Indianapolis Central Labor Union.

BY D. F. KENNEDY.

The system and methods employed by modern trade unions are simple and clearly defined, and thoroughly understood by those who study and plan earnestly for labor's good, but the great mass of workingmen, both in and out of unions, are utterly ignorant of the means through which the most effective work is accomplished.

Most members of unions think the payment of dues, answering roll call once or twice a month, and coming out on strike when ordered, constitutes all there is of unionism. These are very essential, but every student of the labor union movement knows that success lies in diplomacy and the wise use of the established machinery. In warfare, the planning of a battle is as necessary as good fighting; an orderly retreat is as essential as a gallant charge. England gets concessions from the nations of the earth, not through the use of her great navy and army, but because of the fact that they are there and will be used if needed. These guns that are never fired open the doors to England's diplomats, and they do the work.

The history of the modern trade union clearly shows that it has succeeded most where it has planned best. The aim should be to have unions appear at their best to the outside world. The more formidable they appear, the more chance there will be for labor's diplomatic service. In order to present a commanding front the following elements are required: First, the appearance of a loyal membership. Second, an earnest desire to deal fairly with everybody. Third, an honest, earnest and fearless leadership that will apply intelligent business sense to every department of the machinery; a leadership that will not use its influence for selfish or political ends; and finally, a practical affiliation though which the concentrated wisdom and energy of the various locals may be made effective along given lines. Under the old trade union system little bands of workingmen exerted their energy along the lines of the most narrow selfishness, but the aggregation of industry brought about by the machinery and force of this new world has brought those small bands of organized workingmen so close together that they must have some central points of contact. These are found in the American Federation of Labor, the State Federation and Central Labor unions of the various industrial centers. Central bodies are indispensable. Hence, I take it that a study of central labor union methods and practices is of vital interest. A review of the Indianapolis central body may serve as an illustration-it having gone through a varied experience. It is one of the best organized cities of this country, there having been over 25 per cent. of the voting population in unions previous to the present panic. A review of its successes and failures, its elements of strength and weakness, may serve a good purpose in enabling the readers of the FEDERATIONIST to practice its virtues and shun its defects. The writer is convinced, from an extended observation of the work of central bodies, that much of the weakness of organized labor in many cities comes through the unwise

use of the central labor union machinery. All local central bodies are exposed to dangerous abuses, such as the office-seeker and place-hunter, while the partisan who is always waiting for some advantage for his party is an ever-present menace. Then there is the business man or employer who wants to use the central body to advertise his business; there are men who seek prominent positions in the body with the view to personal gain; there is danger of rash actions and indorsements of ill-advised boycotts placed by local unions. The Indianapolis Central Labor union was organized in 1880, gathering into its folds the new trade unions that were rapidly springing into existence, and taking the place of the Knights of Labor, who were waning through inherent weakness and political domination. For a time the K. of L. and the Central Labor union worked in harmony, but the clash came when the K. of L. adopted the white cigar label, and from that date the Central Labor union was a strict union organization. The central body inherited some of the political features of the K. of L., and it soon became a bucket shop for politicians. At this time the ranks of labor were full of political hucksters. It was soon discovered that the usefulness of the Central Labor union was much impaired as a result. The constitution was amended in such a way as to exclude members who held office, whether elective or appointive, or who were candidates for election, and prohibited the indorsement of candidates or parties. This had the desired effect, and is still the rule. The indiscriminate indorsement of strikes and boycotts was found to be damaging, and a rule was adopted requiring an investigation by a central union committee before action could be had by the central body.

The growth of unions then became phenomenal. In 1892 there were eighty-three bona fide local unions, with a total membership of 11,000, in the city, twothirds of which were represented in the central body, those not represented being principally railway men.

The doors have been open to the press reporters ever since, with the exception of a short time. The press being eager for reports, and the fact that reporters were admitted, inspired confidence among the people generally, and was of much benefit. When a boycott was passed the public was informed the next morning, and it immediately began to do its work. The merchants were fearful of the boycott in those days, several stubborn firms having been broken up through its use. As a result no boycott was recognized without the indorsement of the Central Labor union, and with its sanction it became a powerful weapon.

Among the victories won through the efforts of the Indianapolis central body, was that of unionizing the daily press, the fight being especially long and bitter with the Morning Journal; it unionized the job shops at the same time. The stone cutters were rescued by the central body after a sixteen months' strike; the cigar industry was thoroughly unionized; the eight-hour work-day movement was pushed with energy, thirteen trades obtaining the shorter work-day,

and the city government and state institutions were forced to adopt it. The early closing of stores was also accomplished through the efforts of the Central Labor union, and all of these reforms remain intact up to the present time.

The central body is now engaged in a warm contest with the United States Baking Trust. The industrial depression has somewhat diminished the influence and membership of the body, but with the return of prosperity its influence will expand and make it even more powerful in the future than it has been in the past. The basis for representation is two delegates for an organization of 50 or less, and an additional delegate for each 50 additional members. One of the defects of the Indianapolis Central union is that of giving too large a representation to large unions, especially trades that have more than one local union in the city. Under this rule one trade had 35 delegates, while seventeen other trades, more thoroughly organized than the large trade, had but 34 delegates. This makes possible a dangerous abuse and domination.

The trade referred to at one time furnished four of the leading officers of the central body, which necessarily caused unfavorable comment. The Indianapo lis central body has never dictated any action or as sumed any power over local unions. It has had noth ing to do with political questions except where labor was vitally interested locally, and even then it refrained from participating in questions upon which the political parties were divided. It opposes grants of long term franchises, and favors cheaper street car fares. This happened to hurt a political party locally, and the cry was raised by the politicians that there was politics in the central union, but the charge was utterly without foundation, and it is but fair to say that labor unions in Indianapolis to-day are less dominated by politics than ever before.

That the strong points of central bodies may be brought out through a discussion in the FEDERATIONIST, is the hope of the writer. The American Federation of Labor holds the same relation to the various national unions that the central body does to the local unions of a city, and the study of how best to adjust the machinery that it may work in harmony with the least friction, is the vital question for unions to consider.

The Business Man and the Labor Question.

BY J. H. SPRINGER.

As a rule merchants, and business men in general, look upon the labor question as something that does not concern them. They do not see any connection between what is called "hard times" and the labor question. The reason for this is probably because business men generally give their entire time and attention to their business, and, with the exception of a hurried glance through the daily papers, do very little reading. Hard times come and their paper tells them that the hard times are caused by a high tariff or a low tariff, the resumption of specie payment or

the repeal of such a law, lack of confidence or overproduction. The business man, not having time to devote to the study of political economy, accepts the opinion of his daily paper and throws his influence in the direction advised by such paper, confident that when the present administration is retired and a new one seated that golden times will again appear. This condition of things would not be so bad if our daily papers were reliable, but this can not be so, since we see one-half of the papers on one side and one-half on the other; one or the other must be wrong, and possibly both, but it is not possible for both to be right while pulling in opposite directions. What is to the interest of one business man engaged in legitimate business is to the interest of all such business men, and it is of the utmost importance to the commercial world that all business men unite in an honest effort to discover the cause of industrial depressions. That the so-called labor question is one which should interest business men is apparent when we understand that. four-fifths of our population are dependent upon wages. This comprises the great body of our consumers, the market upon which our business men depend. If the consuming power of this great body is diminished, in the same ratio is the demand for what the business man has to sell decreased. A decrease in the demand for products tends to glut the market, and the cry of over-production is heard in the land. The result is, manufacturers and merchants decrease their labor force, and a new army of non-consumers is thrown upon the world. This tends to again overstock the market, and again causes a decrease in production, and although prices may be maintained, a decrease in profits follows, caused by a decrease in the volume of business. And while we hear men talk of over-production, we hear of destitution and suffering among thousands who are in want of the very things that have overstocked the market. It is apparent to any one who will but glance beneath the surface, that it is not over-production, but under-consumption. What is it that reduces the consuming power of the working people? Is it not the denial of an opportunity to produce. Is there not an obstruction that stands between labor and opportunities to labor, and if so what is this obstruction? A certain class tell us that it is caused by a contraction of the currency, but we look around us and we see the same condition of things where money is plenty as well as where money is scarce; where tariffs are high and where tariffs are low; where there is a gold standard and where there is a silver standard; where labor is organized and where labor is unorganized. Evidently beneath it all there must be a common cause. Some assert that it is because of a lack of confidence that capital will not invest in productive enterprise, but this comes from the theory that capital employs labor. If capital is an essential factor in the production of wealth, how was the first capital produced? If we will trace any product back to the raw material, we will find that in the first analysis there are but two factors in the production of wealth-labor and land. If access to land (raw material) is denied to

It

I

labor, production is in that degree checked, and labor is in the same degree denied opportunity to produce, and the consuming power of labor is decreased. is true that labor has access to land, but only by paying tribute for the privilege to some one who owns the land. This tribute is a tax upon labor, and this tax decreases in proportion the producing power of labor. Capital (stored-up labor) is in the same way denied free access to the land, and the producing power of capital is decreased. Thus we find that the interest of capital and labor (the creator of capital) is identical, and we have discovered one common enemy-the monopoly of land. I do not say that there are not other causes which in a degree restrict production, but it seems from a careful analysis that the basic evil is land monopoly, that on this monopoly rests all other monopolies. And it is monopoly that is sapping the life out of legitimate business and absorbing the wages of the workingman. The labor question and the business question, and in fact the social question, resolves itself into this: How can we destroy land monopoly and give labor and capital free access to the land? do not mean by this that land should be literally free, but as free to one as to another. I can conceive of no condition or system of government under which the occupancy and use" title would be the only title to land. A title to land conveys the power of excluding all others from the land, and the land should be as free to one as to all, or as free to all as to one, and if the community grant one the exclusive privilege to use a certain piece of land, the value of such privilege should be paid to the community. Land values are not created by any particular individual, but by the people as a whole, and in appropriating the rental value of land the people would only be appropriating their own property for their own The only practical way offered to accomplish this result is by gradually abolishing all taxes on the products of labor and placing them on the value of land. This would not only result in freeing production, but it is the only system of taxation ever proposed that will not place a fine upon industry and honesty, and reward indolence and dishonesty. A personal property tax and an income tax is evaded. Although in Indiana we have the most inquisitorial tax law that was ever written, we find that on the lowest estimate 40 per cent. of our personal property is not taxed. A tax upon incomes, if practical, would not reach the one for whom it is intended, but would be shifted by the one who enjoys the income to those who contribute to his income. A tax on the products of labor is shifted by the manufacturer to the merchant, and by the merchant to the consumer. Our present system of taxation exempts the few (those who have the most) and burdens the many (those who have the least), while a tax on land values would be a tax, not upon what we have or what we consume, but upon our opportunities-a price paid to the community by the individual for a special All then would have equal opportunities. privilege. Capital and labor would join hands. Production and consumption would continue like an endless chain, and industrial depressions would be known only as a part of past history.

use.

Why Abolish the Senate?
BY R. J. BURNS.

Under the above heading J. W. Sullivan contributed an interesting article to the January number of THE FEDERATIONIST.

The subject is a live and growing one, which, together with many others, can not be much longer suppressed or neglected, and whatever is said thereon is certain to add to the stock of information so necessary to the general welfare; nor could a better selection have been made than your publication to reach the masses upon whom this republic rests, and through whom alone changes can be effected.

While the abolishment of the senate is perhaps not an entirely new thought, yet Mr. Sullivan's treatment of the subject, as viewed from the crest of the Rocky Mountains, is at least novel; for through the whole article courses a vein of provincialism unknown midway between the oceans, except as gathered from the literature of New England village life. But the hope is much consoling that, some day, Mr. Sullivan may get lost and wander at least five miles from home before he is found, and upon his return he will startle the natives by exclaiming "This world is a whopper, and more difficult to manage than a town meetin'."

There is little of anything to endorse in the statement "the senate ought to be abolished, because it is not of a piece with a government of and by the people," and "because of its sins."

It certainly was intended to be and once was of a piece with such a government. The letter of the law still denominates it as such; if the spirit of that law is violated there are certainly more guilty ones than the The eighty-eight senators who are accused of sin. eighty-eight senators are only "scapegoats," while the real sinners are the people, who, yielding to various temptations, send weaklings where sin may be committed. Reform, like charity, should begin at home; it will never reach the senate, though the western states be ever so thoroughly cleaned with New England soap, until the doorsteps of the New England states have been dusted off.

If it be a travesty on the democratic idea to allow "the forty thousand Nevadians" to count for as much as New York's six millions, then the British government from 1774 to 1781 practiced the democracy Mr. Sullivan preaches; and that ancient and obsolete piece of parchment which we take from our cabinet of bric-a-brac heirlooms, to feast the eyes of aweinspired young America, is a travesty upon justice ; and an unwarranted attack upon the principle that might makes right."

66

"To have and to hold" this piece of parchment, the ancestors of both states paid the price asked of them, and neither paid more, nor did either expect the other to play for the best of it. Such rotten borroughs as Idaho, Wyoming, Névada and Montana, had the right to statehood because they were able to practice and maintain selfgovernment; and because one or the other of the old parties gained ascendancy thereby is better logic

against extreme partisanship than for the abolishment of the senate, if there is yet virtue left in the compact of 1776 and 1787.

Only the Dakotas were for a time denied statehood because of partisanship.

Concentration and centralization is an idea which the strong, to retain their strength and power, first evolved into theory, and then, as we well know, with or without the consent of the weak, put into practice; ever since which time the strong have become stronger and the weak weaker.

Assuming that Mr. Sullivan belongs to the latterfor it is loathsome to believe that a millionaire monopolist could write thus to THE FEDERATIONIST-this language is surprising: "The United States senate, more than any other factor, keeps alive the idea of state as opposed to nation."

The weak and poor certainly have nothing to gain by demolishing state lines and power! With one possible exception the states have never been opposed to the nation, while the records, old as well as new, teem with attempts, more or less successful, where the nation encroaches on the rights reserved; for instance, take the federal interference in Chicago last July, and in many of the states where there was private property under so-called federal authority.

The corner stone of this republic is education: the rock to which the poor and weak of the republic should ever remain anchored is to permit the nation to exercise no authority not specifically granted. National, state and individual rights differ only in degree, and unless the individual is jealous, his state jealous, the nation becomes covetous; the downfall of the weak and many marks the disintegration of the government.

The senate is the safety valve, not only of the republic, but of the individual. To put down the brakes is its mission. If the brakes are in hands inimical to the interests of the many, the people unwittingly willed it so. The root of the evil is at the root of all authority; to cut off an arm will not purify the blood.

The evidence that a senate is necessary as a check on the people's legislation, whatever that means, is as far fetched as is the proof that the senate was the direct cause (last straw would be better) of the rebellion. The senate defeated the "Force Bill," thereby with one scratch of the pen closing the rebellion and frustrating another. This bill came from "a house fresh from the people," based upon principles the motives of which were no more worthy than party supremacy, and the senate refused to allow the millions of one part of our country to “wade through blood to the horse's bridles " to trample under foot the individual and state rights of the thousands of just as fair and lovely a part of the republic who held to opinions less puritanical.

bear to chronicle another instance, occurring within the memory of man, before closing the answer to the charge that the senate has always been a plague to

the nation."

A

The late extra session furnished the opportunityall that is necessary to develop American statesmanship-to again prove the usefulness of the senate. house 'fresh from the people," instructed by all the people (see platforms of 1892) to recognize both gold and silver as money, make every dollar equal to every other dollar, under the "executive lash" made haste, to the limit of its power, to wipe out the industries, welfare, happiness and prosperity of states directly or indirectly dependent upon the production of silver, gold, iron, copper and lead. After having been thus persuaded that the crushing of the silver barons would transform sweat shops into conservatories of flowers, with cake and pie growing upon every bush; wine and honey dripping from every leaf; strikes would give way for picnics and beer; the clouds would rain golden eagles in every drop of water; that the cornucopia of plenty would ever remain inverted to the six million New Yorkers, and the lucky mortals of rocky New England, whatever might be the fate of the wild and woolly toward the setting sun, they obeyed the orders of whom?

Had it not been for a slower and more deliberate moving, a less terrified senate, with its many able and brainy western Brake-men, the galley slaves of the sweat shops of the six millions, and the factories of New England, might yet be wondering why, now that the silver barons are crushed and the west laid waste as never was the Shenendoah valley, sweat shops flourish ranker than ever, strikes still rise to vex us, the clouds are not only cold and barren of gold, but even the sun refuses to tinge them with a silver lining.

The senate checked the "rushing in where angels fear to tread" long enough to foretell the future, now a living past. The middle and eastern states are suffering no hardships but what were disclosed in the senate debates on the silver question, and the prediction that the west, and especially the silver states, would rise from this wanton wreck and ruin, stronger and more self-reliant, and therefore less dependent, is being verified every day. Not a promise made by the house "fresh from the people " has been realized; not a forecast made by the senate has failed, and if we would know the financial weather in store for us we can turn to the debate on silver in the senate.

The principal reasons then for abolishing the senate, according to Mr. Sullivan, are the rotten burroughs of the west-the thousands holding the millions in check-the little that occurs in the senate "mouth of newspaper notoriety" and because "the newer western states invariably send to the senate, not their ablest, but their richest men, after campaigns in which bribery is taken for granted by the press and the people, and sometimes by legislators.

Invidious comparisons are odious only to those who fear search-light results. Rotten burroughs abound elsewhere than in the west, if Lexow committees are

reliable. The small states of the eastern sea-board can not live as such another half century, if the broad and liberal mind of the "live and let live" small western states shrink in the same proportion that their population and wealth increase during that time.

The general charge against the newer western states is not worth a general denial. If prudence has not dictated these to be "light and transient" causes for abolishing the senate, then might is right.

Many of the western senators are rich, but not all of them have raked their dollars, as if with a harrow, from the perspiring brow of honest labor. They are able and brainy almost to a man, and thus far every eastern Goliah has found his western David.

As water can not rise above its own level, so it is hardly expected of labor unionists to conceive of a statesmanship higher or greater than that which will champion the planks in the platform adopted at the A. F. of L. convention at Denver.

There is not a senator in the eastern states who will champion or vote for planks 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, II, 12, or the free coinage of silver, a principle to which federated labor stands committed. For every one senator from the east who will support planks 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, or either of them, two senators can be found in the west. While federated labor is strongest in the eastern and middle states, the principal planks of its Denver platform are of a distinct western origin, and as far as the present and next senate are concerned rely for their support upon brains, and if overcome it will be by main strength and awkwardness of numbers, for no Frye, Hoar, Hill, Platt, Hawley, Lodge or Sherman can so torture logic as to lead to an honest conviction that the greatest good to the greatest number is not contained in the Denver platform.

..

Western senators have nothing to fear from comparisons made in search of reasons Why the senate should be abolished."

The origin of the senate can be traced to the house of lords, but the house of lords sprang from corrupt Roman senates, a body which in the early days of that republic represented purest democracy.

If the origin of the senate is to be deplored, is it fairly certain that no mistake will be made by imparting any of the many European precedents on which Mr. Sullivan dotes so much.

Many of the conditions existing a century ago plague us now in a more aggravated form. The small colonies feared the large ones. Big New York now fears little Nevada. The slavery question is still an irrepressible conflict. Massachusetts is now a slave State. Montana is for "free soil," and old Fanueil Hall has been moved to Colorado.

The desire to achieve liberty controlled our ancestors, actions, and a desire to attain that liberty moves us. The fears of external foes bound them together, internal misery threatens to disrupt us. History records no scheme of government which can fit our conditions. We must evolve government as conditions demand. Governments are to the people what the inirror is to the individual, actual reflectors. The gov

ernment can not be very bad when the governed are

very good.

It seems to be the opinion of many that our government, as now constructed, is destructive of the ends for which it was instituted, hence the desire to recognize its powers in such form as to them seems most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

The abolishment of the senate is in a very remote future, but its reformation is a question of the hour. The voice of the people should be as clearly heard and as directly felt in the senate as in the house after every election, and to accomplish this the senate should be elected by the people. No man should be eligible to a full term as senator after the age of 60 years. Keep the senate under control of the living present, instead of the power of the relics of a dead past. As long as the executive has the right of veto there is little legislative power outside of the white house; the veto robs every voter of his sovereignty— except as to his choice for king. This power should be abolished, if we desire a senate as free as the house.

If the reforms here outlined failed to have a reformatory influence upon the judiciary, its nomination might be placed nearer the people by removing that power from the executive and placing it in the hands of the house of representatives, with the advice and consent of the senate. This, with the veto power removed, would clothe the office of executive with the dignity of "high sheriff," which it should be in fact, as it is in name only, and it would be more commensurate with the ability usually selected to fill the office of president of the United States.

A New Labor Movement.

A strong movement to unite all the shoemakers of the country in one organization is now well under way. The following is an extract from an address sent to the different branches of the Lasters' Protective Union of America, by the general secretary, Edward L. Daly. Within a few weeks a convention may be held, at which the proposed organization will take definite shape. Mr. Daly says:

'The events of the last few years of extraordinary business depression, and consequent idleness and poverty, have brought to light the real condition of the masses of the people and furnished food for serious thought to all who value the sacred rights guaranteed by the constitution. To the working people in particular these events are of the greatest interest, as they have for them a special significance.

The merciless reduction in wages imposed upon the unorganized and therefore defenseless toilers in every trade and calling; the fierce and unprovoked assaults upon the organizations of labor by wealthy corporations; the dastardly and un-American attempts of many unscrupulous employers to degrade labor by compelling working people to sign away their liberties as a condition to securing employment; and, worse than all else, the tyrannical use made of the courts of justice to intimidate working people, and crush out of them the spirit of organization by means of injunc