district called "Dominguito," at Arecibo, after which the police took care to conceal their names, and it is not even known today who did the clubbing.

were

At Humacao, five countrymen clubbed and a gathering was dispersed. At San Lorenzo, a meeting was violently dispersed by the police. The police were openly doing the bidding of the owners of the sugar estates. They live, eat and drink in quarters provided for them on the estates and sugar mills.

Governor Yager promised that he would give the unfortunate country folk protection against illegal onslaught, but the next day the police exercised violence to a still greater degree. The landowners bankers and stockholders with the help of the capitalistic press are daily spreading untruths against the strikers. The Governor turned over to the police the whole rural region and these in their turn have forbidden that there should be any public meeting, gatherings, parades, and that not even groups of ten persons on the highways and barriers of the whole Island, though it were shown that such gatherings are of an orderly and peaceful character.

Martial law was practically declared by the police, and attacks upon the persons were accumulating rapidly to the discredit of the police who kept on terrorizing the country people.

The representatives of the A. F. of L. were forbidden to call open-air meetings of the workmen throughout the rural zone.

When I asked the Governor to interfere with the violation of the Constitution by the police, he gave me assurance that he would do it, and that he would give me a copy of his order, but he has not made good his promise up to the present time, and thus it is that the wish of the police is secured, namely, that of breaking the strike of the poor country workers through fear and intimidation, through persecution and the "stick." The Bureau of Labor is only an agent of the government which stands in favor of the landowners in this connection.

In a statement given to the press it is quoted as saying: "The landowners have proved themselves to be possessed of the confidence and regard which this Bureau hasm and for which we are sincerely vard them."

gra

The following telegram was sent by the Chief of the Bureau of Labor:

"Domingo Santos. Fajardo, P. R. Mr Br Manager of the Fajardo Sugar Company, t. officially informed the government that workin.men are not fulfilling their part of the contract which makes it therefore void. I trust all di ences will work out REGARDLESS of stri. Signed Bills."

This telegram was sent after the Suger Growers' Association and Corporations ha agreed not to sign any terms of agreement with the workers or agree upon any wage scale. More than 1,000 country workers in Fajardo filed complaints duly sworn to before a judge protesting against the attitud of the Chief of the Labor Bureau in con bination with the landowners.

February 28, according to the repeated quests from the different towns on strik I concluded that it was necessary for me t pay a visit to different towns and cities, t take advantage of an unusual opportunit to organize agricultural workers into th most powerful organization in the Island.

I requested the organizer of the Cigarmakers' Union, and some other officers of organized labor in Porto Rico to accompany me in order to be able to hold a meeting in each of the towns in the eastern and souther parts of Porto Rico which are on strike.

On February 28 we left San Juan and the first town where we stopped was Yabucoa There were about two thousand men on strike. They have been denied the constitutional rights of speaking and assembling when they want and where they legally please, and at the time we reached Yabucoa. the workingmen had been unable to hold meeting during the two weeks they ha! been on strike.

I requested the local committee of the strike that the tribune be placed in the Plaza, and while I was speaking, I was or dered by the Chief of Police to leave the place on the ground that the mayor of the city, who is interested in business and the main enemy of the strikers, had not given his permission to hold the meeting there. I had to come down from the tribune, and then it was placed in one of the extremes of the town.

From Yabucoa, I sent to the Governor of Porto Rico the following telegram:

"Yabucoa, P. R., Feb. 28, 1915. Hon. Arthu Yager, Governor of Porto Rico, San Juan. P. R

When I was speaking at the plaza of this town the olice told me I had to dissolve the meeting because he Mayor said that there was not permit to hold the eeting at the Plaza. He refused many times to ive permit. Santiago Iglesias, Gen. Org. A. F. of

After having held a monster meeting at abucoa, at which all the orators and I did ur part, and where the conditions prevailng are notoriously prejudiced against the trikers, we proceeded to Maunabo. From Jaunabo I had to send the Governor of Porto Rico the following telegram:

"Maunabo, Feb. 28, 1915. Hon. Arthur Yager, Povernor of Porto Rico, San Juan, P. R. Agriculural workers of Barrios, Palo Seco, Lisa, and fatuyas had to return back their homes because olice prohibited them to walk town certainly to revent them to attend a labor meeting where the abor Federation representatives were going to adress the people. Santiago Iglesias, Gen. Org. A. F. L."

After having held a meeting there and leaving all things settled at Maunabo, and the agreement signed, we proceeded to Guayama, where we also held another meeting lasting to 1 o'clock March 1, and in which two lawyers participated who are actually in sympathy with the strike, and who have co-operated in the agitation and maintenance and defense of the same.

On March 1 we left Guayama and went to Ponce via Salinas. In view of the conditions prevailing in Ponce and the necessity for our returning to San Juan as soon as possible to pay attention to some other important matters, we had already decided not to take part in the meeting of Ponce and had already taken the automobile to return. But a commission composed of members of the local unions of Ponce, among whom were officials of the Cigarmakers' Union 449, requested us in the name of that organization and of the agricultural workers to take part in the open-air meeting, and then we

agreed that the automobile would remain near the place where the meeting was to be held to be taken by us immediately after having done our duty.

The meeting was opened in the evening at half past seven, and the members of the organized labor movement participated. After making the statement that the police could I had spoken for about an hour, and was not be placed on an impartial and independent position while having their quarters in the premises of the sugar mills and plantations, while eating and drinking with the bosses, while using the horses of the sugar mill owners under the pretense of guaranteeing the properties, I was brutally ordered to leave the tribune, while the Captain of Police Fernandez Nater cried: "This meeting has finished."

Then the police were ordered to dissolve the meeting, the workers were shot and clubbed. The result of this social crime committed against the people was a poor man dead and several wounded. Organizer Rivera Martinez, myself and all my fellows from San Juan in the commission were arrested and placed under a bail of $2,000. From Ponce I sent the Governor the following telegram:

"Hon. Arthur Yager, Governor of Porto Rico, San Juan, P. R. Last night police dissolved a peaceful meeting while I was speaking, shooting and clubbing poor peasants. One dead and several wounded. Seven labor representatives and myself were jailed accused of riot. This fact is very deplorable and respectfully protest against unnecessary and unjustifiable disregarding of constitutional rights. Santiago Iglesias, Gen. Org. A. F. of L."

No answer has been given to the quoted telegram. We remained in jail up to half past 12 of the night of March 2, when we were provisionally set free under bail of $300 each. We returned to San Juan.

The offices of the Federation in Ponce were searched by the police who violently broke the locks of the desks and took papers and documents of the strike committee.

If the federal authorities do not take rapid and energetic actions in favor of the American Constitution and in behalf of the Porto Rican laborers, we fear that the labor organizations may be swept from the Island, and the workers revert to the old days of peonage under Spanish domination.

IST

ECTIVE

re some self-evident facts winch ace most must face when a strike ens zo weeks and months, the worst je supported from the funds er wa ganization, or from dona- ! members father trade unions mte public. Funds from some sure must leiacie or the strikers must der. Trute mons are proverbial for meus assistance which they render 14ther. but it would be a fatal policy at we need not heed for tomorrow, se i ucie comes others will donate s they have accumulated for their own orrection, and give them to us to use, even our own improvidence we bare nether been willing to pay adequate mes to our treasury, or husband our funds rng good times.

Te are allies in this great trade union mcement of ours. We believe in uniting our moral and financial strength, and we teach the doctrine that the weakest must be protected by the stronger, but we can not cause the weakest to feel that others will always come to their rescue if they fail to make proper efforts to strengthen themselves. An ally on the battlefield, full of courage but without ammunition, is more of

n incumbrance and a source of danger than supporting strength and when the camaign is on, when the battle line is far flung, here can be but little sparing of ammunion for the unprepared ally.

But after all it is not argument but exerience which supplies the surest guide. he history of trade unionism in America an open book. It contains the record of ational trade unions which, from the date f their birth, have gained in strength and also tells us of organizations once powerful 1 numbers which have passed out of existnce. In addition it tells the story of the rganizations which compose the A. F. of L. nd the degree of success which each is makng in securing improved conditions for its lembers. It tells us of some organizations hich accomplish more than others, qualities f leadership, sound methods of organizaion play their part in this, but I am probably ell within the facts in believing that he financial system adopted has been a rominent if not the most prominent factor. ooking the field over as it is today we ind that the international unions, without xception, whose members pay the highest lues and accumulate adequate defense unds, are making the most progress, while

the organizations with the poorest financial systems or basis lag furthest behind in the march towards improved terms of employ

ment.

The experience of the International Molders' Union of North America for the last fifty-six years of its existence has proved to its members that their progress can be measured by the changes in their financial systems. They were weak when their dues were low. They suffered defeat when victories could have been won had their been funds to support striking members, and they set their feet upon a solid foundation only when they determined to pay sufficient dues to assure every striker the payment of a definite strike benefit regularly every week, whether the strike lasted for weeks and months and even years, for I have in mind a strike where for twenty-nine months our members were on strike before a settlement could be reached with the employer and the settlement was a victory.

Personally, I am of the opinion that one of the weakest spots in our movement is the inadequate dues paid by some trade unionists, and their failure during good times or peaceful ones to accumulate funds for the day of trial.

F

OLLOWING closely in the wake of the Danbury Hatters' case, the decision in the Kansas Labor Statute Case (Coptage vs. Kansas), handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States on January 25, 1915, has been taken by thousands of citizens as but another evidence of the economic bias of our judiciary and of its itter failure adequately to adjust ancient legal principles to the intricate industrial fe of today.

The Kansas decision in substance declared inconstitutional a state statute which preented an employer from forcing an em

ploye to agree not to join a trade union during his term of service. By this decision it is thus seen to be perfectly legal for an employer to cease relations with (or "boycott") a worker, if he does not "boycott" union labor. The conclusions reached are even more adverse to labor than are those in the famous Adair decision of 1908, which, according to many labor leaders, virtually legalized the blacklist.

From the purely labor standpoint, however, it is doubtful whether the decision will have great practical effect, inasmuch as neither the Kansas statute nor the statute of

any other states ikely to prevent an employer to Inclined from fiscriminating qmety s tervise against a mion man.

It's the importance from the standpoint of those interested in social legislation, les the is laid down therein to the exerse of the police power of the state limits fiswwwgagy narrow if we consider only the majaty opinion.

One ray of hope that labor might sotam from the majority new is that, if the sout held to the same conception of that which constitutes coertion, when asked to mterpret the meaning of the borrott tause in the Clayton Antitrat bill even the compound boycott might logically be considered legal

under this act.

The facts of the Coppage case are briedy as follows: In 1903 a Kansas statute was passed making it a misdemeanor for any employer to require a worker to agree not to join a labor union or remain as a member of such, as a condition of obtaining or retaining a position. On July 1, 1911, T. B. Coppage, superintendent of the St. Lout, and San Francisco Railway Company. at Fort Scott, Kansas, requested A. R. Hedges, a switchman, to sign an agreement that he would withdraw from the Switchmen's Union of America and remain outside of its ranks so long as he was employed by the company. Hedges refused to comply and was discharged. proceedings followed. The case finally reached the Kansas Supreme Court, where the constitutionality of the statute was upheld. On January 25 of this year the Kansas judgment was reversed by the United States Supreme Court, justice Pitney rendering the decision. Justice Holmes discented on the same grounds as in the Adair Case of 1908, and Justice Day issued a separate dissenting opinion, concurred in by Justice Hughes.

Legal

Justice Pitney contended that the statute in question constituted an interference with liberty of contract guaranteed by the Four teenth Amendment, and thus must be deemed to be arbitrary, "unless it be supportable as a reasonable exercise of the police power of the state." A statute, he declared, may be sustained as a legitimate exercise of this police power if it is passed to prevent coercion and to promote the public safety, morals or general welple. No coercion, however,

fare

here appears the plaintiff was absolutely free to choose whether he wished to retam us membership in the trade union or to keep us job. The act bears no possible rela son to the public welfare, etc., "beyond the supposed tesirability of leveling inequalities of fortune by depriving one who has prop erty of some part of what is characterized as is inancial independence.'" An endeavor so to level inequalities would dem to citizens the right of private property guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment since nequality is the inevitable result of system of private property.

Justice Holmes, as in the Adair case, toos a more enlightened view and showed that the statute. far from interfering with free dom of contract, might be looked upon us actually preparing the way for such free dom. He declared:

"In present conditions a workman may unnaturally believe that only by belonging to anica can be secure a contract that shall be t to him. If that belief, whether right or wrong, he heid by a reasonable man, it seems to me that may be enforced by law in order to establish equity of position between the parties in w ascerty of contract begins. Whether in the long rusi is wise for the workingmen to enact legislation of th sort is not my concern, but I am strongly of opinion that there is nothing in the Constitution the United States to prevent it." (Italics are authors.

Justice Day, in opposing the majority view, declared that the right of contrac was not absolute; that those who attack the legislation have the burden of proving tha! it conflicts with some constitutional re straint or that the public welfare is not su1served by the legislation; that the local legislature is itself a judge of the necessit of such legislation, and that the legislature enactments might be set aside only if they can be shown to be arbitrary and capricious Since this statute simply protected the legal right of an employe to join a union, it passage could not be considered an abu of legislative power.

The Justice also declared that the cour had no right to inquire into the motives. the legislature and that even if the object of the statute was that of equalizing the relative positions of contractual parties, an of protecting "those who might otherwise unable to protect themselves," no substa": tial objection could be raised.

Justice Day scoffed at the assertion tha