but they were kept eighteen months in jail before their cases came to trial. Suppose a strike occurs and the leaders are enjoined from speaking, picketing or even advising men to go on strike. Sup- pose they disobey the judge (as they ought to do) and are held for contempt. Can they not be kept in jail until the strike is lost? In other words, grant tihe right to issue injunctions in in- dustrial disputes and you give a judge the power to assist the employers, to aid scabs, to imprison leaders and to break strikes. Trial by jury in such cases will not help you. Strikes can be tied up by the courts just as easily when there is trial by jury as they are now without trial by jury. What is wanted is the abolition of injunctions. So long as judges have this power they are monarchs. So long as injunc- tions are granted in industrial disputes just so long can one man override our constitutional rights. So long as a single judge is able to make illegal whatever he desires just so long will that power be used to cripple unions, to break strikes and to override our constitutional rights of free speech, of a free press and of peaceable assembly. THE CRISIS 13 When you tell us, Gompers, that Judge Parker was your most enthusiastic supporter in Denver you convince us that you have been outwitted and the cause of labor betrayed. The Democrats have given you nothing. They have only been a little more dishonest than the Republicans. That is all. The Republicans adopted an "anti-injunction" plank which promises to legalize the injunction. The Democrats adopted an "anti-injunction" plank which promises to try you by jury in case you offend the autocratic ruling of a judge by exercising your constitutional rights. The Socialists intend to abolish injunctions. As the head of 2,000,000 union men, which of these propo- sitions is most acceptable to you? VII. The "anti-injunction" plank of the Democratic platform declares that "the courts of justice are the bulwarks of our liberties, and we yield to none in our purpose to maintain their integrity." The platform then declares for injunctions and trial by jury in case of indirect contempt. Let us see about this bulwark of our liberties. Let us look into its history and see whether this is indeed a bulwark of our liberties. Judge Parker and a lot of other corporation judges have persuaded Mr. Gompers to believe, as he has said, that "injunc- tions are in themselves of a highly important and beneficient character." Mr. Gompers has taken his advice from the wrong people. 14 THE CRISIS &^ : - ' WBB5L He might have acquired more accurate information about the subject had he consulted an encyclopaedia. Here is a bit of interesting history. Injunctions were originally the exclusive privilege of the king. He was above law, and therefore could set aside law. In case anyone suffered an injury for which the law courts afforded no remedy he petitioned the king; the case was tried before the king, and, if the king desired, he exercised his supreme, divine right of injunction. Naturally such cases became numerous, and finally he ap- pointed special judges to hear such cases. They were called chancellors, and extraordinary power was granted them only because they were the personal representatives of the king. A chancellor could exercise this supreme power at any time. Unlike the ordinary judges, he could command an act to be done or not to be done, as his commands were the com- mands of the sovereign. He became a petty czar, and in case anyone disobeyed his commands that one was guilty of con- tempt of the king, and his disobedience was punishable by imprisonment. We inherited this judicial system from England. As we had no kings we substituted judges in their stead. We should have done away with the writ of injunction if we had really intended that kingly power should have no place in this democracy. But we did away with one king and put in his stead thous- ands of little judges, exercising by the writ of injunction his unlimited power. There is an old saying in boxing, "To get a man in chan- cery/ ' Look it up in the dictionary and you will see that it means "to get the head of an antagonist under one's arm so that one can pummel it at will." That is the meaning of the power of the injunction. The courts want it, the capitalists want the courts to have it, and so long as the courts have it the head of labor will be under their arm in a suitable position to be punched at will. THE CRISIS 15 Judge Parker has said that the writ of injunction is a bene- ficent thing. Mr. Gompers agrees with him. Some loose-thinking, sheep-like followers agree with Judge Parker and Mr. Gompers, but the working people as a whole do not agree. They demand the entire abolition of government by injunction, and they will be content with nothing else. Who are these judges that they should be considered supe- rior to the people, able at will to make or unmake laws? Who are these creatures that presume to be greater than their crea- tors? What place have men of such czar-like proportions in a country whose sovereign is the people? We once showed our contempt for kings, and we shall show our contempt for a judge with kingly power. A man who can enjoin us to do or not to do what he wills ; a man who can arrest us for disobedience of his commands, and a man who can try us, fine us and imprison us for disobedience of his com- mands is an autocrat and a czar. He has no place in oar republic. Well-intentioned or ill-intentioned, he is a tyrant. Far from being a bulwark of our liberties, he is the de- struction of our liberties. Labor has declared against government by injunction, and that battle will be carried on to the finish. VIII. In a letter to James W. Van Cleave, our friend Bryan violently protests against the accusation that the Democratic injunction plank is an assault upon the courts. Bryan declares an attempt has been made to raise a false issue in regard to the courts. 16 THE CRISIS Gompers has also said that as the representative of organ- ized labor he has no desire to make an assault upon the courts. Taft, of course, does not intend to make an assault upon the courts. Hearst some time ago publicly rebuked his editor, Brisbane, for making an assault upon the courts. It appears that the only people who desire to assault the courts are the Socialists. Most men seem to consider assaults upon the courts very much as people in England consider assaults upon the mon- archy. One can assault anything else and find approval some- where, but there are certain things which one dare not assault. With us it is the courts ; in England it is the monarchy. Most people seem filled with a superstitious awe when they think about the courts. The courts may have feet of clay, but they are idols, and anyone who dares to criticise them utters an unpardonable blasphemy. Let Roosevelt say a word against the courts and he is attacked from all sides as a person bordering upon insanity. Well, let us look into this matter a minute. No one questions that Abraham Lincoln attacked the courts. And Thomas Jefferson, whose name is still used by unscrupulous persons to win political power, saw during the last years of his life that the courts had a power in this country little short of the despotic. He said, "The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of Sappers and Miners constantly working underground to undermine the foundations of our confederate fabric." He said, "A judiciary independent of a king or executive alone is a good thing, but independent of the will of the nation is a solecism at least in a republican government." At another time he said it is "the great object of my fear — that body like gravity ever acting with noiseless foot and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step, and holding what it gains." As an old man of 80, after nearly half a century of fighting for Republican institutions, Thomas Jefferson tried to rally his THE CRISIS 17 friends to an assault upon the courts. Some one wrote' him that against the growing power of the courts "every man should raise his voice," and Jefferson answered him, "Yes, and more j he should uplift his arm. ' ' He asserted that to consider the judges "as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional doctrines is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one that will place us under the despot- ism of an oligarchy." Those were his words 88 years ago. But where are the leaders to-day who dare utter such revolutionary sentiments? Our political leaders have appetites that crave political power, but they seem absolutely devoid of political principles. They would no more dare affront the capitalistic press of this country than they would dare to eat peas in public with a knife. Thomas Jefferson was right. He saw that the growing power of the courts meant despotism, and now we have despotism. Upon every bench of this country sits a little czar. He makes and unmakes laws by his decisions. He interprets the word and spirit of our law. He often goes "hat in hand" to the bosses of the political machines and to Wall street, but the sacred words, written by Thomas Jefferson and others for the purpose of establishing a republic in this country, this judge interprets — and naturally — in such a manner as to destroy our republic and to give us an oligarchy. I marvel at our intrepid friends, Bryan, Taft, Gompers and Hearst, who bow down before their little oligarchs and hastily declare they never intended to make "any assault upon the courts." Heaven forbid thev should ever touch this beloved idol! These men quote piously the words of Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson — whose names, by the way, we would not now remember if they had not assaulted false idols. 18 THE CRISIS Well, the Socialists are assaulting the courts and shall con- tinue to assault the courts until their sacredness shall have de- parted from them, and they, like other political institutions, shall become subjected to "the will of the nation. " IX. The Russians have one czar ; the Americans have thousands. Every servile, corporation-loving, wealth-serving, trust-trained attorney in our country has the great and holy aspiration of taking an honored place among our autocrats. He has but to step from the office of some law-breaking iand predatory cor- poration into the high position of an American czar. The people even elect him at times, and the supposed repre- sentatives of the people appoint him to rule over its destinies. He is supreme. He may be as feeble-minded as one of the Georges, as licentious as one of the French kings ; but a word from him is enough to defy the will of eighty millions. There is an instrument which school children learn by heart. It declares in very beautiful words the forms of our governing institutions, but this judge-czar interprets these words as it pleases him, and he becomes the constitution. He can deny free speech, free assembly, the right to unite ; he can render invalid our laws; and a word from him is enough to render null the unanimous will of the entire people. Our democracy really means the substitution of several thousand autocrats for one. As one czar was intolerable to us, we decided to establish a host of czars. This is the proposition that every trade union, every workingman, every Socialist, every Democrat, every Re- publican is up against. THE CRISIS 19 It is a new form of oppression which exists in this country alone. The British parliament is the supreme power. There is no written constitution, and a law of parliament is considered final. The French parliament is but little less omnipotent. It is not intended that an ordinary statute should change the French constitution, but in case the members of the French chamber should decide to pass an unconstitutional law no court or official could legally prevent its being put into operation. In Italy they are determined that no judge shall interfere with the will of the people, and the courts are impotent to interfere with legislative decisions. In Germany the courts would never think of setting aside a statute passed by the Reichstag. In Austria the courts can question the validity of an ordinance, but they are specifically forbidden to inquire into the constitutionality of statutes. In Switzerland the legal tribunals must enforce without question the laws of the federal assembly. If the working people of Germany, Austria, France, Eng- land, Switzerland and other countries force a law through par- liament the law stands. The working people of America have no trouble in obtaining laws, as the legislators well know that when they have passed from their hands it is impossible for them to run the gauntlet of these thousands of little czars. We need an agitation in this country; not for universal suffrage, but for freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, free- dom to pass laws, freedom to have our votes counted, freedom to strike, freedom to unionize, freedom to work eight hours, freedom to live and act like men and to demand conditions tolerable to men. It is a big job, and it is a long fight, because we shall never have freedom in this country until we have shackled the power of these little autocrats and put them in their proper place as servants of the American people. 20 THE CRISIS X. Some time ago the New York Evening Post printed an edi- torial on "The Reign of Lawlessness." It was very much ap- proved of apparently by the readers of that paper. A gentleman who signs himself A. B. H. writes a letter to express his approval, and incidentally to say that "the basic trouble with the American people of to-day is that for the past five or six years all sorts of strange influences and ideas entirely foreign to our system of government have been forced upon them, which, without doubt, have impaired the reverence for the courts which in years past they enjoyed." Reverence for the courts ! What do you think of that ? The lack of reverence for the courts, he thinks, is due to strange foreign influences and ideas. These great fountains of justice ; these political institutions almost divine in their origin ; these holy places of the holy — what a sacrilege that they should be undermined by irreverence ! We must revere courts, not justice. We must revere the church; not Jesus. We must revere dogma; not truth. We must revere the constitution ; not liberty. We must revere Tim Sullivan and Hinky Dink; not Democracy. We must revere Cannon and Aldrich ; not Republicanism. We must revere pros- perity and poverty, wage-slavery and luxury — we must revere everything that is, and turn our faces from everything that ought to be. Reverence ! That is a big, big word. And reverence does not come of compulsion. Like every other great human senti- ment, like love and hate, it comes and goes of its own free will. Does any one think that strange foreign influences and ideas undermined the reverence for kings, undermined the reverence for feudalism, undermined the reverence for the czar, undermined the reverence for monarchy? The heart of man yearns for reverence. There is nothing in this wide world so needful to him. It is food and drink for THE CRISIS 21 his soul. Nothing but the rudest shock, nothing but the most violent betrayal, nothing but the vilest treachery undermines man's reverence. Ideas are about as ineffective against rever- ence as the lapping tide against the rock-ribbed shores of Con- necticut. It is lying and falsehood and rottenness and injustice that create irreverence. If there were justice in the courts do you think that ideas would turn the people from revering the courts ? Do you sup- pose if there were honesty and high purpose and noble behavior in our political life that the people would turn from it in dis- gust? Do you suppose if our present social order offered to mankind peace and comfort, fair dealing and decent livelihood, that ideas could make the people wish to destroy that social order ? Revere the courts? Did you ever see some shrewd, icy, intellectual lawyer rise to the top, teaching corporations how to evade the law, and how to do everything criminal without be- ing technically a criminal? Did you ever see these fox-like masters of the legal rules of the game advising and cautioning great corruptionists, wealthy malefactors, powerful trust mag- nates, how to break every law, and yet technically escape break- ing any law? And then have you seen these men taken to the capitals of our states or to Washington to be placed upon our supreme benches? They are our courts; men like ourselves, no different, no more to be revered ; men as likely to lie and steal and cheat ; men as subservient to the powerful and as merciless to the weak. Our courts are not divinities. They are not scientifically erected mechanism. They are simply human beings who rule. Revere the courts? Nonsense! "We will revere nothing short of justice. Every revolt against lawlessness is signaled as lawlessness. Every revolt against irreligion is signaled as irreligion. Every revolt against despotism is signaled as despotism. Every re- volt against falsehood is signaled a falsehood. 22 THE CRISIS But it has availed nothing in the past and will avail nothing in the future. Man's soul must have reverence. His inner life can no more exist without reverence than his body can exist without food and drink. But he will not revere false gods, nor injustice, nor untruth. He must have for his reverence that which is worthy of his reverence. And out of his own life and energy, out of his own revolt and passion, out of his own love and sacrifice and labor he will create that truth, that justice, that social order, to which his soul may turn — with reverence. XI. Samuel Gompers, you are the leader of two million men. That is a mighty body. They are the most capable and intelligent of the working class. They are well organized ; they receive the highest wages ; they have the best hours. They have won their enviable posi- tion through trade unionism. With this army you have fought the employers on the in- dustrial field. They have tried to crush you, and they have failed. They have found you too powerful and too well organ- ized for them to win a permanent victory. They are now, therefore, trying to crush you by legislation, by means of the courts — through their political power. Do you realize that the battle-field has changed? It is no longer an industrial struggle; it is a political struggle. Leaders of labor are no longer where they once were — at the head of a strike. You are in the lobbies of the legislatures, fighting political battles. THE CRISIS 23 But you have no power politically. You are not organized. You cannot honestly say that you can control a single vote except your own. You have an industrial army that knows how to fight on the industrial field. You have no political army, and you are in the position of fighting a political battle with no organized force behind you. The politicians of Washington laugh at you. Cannon and Littlefield and Aldrich ignore you. They know you are power- The employers are pretty shrewd people. They realize that you are a very powerful man in an industrial battle, and they have transferred their fighting to the political field. They have captured the courts and the legislatures. They are using every power they possess, industrially and politically, to de- stroy trade unionism. You are fighting them with one hand — the other is tied behind your back. Seriously, Samuel Gompers, is it possible that you hope for success ? XII. Sam Gompers once said to me that politics would destroy the unions. He said it earnestly and meant it honestly. It is true if he means the politics in which he is now en- gaged. It is true if he means the politics which helps a Repub- lican here and a Democrat there. But what about Socialist polities? What about Labor as a political unit? 24 THE CRISIS What about a party in opposition to all other parties ? When the American Federation of Labor was founded the unions in Germany were weak. They knew little of trade union organization, but they already had a powerful political party. Today they have one of the most powerful political parties in the world. They have also the most powerful trade union movement in the world. The American Federation of Labor has about 2,000,000 members in a population of 80,000,000. The German organization has 2,300,000 members in a pop- ulation of 60,000,000. Since the Socialist Party in Italy was started the unions have grown more and more powerful. In addition to the in- dustrial workers, there are 200,000 peasants in the trade unions. The Socialist Party in Belgium is now building up a per- fect trade union movement. Since the British Labor Party was formed trade unionism has taken on a new lease of life. At the last trade union con- gress there were 70 delegates more than ever before, represent- ing 200,000 more unionists than ever before. There were also 34 members of parliament, 26 justices of the peace, and numer- ous aldermen and municipal councillors. Socialist activity does not decrease the interest in unionism. It infuses into the whole working-class movement enthusiasm, hope, confidence and militancy. The labor movement of America is stagnant, on the de- fensive. It is trying to save its old rights ; not to win new rights. That means death. Unless the whole labor world is infused with the new progressive spirit, determined to fight for the com- plete emancipation of labor, even the trade union movement will fall into decay. It is time for big men, big policies and progressive ideas, for Labor is today disheartened, and its steps weak and falter- ing. THE CRISIS 25 XIII. "Reward your friends and punish your enemies." That is Gompers' last word. It sounds well. It appears wise. And it looks practical. Certainly no man would be foolish enough to disagree with that advice. Would any man suggest that Labor should reward its ene- mies and punish its friends ? By all means reward your friends. Stand by them through thick and thin. But having said that we are no further forward. It is a general tactic as difficult to render practical as the command "Love your brother as yourself. " We must first find our friends. Who are they? Where shall we seek them so that we may bring them our reward? This is the practical question. Governor Hughes of New York wanted last year to pass an anti-gambling bill. He found many in his own party at odds with him. Some were his enemies; and he sought to punish his enemies. But his enemies were not alone in his own party; there were quite as many in the other party. He thought at one time that he would try to prevent the reelection of some of the enemies in his own party, but he discovered very shortly that he was only aiding his enemies in the other party. He was in the position of a man who had few if any friends to reward, and so many enemies that he could not punish one without profiting another. After a short campaign he quit that method of trying to reward his friends and punish his enemies. He found there was nothing to be gained by defeating his Republican enemies and electing his Democratic enemies. Abraham Lincoln once saw a slave sold at the block. He knelt there and then and made a vow that if it were ever within his power that thing would cease in the United States. He was in politics, and he wanted to reward the friends of the negro and to punish their enemies. 26 THE CRISIS But there were almost as many enemies of the negro in the Whig party as there were in the Democratic party. To vote for either party meant to reward not the friends but the enemies of the negro. Abe was honest, and he declared for the establishment of a party Wherein there should be only the friends of the negro. He did not want to make a mistake ; he did not want to punish friends and reward enemies, so he got all the enemies in front of him and all the friends back of him. There was then a clear-cut fight between the friends of the negro and the enemies of the negro. He who voted for the new party could do no other than reward friends and punish ene- mies. Now, Who are the friends of Labor? If Labor's friends were in the Democratic party, Labor would have no problem to solve in the states controlled by the Democratic party. The states of the South, the states of the North, the cities, towns and hamlets controlled by the followers of Bryan would be Model Labor Communities. If Labor's enemies were only in the Republican party the condition of Labor in the Republican states, cities and hamlets would present a frightful warning to Labor. Why, then, do we find in the Democratic South the con- dition of Labor about the most deplorable in the world ? No; the record of both parties shows that the enemies of Labor pretty well dominate both parties. The voter, then, who accepts Mr. Gompers' advice will hardly be able to vote for either the Republican or the Demo- cratic party. Well, then, who are Labor's friends? They are those who want tolerable conditions to work in ; who want wages increased and hours lessened; who want to abolish unemployment, misery and want. They are the comrades in this and all other lands. They are those who fight the same battle that you fight ; who strug- gle as you struggle for a righteous share of the earth's plenty. THE CRISIS 27 They are your union brothers and your Socialist brothers. Let any man who labors go into the lobby of Congress or into the halls of any legislature in this country. And then let him go to any union or Socialist meeting. Does anyone doubt where the friends are to be found? Reward your friends, yes ; punish your enemies, yes. But first of all find your friends. XIV. You know the story of the Golden Fleece — the old Greek tale, limpid, picturesque and beautiful, describing the struggle for wealth. Jason, at the head of his heroes, was an ancient plutocrat. He fought giants, great bulls — breathing fire from their nos- trils — and monstrous dragons. Once at midnight he found it necessary to fight alone a field of warriors, sprung from ground sown with dragons ' teeth. They were flourishing their weapons, clashing their swords, and boiling over with red-hot thirst for battle. Show us the enemy !" they shouted. "Lead to the charge! Death or victory ! Onward, comrades!" Fire flashed from their enraged eyes, and mighty shouts arose from the whole field: "Guard the Golden Fleece!" Jason, with his single sword, paled at the sight of this on- rushing army. He took up a stone and cast it into the faces of the charging warriors. It struck the helmet of a tall war- rior, glanced to the helmet of a comrade, and finally landed between the eyes of a third. Each of the men thought his neighbor had struck him. 28 THE CRISIS They began to fight among themselves. Confusion spread, and in a moment they were hacking, hewing and stabbing at one another, lopping off arms, legs and heads. In a brief moment the whole army lay upon the field, slaughtered by each other. The last, the bravest and strongest of them, had just force enough before dying to wave his crimson sword above his head and to shout: "Victory! Vic- tory !" Unhindered, Jason went forward to take the Golden Fleece. How simply, dramatically, and poetically, these old Greeks tell the story of how "great men" overcome the workers. How truly it pictures the struggle of today. A few newspaper stories sent from Wall Street might be enough to set the American and Japanese workmen at each other's throats. A few newspaper lies from Lombard Street might be enough to set English workmen hacking and hewing and de- stroying German workmen. Like Jason 's stone is a word from Roosevelt, Bryan, Hearst, Belmont, Ryan, Morgan. Nothing is too little to start the workers fighting among themselves. The slightest triviality divides them and they turn upon each other to slaughter without mercy. It was so in Greece, in Rome, in the Middle Ages ; it was so in the French Revolution ; it was so through nearly all of last century. In 1847 Karl Marx issued a mighty call to the hosts of Labor, "Proletarians of the world, unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains. You have the world to gain." Since then millions have joined together in trade unions and co-oper- atives ; millions now vote together politically. The workers of America, alone, remain divided, in politics, shouting: "Guard the Golden Fleece!" and at the same time, as democrats, republicans and Hearstites, lopping off each other's arms and legs and heads. THE CRISIS 29 XV. Bryan and Roosevelt and Hearst cannot help us; where shall we turn? In the last twenty-five years the masses have asked prac- tically the same question in every country of the world. There is only one answer. Turn back to yourselves. If the people cannot run a democratic party they cannot run a democratic government. If they cannot conduct a political organization without the help of some one powerful individual, then democracy is a failure. The working men of Western Europe are finding democ- racy a success. They have their own parties, separate and distinct from all other organizations. They have stopped looking to others for help, and have settled down to hard labor themselves. Germany today has a Socialist party that obtains three million votes, and over 500,000 men control that party. It is the same in France, Italy, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Finland ; wherever one goes. If the working men of Europe are big enough to own and control their own political organization, what about the work- ing men of America? Let Labor stop expecting help from outside. If it wants to achieve social reform, improvement in labor conditions, the abolition of capitalism, the destruction of pred- atory wealth ; if it wants to curb the trusts, let it join its own organization. Let every ward and precinct of this country have its group of working men. Let them go to the polls as one man. And let them see that the corporations and their attorneys and their vote-catching good citizens, and their silver-tongued 30 THE CRISIS orators, are kept carefully and securely out of the organization. The fight in this country is between the people and the men behind Mr. Bryan and Mr. Roosevelt. It is not between the men behind Mr. Roosevelt and the men behind Mr. Bryan. Those behind Bryan, and those behind Roosevelt, are strug- gling for a division of the spoils. It is Labor, divided and helpless, that is being despoiled. XVI. Let me recall to the minds of trade unionists a picture of the days before trade unionism was. The workers were very miserable. When their condition became intolerable they selected a comrade to go to the em- ployer to beg for better conditions. The embryo trade union leader told the employer about the misery of the men, and that poverty would drive them to revolt. He threatened the employer that the men might unite ; might even strike. But they did not unite ; and they did not strike. And the employers grew more arrogant and oppressive. At last in desperation the working men did unite and did strike. Not until then did the employers begin to make terms. It is a matter of history what untold value the industrial strike has been to the workers. The employers only control the government. A few labor leaders go to them and tell them the misery of the people; and tell them that the workers might unite politi- cally and strike at the ballot box. But the workers do not unite, and they do not strike. The THE CRISIS 31 employers, the courts, the legislators, grow more arrogant and oppressive. The trade unionist who knows history will tell you that begging never won anything for labor. It failed on the industrial field. It will fail on the political field. Labor begins even now to realize it. When they realize it fully we shall have a Socialist party that will make even the movements of Europe look small. We are on the eve of great developments. We need polit- ical leadership. We need the leadership that brought into ex- istence over half a century ago the independent class action of trade unionism, and that gave birth to the industrial strike. We need this leadership now to unite the entire hosts of labor into one great political union that shall give birth to the political strike. xvn. A wise old philosopher, Ben Franklin, said: "If you want a thing done, do it yourself.' ' There are a good many jobs at the present moment that Labor wants done. There are a good many politicians — Bryan, Hearst, Roose- velt, and others — who say they will do them. They do not know what Labor wants, and they could not obtain it for Labor if they did. Labor alone knows what it wants, and united Labor alone can get what it wants. In Europe it is now getting something of what it wants. The workers there have little education; they have been op- 32 THE CRISIS pressed. One rarely finds a workman who has not gone into the factories, mills, or mines before the age of ten years. And yet there is not a parliament in Europe that does not have from one to a hundred representatives of Labor seeing that what it wants done is done. American Labor has universal suffrage. It has in its hand the greatest weapon of modern times. But it does not know how to use it. The workers of Europe long since stopped sending their employers to represent them. They would about as soon think of electing an employer as the president of their union, or his attorney as their secretary. They know what they want. They are determined to get what they want. And they are going to get it themselves. We know that in this country Labor can form a union. If it can stand together and starve at the time of a strike, it can stand together and vote at the time of an election. But this means work, conscience, will power, independ- ence and united action. Above all, it means that if Labor wants a thing done it must do it itself. ^ OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SAUFOW& 4 A To secure to each laborer the whole product of his labor, or as nearl/ as possible, is a worthy object of any good government. ABRAHAM LINCOLN. The most notable feature of a disturbance in your city last summer was the hanging of some working people by other working people. It should never be so. The strongest bond of human sympathy, outside of the family relation, should be one uniting all working people, of all nations, and tongues, and kindreds. (Letter to the Workingmen's Association of New York, 1864.) ABRAHAM LINCOLN. Be careful above all, in all your deliberations and resolutions, to maintain among the different factions of the party and among the more or less extreme or moderate tendencies the closest possible union, and to prevent all that can constitute even a suspicion of division. Naturally this implies that it is necessary to commence by forgetting the divisions that have existed in the past. To divide you in order the better to oppress you, such is the tactic of your enemies. Flee from divisions; avoid them; crush them in the egg; such ought to be your tactic, and to that end may your program remain the broadest possible, and your title remain general enough to shelter all who, in the Belgian proletariat, wish to work for the emancipation, intellectual and material, political and economic, of the mass of the disinherited. CESAR DE PAEPE. Father of the Belgian Labor Party. Labor speakers and Socialist speakers denounce the Republican party, denounce the Democratic party, denounce the church, denounce the press, denounce this, that and the other as being the cause of the suffering and the poverty that is encountered in the working-class ranks. That's an evasion of the real cause, my comrades. The real trouble is not the church, nor the press, nor the Republican party, nor the Democratic party. We've got to find the trouble nearer home, in our own ranks. It is the want of unity within our own ranks that makes oppression possible, and nothing else. J. KEIR HARDIE. Father of the British Labor Party. Workingmen of the world, unite. You have only your chains to lose. You have the world to gaki. KARL MARX, Father of Modern Socialism. NOT GUILTY: A defense of the Bottom Dog. By ROBERT BLATCHFORD. Author oj "God and My Neighbor", "Britain for the British", "Merrie England", etc., etc. 261 pages, cloth binding, $1.00 postpaid. THE NEW ETHICS A BOOK TO SWEEP THE MENTAL COBWEBS AWAY. By J. HOWARD MOORE. Instructor in Zoology. Crane Manual Training High School, Chicago 111. Author of "The Univereal Kinship", "Better World Philos- >>py", "The Whole World Kin", etc. 216 pages, cloth binding, $1.00 postpaid. Economics of Socialism The clearest and most concise exposition of the Marxian Philosophy ever published. By H. M. HYNDMAN. Author of "Commercial Crises >f the Nineteenth Century", "The Historked Basis of SocieUism", "Socialism and Slavery", *tc, dr. 253 pages, cloth binding, $1.00 postpaid. SAMUEL A. BLOCH THE BOOKMAN 681 N. Oakley Ave. CHICAGO, ILL.