wouldn't they be more nobly intellectual if they offered their help wholly as a suggestion and would not consider themselves personally injured if the ditch diggers exercise the right of free citizens to order their own lives and choose their own leaders?

But why is Mr. Hunter worried? Does he feel dissatisfaction growing in the ranks of the Socialist party? Does he feel that the party has outgrown the relation of the unformed, dependent mind? Does he think that the decline of the leadership of "intellectuals" is foreshadowed by what is the glory of the trade union movement-its power to develop and educate men who work with their hands so that they are able to take places in the President's Cabinet, as governors of states, as members of Congress and state legislatures where they are "in touch with the great aims and ideals" of world movements? Isn't it a fact that all this fault-finding and criticism of the trade union movement and its leaders find their cause in that "Comrade" Hunter and his cult recognize two fundamental facts: One, that the trade union movement of America is no longer in danger of threatened domination by the Socialist political party men; that the trade union movement has developed its own intellects and has justified its existence by its sacrifices and achievements in the interest of the working people and the masses of the people of our country; that the labor movement has developed its own leadership and its own philosophy and is a democratically governed movement. And the second, the dissatisfaction of Hunter's cult, because they recognize the absolute treachery of the socialist movement in Europe to the ideals and aspirations of international solidarity and human brotherhood in the barbaric struggle now being waged in Europe. Recognizing these two facts it is now Mr. Hunter's pet hobby to form an exclusive set of the "intellectual four hundred."

ANOTHER
SOCIALIST
"FRIEND"
ATTACKS

There continues an insidious attempt on the part of the enemies of organized labor to minimize the value of the labor sections of the Clayton Antitrust Act, and to create among the workers themselves the impression that the legislation is not effective. For this purpose facts have been perverted and misstated. One method that has been used is to confuse injunctions issued by state courts with injunctions issued by federal courts. Under our form of government the national government has jurisdiction over interstate commerce and state governments over intrastate commerce. Issuance of injunctions in cases that come under state jurisdiction is controlled by the state judiciary. The Clayton Act does not apply to intrastate matters and does not affect injunctions issued by courts within the state.

In order to complete the protection of the rights of the working people secured through the Clayton Act, it is necessary to enact in every state, legislation defining the rights of the workers and regulating the issuance of injunctions in industrial disputes. A measure to accomplish this purpose was published in the April issue of the AMERICAN FEDERATIONIST. Yet the press agents of industrial greed have heralded every state injunction which deprived workers of the right to their normal, necessary activities

in order to protect and promote their own interests and have proclaimed them as evidence that organized labor was deceived by the Clayton Act!

Of course no trade unionist would expect any "consistent" Socialist party paper to become over-enthusiastic with a trade union legislative achievement secured by trade union activity and polity. Not one of these publications wrote a line in commendation of the labor provisions of the Clayton Antitrust Law. To concede that effective improvement has been made in the condition of the workers which will safeguard their rights and principles, and free them from judicial misinterpretation of laws, would be to confess that the trade union movement can manage its own affairs upon its own chosen course of procedure, and would at once concede that the power of the trade union movement, the economic organization of the workers, was not dependent upon the Socialist political party.

So in addition to the perversions of avowed enemies of organized labor a "labor" paper, the St. Louis Labor, published an editorial entitled, "Facing Both Ways"-intended to place the A. F. of L. in an embarrassing dilemma. The editor with flippant uncomprehension pronounces useless the statutory enactment of Congress: The labor power of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce. Encouraged by the small mental exertion necessary to make that condemnation, this critic turned to an entirely foreign question upon which to base his attack. He found in the March AMERICAN FEDERATIONIST this statement:

"As the highest judiciary authority of the United States has declared the Kansas law void, and thereby nullified similar laws 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."

"Tis so easy to see," quoth this editor, feeling like the discoverer of new truths in an unexplored sea, "the representatives of the A. F. of L. know not of what they speak. In one breath they praise a law, and in another they recommend other methods more highly than legislation. This is plainly a contradiction." Now perhaps the intentions of this wise editor were good, but his judgments are so pathetically lacking in the necessary reasoning step by step through the essentials to establishing logical conclusions. Like the blind men who went to see the elephant and fell one upon one part, another on another, until all had hold of different parts. Quoth one: "The elephant is very like a rope." Another: "The elephant is very like a wall." A third: "The elephant is very like a snake." The fourth who touched the elephant's ear said: "E'en the blindest man can see this marvel of an elephant is very like a fan."

The trouble with the blind men was they had only one point of contact with the elephant and as an elephant is of considerable size, one point of contact was not enough to give complete comprehension.

This purblind editor of the St. Louis Labor touched the Clayton Act and said: "This is a law as even a blind man knows." He then touched the Kansas Coercion law: "This too is a law." Then was he sorely confused.

He charged the A. F. of L. with facing both ways, when as a matter of fact be himself can see neither way. The Clayton Act secured for the workers the right under federal law to exercise their rights and to perform the normal activities necessary to their attainment. The Kansas law which was declared vood by the United States Supreme Court forbade employers from discharging workmen because they were members of labor organizations. If the editor of St. Louis Lator can not distinguish between these two entirely different questions, 'twere better he confess his failure to distinguish what is obviom even to the ordinary mind. In this case of the criticising editor is another example of the blind trying to lead the blind.

The Clayton Act frees labor organization from judicial and legal restrictions that have hampered their efforts to secure the welfare of the workers. The fundamental purpose of this legislation was to give labor organizations freedom for the activities necessary to accomplish their purposes. This freedom could be attained only through statutory enactment because it was necessary to define and regulate court procedure and to prevent continuation of the perversion of the antitrust laws to apply to organizations of workers.

And now is it not plain even unto this editor who condemned the A. F. of L., that this position is exactly in accord with the comment upon the policy necessary to pursue as a result of the Supreme Court decision in regard to the Kansas coercion law?

The Clayton Act supplemented by state legislation recommended by the A. F. of L. Executive Council for enactment by all state legislatures would enable trade unionists to accomplish for themselves what has been secured under the federal law for interstate activities of the organized workers.

The distinction which the editor failed to comprehend is the difference between laws which free the workers from judicial legalism, restrictions and hindrances and a law which restricted and hindered equal freedom of action. The workers can and must organize for their own and their common protection and advancement; they will organize if employers consent or are indifferent, but whether with employers' consent or hostility, they will organize. "Zum Schutz und Trotz."

LIFE TOLL

IN MINING

A recent accident in a West Virginia coal mine is another reminder of the industrial slaughter that is daily occurring. The world is too unmindful of the hazards of miners' lives. Men and women are troubled over the daily slaughter on the battlefields of Europe, while the slaughter of workers in our industrial armies hardly evokes comment or thought of prevention. Can it be that human sympathy is touched only by the unusual?

The federal Bureau of Mines has done much to protect the lives of those who work underground. The reports of the bureau show that the relative number of those killed has been gradually decreased. Coal is a basic product essential to industry and commerce as they are now conducted. Think for a moment what basic industry means. Think what would be the result if the miners should exercise the right to stop work until they should be properly protected.

The coal miners furnish the coal which generates the power for industry and commerce. If they stop work the whole world must stop. Yet every time these miners go down into the depths of the earth to their daily toil they go knowing that they are surrounded by unnecessary dangers, unnecessary hardships and unnecessarily insanitary conditions. Society accepts the benefits of their toil but concerns itself little about their welfare. So long as coal mining remains a dangerous occupation society is responsible for a very grave wrong.

The death toll published by the bureau reveals a very interesting and significant fact that indicates one way by which accidents may be decreased. The death rate in those states in which miners are organized is lower than in the states where miners are unorganized. This is due to the effectiveness of economic organizations in securing the eight-hour day and securing regulations which eliminate or lessen the hazards of work.

The eight-hour workday, which reduces fatigue, decreases liability to mistakes or carelessness on the part of workers. The United Mine Workers' Journal points out the way to secure a general eight-hour day for miners:

"A 100 per cent organization with which to meet the operators at the next scale convention would be a most convincing argument in favor of the eight-hour day, and also for many other advantageous changes for which the anthracite miners are striving."

A strong economic organization can secure legislation providing for mining regulation and the enforcement of such legislation by administrative officials.

The following official reports published by the Bureau of Mines show how the death rate increases in those states where the miners are not well organized.

The following is the report for West Virginia:

The history of attempts to unionize West Virginia are fresh in the minds of those who study current issues because of the outrages that were inflicted