from punishment, weak in intellect, and still weaker in morals, but with great powers for evil, send their thunderbolts of despotism into the ranks of labor exclusively. Let the startling doctrine that the privileges of doing business is property, become firmly established, and you will find the man on the next block enjoined from sending agents around instructed to claim that his bacon and flour or baking powder is better than the complainant's.

On the same bad precedents they will be forced to suppress by injunction all such advertisements as one I saw in a yesterday's newspaper, in which a merchant claimed that he had better silk skirts for the same money than any of his competitors. And why not? If the statement in the advertisement be true, of course, the injunction would have to be dissolved; but meantime it might ruin the party enjoined. It would be easy for some other merchant to allege in an affidavit that it was false, that in fact he had just as good silk skirts for the money, and that the advertisement had the effect of irreparably injuring his business. In any event the chancellor would have to try. without a jury, the question of relative qualities of the goods. He would be the supreme arbiter over commerce, an intruder into every man's business. He would destroy not only legitimate enterprise, but the freedom of speech, and of the press. The framers of the Constitution, according to all interpretations, took care that bounds should be set to equitable jurisdiction. It has universally been held that the equitable powers are those, and those only, that were possessed by the English judges at the time the colonies separated. But these judges single out a class in the community and extend arbitrary power over that class exclusively.

Rome changed from a Republic to an Empire by abuse on the part of the tribunes of power to enjoin. First, they used it to forbid, next to command; then came the Emperor. The next use of the power here may be to forbid competition. The doctrine that a right to do business is property is dangerous. Such power, like all unusual and inordinate power, will be abused. The Romans, unable to return to former conditions, because the Roman employers' associations opposed and exerted undue influence in the Senate, cried out ave imperator. Then arose Carl the Great, first Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire of the middle ages. Thus extension and usurpation of the power to enjoin ripened into the undisputed power of one man to legislate, adjudicate, and execute.

In Boyd . United States, 116 U. S., 659, Mr. Justice Bradley in delivering the opinion said:

"It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments theron." I deem these words from our highest court very appropriate upon the present occasion. No less appropriate were the following words of Justice Harlan in Robertson . Baldwin, 165 U. S., 275:

66

In considering this case it is our duty to look at the consequences of any decision that may be rendered. We can not avoid this duty by saying that it will be time enough to consider supposed cases when they arise. When such supposed cases do arise, those who seek judicial support for extraordinary remedies that encroach upon the liberty of free men will, of course, refer to the principles announced in previous adjudications and demand their application to the particular case in hand.”

OPPOSITION VIEWS OF MISSION OF ORGANIZED LABOR

"Labor organizations should be encouraged, within proper limits," says Mr. Drew. That is exactly what Judge Grosscup said in 1894, and next day issued an injunction which left the men only the liberty to breathe. These publicists and patriots are endeavoring to fix the limits.

Why all this about the misdeeds of workingmen? Why is it any more material than volumes I might have said, but have not, against employers?

We are told about men being killed and hurt in various places during strikes. I call your attention to the fact, which would be borne out by the files of the daily press if anyone should take the trouble to make the comparison, that there have been fewer acts of personal violence in any city or town in the United States during general strikes than during any other equal period. And I state also, and I know it will stand the test of proof, that of all acts of violence occurring during strikes but one in a thousand can be justly attributed to strikers. Why, you may ask, is there a decrease of homicides and assaults during strikes? I'll tell you. When a strike is ordered by a union, every member is put on his good behavior-made a committee of one on peace and order and a large committee is appointed, called a strike committee, whose business and duty it is, under specific orders, to assist the official authorities in maintaining order.

A gentleman comes here and tells that, at some prior date, a crime was committed at New York, Omaha, or Saginaw. I answer that that is immaterial. But, he says, the man who committed it was on a strike. I say " deplorable, shocking, but still totally irrelevant to the present purpose. Then, he says, "Oh, but it was the doings of union strikers." And, if he is a representative here of one of these antiunion associations, and I were to ask him how much attention he would have paid to it if it had been a plain ordinary, every-day, oldfashioned murder, he would be bound to answer that he would have given it but little thought. And that is just the way. Whatever arguments they may advance here, the sole secret of their opposition to this legislation is their illy-concealed hostility to the unions, because they are unions.

Suppose in the same city there are fifty druggists selling impure drugs, forty saloon keepers, some violating the city ordinances, and all selling adulterated wines and liquors contrary to the criminal statute, and perchance a man threatening to kill another. Do you think our eloquent advocate of law, order, and morality will ever dream of suing out an injunction to stop the sowing of the seeds of death by this promiscuous sale of poison, or to stay the hand of violence? No; he will not even do what he might lawfully do. He will not go to a magistrate and swear out a warrant for these saloon keepers and druggists, and the chances are that he will not go and tell the man whose life is threatened of his danger. He will leave all this to the district attorney and the police.

He may not even give these peace officers his information, on account of his reluctance to become personally involved, but he has patriotically (?) joined one of these employers', or citizens', or antiboycott clubs. And, by the way, why is it that the men who have person

ally suffered loss from strikes and boycotts and violence exerted by union men against other workmen do not appear before this committee and testify? In all these hearings there has not been before you one of that class who had anything to tell of his own knowledge. They are all mouthpieces with secondhand information and evil inspiration.

Now, none of these matters are, strictly speaking, relevant on this occasion. The legislation sought has reference to what men may or may not do when a dispute has already terminated, and not to the cause of such disputes. Men may do things hurtful to the interests of others for a variety of reasons. The motive for the act has very little to do with the exercise of jurisdiction in civil cases.

If one is about to chop down another's shade tree, believing he has title and a perfect right, thus rendering his motives entirely innocent, the real owner has a right to have him enjoined, notwithstanding his innocent intentions. On the other hand, if strikers are doing certain things, and an application is made to enjoin them, the character of the grievance that is to say, their reason for going on a strike, whether for shorter hours, better wages, or a closed shop-should not be given the slightest consideration by the court. Sole consideration would have to be given to what they were threatening or about to do, and to its effect upon property rights. Therefore I say it is an imposition upon the committee to drag in the matters of difference between unionists and their opposers.

Just consider this test of relevancy a moment and you will see that it is a fair one. Then carry it in your mind and apply it to the records made at the present session and at prior sessions, and you will see that about 90 per cent of the speeches by the opposition pertain to matters foreign to the real issue. Now we might imagine one of you gentlemen to be hostile to the aims and aspirations of organized labor, and to consider all its demands upon employers unreasonable; and yet such member might very consistently support this bill because it only relates to matters which have no essential connection with such aims and aspirations, or with the question of reasonableness, or unreasonableness of labor's demands, in the battles of trade.

Just to show you the utter fanaticism and blindness of those who come here to influence you with tirades against this bill, which tirades almost invariably turn out to be attacks upon unionism as such, and not because of actual knowledge, I call your attention to a few words in the record at the Fifty-eighth Congress, from the mouth of Mr. F. W. Job, of Chicago, who says he represents the Chicago Employers' Association and other antiunion clubs. He makes what he considers the startling statement that, "In the case of murders, we have credited up to the cause of organized labor--in the name of organized labor-four in the year of 1903.” And in the same address, on page 86, of the hearings at the Fifty-eighth session, he claims that in that year in the same year 1903-there were 1,464 labor disturbances, all of which but perhaps 150 were strikes. Just think of it.

All these strikes and disturbances and only four so-called murders that this zealous antiunion association could accuse the labor organization of being responsible for. Now, out of the 2,000,000 inhabitants of Chicago, perhaps 100,000 men belong to the unions, and there

are probably as many more working people who, though not in the unions, are in sympathy with them. And yet they were so well behaved, so orderly and law abiding, that even their enemies were able to attribute to them only four of what this Swift accuser calls "murders"-only four homicides. He was not bothering with other things for instance, the other 361 violent deaths occurring in Chicago during that year.

What conclusion can we draw from this? The conclusion is inevitable, that owing to the vigilance of the labor organizations and strike committees there is less violence during a strike, or an epidemic of strikes, than at any other time. Now, while speaking of Mr. Job's statement, let us see about his backing. He says the Employers' Association contains 2,000 members. And like the Saginaw man, Mr. Drew, they are lawyers, doctors, clerks, and perhaps a few nonunion men. And he also says the strikes have inflicted loss upon and inconvenienced the entire population. No doubt that is true. But if the prevailing sentiment among employers was against labor, there should be more than 2,000 in his association, after such a turbulent year, I should think, counting lawyers, doctors, and everybody eligible. There are not less than 40,000 employers of labor in Chicago. And, yet counting the doctors, lawyers, bootblacks. etc., they have a membership of just 2.000.

But I feel that I would be remiss in the performance of duty if I did not give special attention to the conflict now waged in New York between the Typothetæ and the Typographical Union, represented here by the former's attorney, Mr. Beatty. I have with me the wage scale as presented to me by Mr. Frank Morrison, secretary of the American Federation of Labor, now in force in that city, and it reads as follows:

NEW YORK SCALE FOR BOOK AND JOB OFFICES, MARCH, 1905.

Compositors.-Book and job scale: Hand composition, 44 to 50 cents per thousand; per week, $21.

Proof readers, per week, $21.

Floor men and ad men, per week, $21.

Machine printers, per week, $21.30.

You can scarcely realize the inadequacy of such wages if you have not lived in New York. Of the educational qualifications required of the employees I can not speak in detail, but they are very high. In short, each must be a man above the average in literary attainments. The most talented writers always expect the proof sheets to come back with a lot of query marks on the margin calling attention to rhetorical lapses, to say nothing of the absolute correctness required in the matter of orthography and punctuation.

Well, of 7.000 of these 700 are on strike for an eight-hour day. It seems that the Typothetæ have yielded to nine-tenths of the strikers. But they have a legal and a detective force on the heels of the 700. Nevertheless the other 6,300 are lending aid to the 700.

But with the lawyers and detectives and bullies always hired to insult and pick quarrels with strikers and afterwards to appear as witnesses against them, there have been eight convictions for assault. The attorney for the typothetæ got an injunction, and flaunted it

here proudly and exultantly. The poor, weak, unfair judge who issued it was no doubt made to believe that the mere business of the complainant was property. But that was not enough to warrant the issuance of an injunction. To complete the fabricated basis for the infamous outrage which he perpetrated upon these poorly paid and overworked men, who are among the best citizens of New York, notwithstanding their poverty, he had to hold that the capitalist has a property interest in the unemployed in what he would term the labor market."

But owing to the brazen zeal and blind partizanship of the typothetæ and their legal representatives, the rapacity, unfairness, and overreaching greed of the typothetæ was made to appear in a very strong light. He thought he had advanced a very telling argument when he said it was necessary to enforce a nine-hour day, which really means lower wages than an eight-hour day, in order to capture and hold in New York the book and job printing of the United States.

And thus they are trying to destroy the publishing business in every other city. Another evil purpose of the trust is to mass the best compositors into New York, where they will be forced to compete with each other and be enslaved in wages and hours of work, and otherwise subjected to maltreatment.

THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

Outside the parties immediately interested in these labor disputes stand the great trading public and the professional class. Much has been said by the constitutional and corporation lawyers who are opposing us about this great public interest which they have in some instances assumed to represent. Let me take the legal profession as fairly representative of these classes. There are about 150.000 men in the nation who earn a living, and some much more, as practicing lawyers. Whence come their fees? Of course the larger rewards come from corporations, but comparatively few of these corporations are large employers of labor. They are banks and incorporated mercantile concerns. Their clients consist principally of merchants, mercantile corporations, and farmers, the bulk of whose patrons are wage-earners, in which class I include those drawing salaries. Of course there is considerable business done between these nonlabor classes.

For instance, these 150,000 lawyers pay to merchants many millions of dollars. But there are at least 10,000,000 wage-earners who earn an average of at least one-half as much as the average lawyers. Counting the large percentage of lawyers who receive a bare living, I think $1,500 a year is a liberal estimate. The wage-earners, counting those on salaries, each receive an average of about half that sum. Then, supposing it is all used, tradesmen, shopkeepers, and others get from lawyers $225,000,000 each year. How much do lawyers' clients get from labor? They get $7.500.000,000, or over 33 times as much as from lawyers. Now, where are lawyers affected by the question of low wages or high wages? One hundred dollars increase enriches that class to whom lawyers must look for fees to the same extent, besides raising the standard of citizenship, and inspiring hope, good cheer, and comfort where there now exists a slackening of public spirit, discontent, and, in many instances, hopelessness.