such action necessary because of the exigencies of his business, or as the result of his judgment for other reasons sufficient to himself. When he makes a stipulation of the character here involved essential to future employment, he is not exercising a right to discharge, and may not wish to discharge the employe when, at a subsequent time, the prohibited act is done. What is in fact accomplished, is that the one engaging to work, who may wish to preserve an independent right of action, as a condition of employment, is coerced to the signing of such an agreement against his will, perhaps impelled by the necessities of his situation. The state, within constitutional limitations, is the judge of its own policy, and may execute it in the exercise of the legislative authority. This statute reaches not only the employed, but as well one seeking employment. The latter may never wish to join a labor union. By signing such agreements as are here involved he is deprived of the right to free choice as to his future conduct, and must choose between employment and the right to act in the future as the exigencies of his situation may demand. It is such contracts, having such effect, that this statute and similar ones seek to prohibit and punish as against the policy of the state.

"It is constantly emphasized that the case presented is not one of coercion. But in view of the relative positions of employer and employed, who is to deny that the stipulation here insisted upon and forbidden by the law is essentially coercive. No form of words can strip it of its true character. Whatever our individual opinions may be as to the wisdom of such legislation, we can not put our judgment in place of that of the legislature, and refuse to acknowledge the existence of the conditions with which it is dealing. Opinions may differ as to the remedy, but we can not understand upon what ground it can be said that a subject so intimately related to the welfare of society is removed from the legislative power."

As the highest judiciary authority of the United States has declared the Kansas law void, and thereby nullified similar law in thirteen other states and Porto Rico, there remains but one way for the workers to secure for themselves the right to organize and protection for their organizations. That one method is the safeguard, the palladium of the workers-their economic power. By their economic power made manifest in trade organizations, they can secure for themselves not only contracts that will not debar them of union membership, but all the privileges of free men.

The members of organized labor will not submit to the loss of their rights. Since legislation has failed to safeguard this protection, they must concentrate all of their efforts upon securing their purposes through unionism. Members of well organized, aggressive unions have no difficulty in enjoying their legal right to membership in their trade organizations and in securing the right to collective bargaining through which real equality of contract is assured.

Prepare yourselves, workers of America, for the fight for freedom and protection. Secure for yourselves that which you ought to have, that which you must have in order to protect your industrial rights. As you build up strong organizations in all lines of industry, keep in your own hands control over the policies, the operation of your organizations. Do not surrender the key to industrial liberty for any temporary gain. With a zeal made keener by the realization that your welfare lies in your own hands, keep up the work of education, agitation, and organization.

ANSWERED

AND EXPOSED

It is regrettable that President Wilson deemed it necessary to return the immigration bill to the House of Representatives without his signature. The bill contained most carefully prepared provisions intended to improve greatly the methods employed in the immigration service and also a literacy test for immigrants, which has been repeatedly endorsed as the most effective workable method of protecting our nation and workers against the number of unassimilable immigrants that have been crowding into our industrial centers.

In his message explaining his position President Wilson submitted these two objections to the bill:

"It seeks to all but close entirely the gates of asylum which have always been open to those who could find nowhere else the right and opportunity of constitutional agitation for what they conceived to be the natural and inalienable rights of men; and it excludes those to whom the opportunities of elementary education have been denied, without regard to their character, their purposes, or their natural capacity.”

Before considering the contention that the legislation proposed would deny the right to political asylum to men of noble characters and elevated purposes driven from their own less fortunate lands, it is necessary for all to have clearly in mind the provisions of the present law and the changes proposed by the bill which the President vetoed. These provisions are published in parallel columns for convenience in comparative study:

What is Now Law

That the following classes of aliens shall be excluded from admission into the United States:

Anarchists, or persons who believe in or advocate the overthrow by force or violence of the government of the United States, or of all government, or of all forms of law, or the assassination of public officials.

Provided, That nothing in this act shall exclude, if otherwise admissible, persons convicted of an offense purely political, not involving moral turpitude.

What the President Vetoed

That the following classes of aliens shall be excluded from admission into the United States: . .

. . Anarchists, or persons who believe in or advocate the overthrow by force or violence of the government of the United States, or of all forms of law, or who disbelieve in or are opposed to organized government, or who advocate the assassination of public officials or who advocate or teach the unlawful destruction of property; persons who are members of or affiliated with any organization entertaining and teaching disbelief in or opposition to organized government, or who advocate or teach the duty, necessity or propriety of the unlawful assaulting or killing of any officer or officers, either of specific individ. uals or of officers generally, of the gov ernment of the United States, or of any other organized government, because of his or their official character or who advocate or teach the unlawful destruc tion of property. . .

Provided, That nothing in this act shall exclude, if otherwise admissible, persons convicted of an offense purely politi cal, not involving moral turpitude.

A reading of the texts of existing law and the immigration bill makes it manifest that the President's objection is directed against existing law rather than the proposed measure, and that if his position is correct his objection can be satisfied only by the repeal of the present immigration law.

However, the existing law specifies that persons seeking a political asylum shall be freely admitted to the United States, and that advocates of anarchism and violence to governments and government officials are debarred. The proposed legislation makes existing provisions more liberal by specifically and clearly defining the nature of the offenses against organized society and its government for which immigrants may be excluded. After carefully reading those specifications, can there be any reason for holding that political reformers whose purpose was "constitutional agitation for what they conceive to be the natural and inalienable rights of men" will be denied entrance and refuge in our land? There has been a persistent effort to create the impression that the Burnett bill would exclude such political reformers as Carl Schurz, General Garibaldi, and Louis Kossuth, but is there anything in the text to justify that contention? Is it not rather a contention that presumes upon the confidence of those who have not read the bill?

As to the second point which the President raised-the literacy test, and the restrictions that accompany it. Here, again, the text of the proposed legislation should be read. It is as follows:

"That after four months from the approval of this act, in addition to the aliens who are by law now excluded from admission into the United States, the following persons shall also be excluded from admission thereto, to wit:

"All aliens over sixteen years of age, physically capable of reading, who can not read the English language or some other language or dialect, including Hebrew and Yiddish: Provided, That any admissible alien or any alien heretofore or hereafter legally admitted, or any citizen of the United States, may bring in or send for his father or grandfather over fifty-five years of age, his wife, his mother, his grandmother, or his unmarried or widowed daughter, if otherwise admissible, whether such relative can read or not; and such relative shall be permitted to enter. That for the purpose of ascertaining whether aliens can read the inspectors shall be furnished with slips, of uniform size, prepared under the direction of the Secretary of Labor, each containing not less than thirty nor more than forty words in ordinary use, printed in plainly legible type in some one of the various languages and dialects of immigrants. Each alien may designate the particular language or dialect in which he desires the examination to be made, and shall be required to read the words printed upon the slip in such language or dialect. That the following classes of persons shall be exempt from the operation of the illiteracy test, to wit: All aliens who shall prove to the satisfaction of the proper immigration officer, or to the Secretary of Labor that they emigrated from the country of which they were last permanent residents solely for the purpose of escaping from religious persecution."

This is what is termed a "radical change in the policy of the nation." It is denounced as a provision that seeks to punish people merely because of their lack of opportunity. But as a matter of fact, in our time, opportunity to read thirty or forty words in any language, dialect or Yiddish, may be found almost any place by one who has such qualities of mind and will as fit him to become a citizen. Whether or not immigrants seek or avail themselves of an opportunity for education is in itself a test of character, which the opponents of the bill profess to desire. The person who really wants a thing usually finds a way.

Consider briefly what has been the policy of our nation in regard to a literacy test. From the founding of the first colonies schools and education have been deemed necessary. Gradually, at the demand of organized labor. a public school system was established. Then compulsory education laws were enacted, until now forty states have adopted legislation of that character. With many of these laws have been associated prohibitions of child labor, requiring minors either to attend school for a definite number of years or to acquire a definite standard of education. Educational requirements are distinctly an American policy. The Burnett bill simply applies to immigrants standards required of our citizens and thereby removes immigrants from a specially favored class.

The opponents of the literacy test imply by many of their arguments that education has no effect upon character, that it is not a test of quality or character. Education of course is not an unfailing test, but as between an educated man and an uneducated one, the presumption will be in favor of the one whose mind and sympathies have been broadened and deepened by education, which leads to understanding of the meaning of things. If this were not true then we would be wrong in the importance which we attach to education. But we are not mistaken-education becomes an inseparable part of individuality, it gives strength and keenness to moral perceptions and depth and tone to character.

Much of the opposition to the Burnett immigration bill has come from sources that are not disinterested. There came into our hands information concerning the relations and methods of the National Liberal Immigration League, which has been most active in opposing all measures to restrict immigration. This information was transmitted to the Chairman of the House Committee on Immigration. That information, which was published in the Weekly News Letter of the American Federation of Labor and made part of the Congressional Record, showed the following:

The trusts furnish money to the National Liberal Immigration League to finance campaigns against immigration legislation. The League is in league with the National Association of Manufacturers.

The Hamburg-American Steamship Company was notified by cablegram that the league owed $7,000, and was liable to be sued and forced into bankruptcy. The French steamship company was urged to aid in financing "a tremendous agitation" against immigration legislation. Steamship companies campaigned for the appointment of Charles Nagel as Secretary of Commerce and Labor under President Taft. Mr. Nagel was referred to as one "not likely to favor legislation restricting immigration." A HamburgAmerican Steamship official told an associate that "a number of delegations composed of members of various nationalities" were sent to Washington to oppose immigration legislation. He said: "The delegates were not really chosen by bodies of their own nationality." It is stated that the campaign includes "visiting the societies of various nationalities, as Italians, Hebrews. Hungarians, etc., including the unions, for the purpose of advocating liberal immigration."

"We have to send appeals and communications to some 15,000 influential persons, most of them clergymen," said the steamship official.

The National Liberal Immigration League, in another appeal for financial aid, told the trusts it is making possible "the influx of alien unskilled labor," and if contributions are not received, "we will not be able to keep up our work." The documents show that the steamship companies contributed $15,000, and that the coal barons and the steel corporations gave large sums of money to the National Liberal Immigration League to conduct the agitation against immigration legislation.

How the money was collected for this benevolent association is manifest in the following contract; read it:

NATIONAL LIBERAL IMMIGRATION LEAGUE,

150 Nassau Street, New York
Agreement

Entered into June the 17, 1912, by and between the National Liberal Immigration League, of New York, party of the first part, and Bella A. Sekely, of New York, party of the second part, witnesseth:

First, Party of the second part agrees to endeavor to raise financial support for the National Liberal Immigration League, and party of the first part agrees and obliges itself to pay to party of the second part commissions as stated in the following paragraph for each and all contributions and donations secured by party of the second part.

Second, It is mutually agreed by the contracting parties that party of the first part will pay to party of the second part the following commissions on each of the donations and contributions secured by party of the second part:

(a) on sums over $10,000 (ten thousand dollars), a commission of (10) per cent (ten per cent).

(b) on sums over $5,000 (five thousand dollars), up to $10,000 (ten thousand dollars), a commission of (15) per cent (fifteen per cent).

(c) on sums over $1,000 (one thousand dollars), up to $5,000 (five thousand dollars), a commission of (20) per cent (twenty per cent).

(d) on sums amounting to $1,000 (one thousand dollars) or less, a commission of (25) per cent (twenty-five per cent).

(e) on all contributions and donations made by parties after one year has elapsed since their first contribution was made, party of the first part will pay to party of the second part, a commission of only (10) per cent (ten per cent) irrespective of the size of such contributions or donations.

Third, It is mutually understood and agreed that when a single contribution is made by business concerns known as Trusts or Holding Companies, this contribution comprising the contributions of several subsidiary companies of such Trust or Holding Company (like the United States Steel Corporation), then the amount of such contribution is to be subdivided by the number of companies belonging to such Trust or Holding Company, and the percentage of commission is to be determined by, and to be paid on each of the average amounts shown by the subdivision stated above.

Fourth, Party of the first part agrees to pay to party of the second part, a weekly sum of twenty-five dollars ($25.00), to cover his personal expenses, the total of such pay. ments, however, to be deducted from the total of commissions due to party of the second part.

Fifth, Party of the first part agrees to pay the travelling expenses for party of the second part, and such necessary business expenses as typewriting, etc.

This agreement can be discontinued by either party in giving two weeks' notice to the other party.

N. BEHAR,

BELLA N. Sekely.