methods concede that the metind by organsier way viterever pranci That a practical demonstrated by via de reede ndustries fare done morning men grens. The or movement does not dira, i attan masse sood sit-Isi nevement of pur cemple It has to break down tamers and opposto argosed by the qua 24 te vrid weity. Be seed: alasks is wormy Meanrhile in demands that so-called piletir cists" shal not throne it by regulations by law."

If the same efforts that are now expended in lesion regulate women : Bages were expended in promoting orgasmatic so that wage-earning women would be in a position to manage their own affairs, those sympathizing with underpaid workers would be doing them not only a greater but a perma

nent service which will not come bome to haunt and shackle them

Through legitation an eight-hour day may be secured over night, so to weak," Mr. Weinstock argues. Through legislation it may again become a twelve hour day "over night" as happens in the canneries of New York state. What is secured through legislation can be lost through legislation. This is demonstrated by the work of reactionary state legislatures during this year's sessions in New York, Ohio, Iowa, Washington, Oregon.

In New South Wales, "over night" wages prescribed by wages boards dropped to 13% and 12s about $3.25 and $3,. For several days and nights they remained at under-subsistence mark and returned to 17s and 16s only after a vigorous protest of organized workers. This "over night" change reveals the ease with which wages boards may be manipulated by interested employers. In New South Wales the public or "the state only intervenes as umpire" an arrangement which Mr. Weinstock regards as a guarantee of security to the workers.

No development happens "over night." The causes and forces that result in the development may not always be apparent but nevertheless they exist. Even the state can not do things over night for laws do not become automatically effective. Law reflects a definite demand of public opinion and its enforcement is the result of the activity of those who will be affected by its enforcement.

Whatever benefits have come to the workers have come because they themselves first called attention to existing wrongs and demanded justice. The unorganized have benefited directly and indirectly from organization. Does Mr. Weinstock or any one else imagine that if all organizations were destroyed the workers would be protected by any amount or kind of legislation?

Unorganized workers are powerless to secure either the enactment of a law or its enforcement. Organized workers do not need legislation of the character suggested, for through their organization they participate in making the laws directly affecting them and their interests. And what is of equal portance is that they administer these laws. These laws are not declared institutional or repealed. Regulation of industrial relations through oration is based upon democratic principles and is the antithesis of bureauor paternalism.

Australia is generally referred to as a country governed by "Labor"-at present a so-called labor government is in control in the Commonwealth and several of the states. Even under such conditions, the workers complain that the governmental machinery to regulate industrial relations is manipulated by employers to increase their own profits.

Mr. Weinstock says: "In New Zealand, in Australia, and in England, the state, by virtue of its minimum wage laws, has succeeded in wiping out their sweat-shops."

The author of that sweeping statement does not lack courage. Can it be that any one believes that sweat-shops no longer exist in England? As for New Zealand and Australia perhaps Mr. Weinstock may be persuaded to admit that there may be different opinions as to the economic and social conditions there.

The attention of Mr. Weinstock is here called to the statement published in the Australian paper quoted in the first article in this issue and here requoted:

"With all our laws, have we not stodgy, ill-ventilated tenements? Have we not evilsmelling, disease-reeking, tiny backyards and alley ways? Do we not see, right here, sallow-faced girls, aged before the blush of maidenhood has left their cheeks? Do we not see frail mothers double bent, because of the lack of proper knowledge to show them that they are living under improper conditions? Do we not see the puny children, pale and listless, tired and devoid of energy, and, as I am told by an eminent physician, fully two inches short in their height, because they live in the slum quarters of our own cities?"

The workers of Australia, through their official journals and papers, complain of exploitation and sweat-shop conditions. One of the most radical labor papers recently contained this statement:

"Unionism is the hope of the world. It is the only way of salvation for the workers.”

Mr. Weinstock in his reply again implies that the trade union movement is actuated by selfish motives in its opposition to the legislative method for regulating industrial relations. Despite the viewpoint that our critic insists upon attributing to organized labor, the reasons for our opposition are those which we have presented here and at many other times. The workers think that their widest opportunities and their greatest welfare will result from organization preferably than from governmental regulation. Because Mr. Weinstock differs from us does not prove us wrong. Rather it is proof that an employer even when acting as umpire will still be influenced by employers' interests and employers' ideals of "educational and moral uplift" of the workers.

From recent events it is fair to assume that Mr. Weinstock has come .under the influence of the Drews and the Merritts of the National Association of Manufacturers.

Let us concentrate our efforts to organize all the forces of wage labor, and, within the ranks, contest fairly and openly for the different views which may be entertained upon the different steps to be taken to move the grand army of Labor onward and forward. In no organization on earth is there such toleration, so great a scope, and so free a forum as inside the ranks of the American Federation of Labor, and nowhere is there such a fair opportunity afforded for the advocacy of a new or brighter thought.

He charged the A. F. of L. with facing both ways, when as a matter of fact he 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 void by the United States Supreme Court forbade employers from discharging workmen because they were members of labor organizations. If the editor of St. Louis Labor can not distinguish between these two entirely different questions, 'twere better he confess his failure to distinguish what is obvious 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

upon the miners and because of principles of human liberty that were involved. Organization has become more thorough. Where organized, the miners work eight hours, the unorganized work ten hours.

For Iowa where the miners are well organized and the eight-hour day prevails, the accident report is as follows:

In Ohio the miners are solidly organized and the eight-hour day prevails: