Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

PRESS MIS

REPRESENTA

TIONS OF
LABOR'S CRIT-
ICISM OF SU-
PREME
COURT DE-
CISIONS.

Our editorial in the March issue on the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Hatter's case has been commented upon by many newspapers all over the country. We wish we could think the general trend of the comment intelligent, honest or helpful. We regret to say that these qualities are mostly conspicuous by their absence from nearly all of the criticisms and attacks to which this journal and its editor, as well as the American Federation of Labor itself, have been subjected. In not a few cases, gross, malicious, vicious misrepresentation has been recklessly resorted to, the evident purpose being to poison the public mind against the American Federation of Labor and to represent the latter as a criminal combination that ought to be prosecuted and suppressed.

Several papers have used the phrase "opposition to the Supreme Court" in describing our attitude. They know better. On the contrary, while protesting against its injustice we stated that we accepted the decision as the law of the land. We also expressed our belief in the integrity and honesty of the court, in its desire to construe the laws and legal principles so as to insure equality of right and immunities. But, at the same time, we ventured to criticise the reasoning of the court, to point out some mistakes of fact and of logic. Is this "opposing the court" in any objectionable sense? Has not the court been criticised before by Democrats, by Republicans, by Populists, by Independents? Was not the income tax criticised? Was not the Philippine tariff and flag decision criticised, even by prominent members of Congress? Since when has the Supreme Court been above temperate and fair criticism? What law or doctrine is there to prevent a citizen, whether in public or private life, or the editor of a newspaper or magazine from expressing his opinions as to the justice or soundness of court rulings? Our rabid and dishonest critics have either forgotten, or else choose to ignore, the fact that the judges of the Supreme Court itself have criticised its decisions. Dissenting opinions are certainly not exceptional, and some of them have been severe, spirited and highly controversial. income tax decision the minority judges displayed much feeling in refuting the arguments of the majority, and the press of the country commented at the time on the earnestness and spirit with which the "court" was "opposed." In the lottery case the chief justice, in dissenting, told the court that its construction of the constitution tended to preserve the form only of that charter, while destroying its substance and meaning. In the Arago case (Robertson vs. Baldwin) the dissenting opinion arraigned the majority decision and opinion of the court as enforcing slavery. These instances can be multiplied indefinitely. Were the minority judges opposing and attacking the court in these cases? Did any one assail them for their vigorous dissent and outspoken criticisms? No; many cordially endorsed their attitude and praised their candor and independence as, indeed, they deserved to be praised.

Another favorite phrase that has been greatly overworked is that "Mr. Gompers overrules the Supreme Court." The thoughtless may be led astray by such misuse of language, but to the sensible it is sufficiently plain

that argument, criticism, and discussion of a decision do not constitute "overruling." Impotent rage and malignity alone can inspire cheap, idle misrepresentation of this sort.

But we have gone farther than negative criticism and discussion. We have favored and announced the use of the power and influence of organized labor and its friends, with Congress in every legitimate way in order to secure legislation legalizing the peaceful and orderly actions of labor. We have asserted and argued that just as a man may refuse to work for another, so may he, under right principle of action, refuse to give his custom to another man. We have further maintained that if men have this right individually, they may have it as an organization when acting in concert. We shall continue to maintain this, in spite of all frenzied denunciation and stupid misrepresentation. Time was when the right of men to strike in concert was held to be illegal, and the sophists of that day drew all sorts of fanciful distinctions between individual strikes and strikes by large bodies and combinations. The progress of thought and of labor has overruled the laws and courts in that respect. It is now admitted-grudgingly, by the way-that men may strike in concert and under an agreement without becoming criminals, no matter how seriously their action may "injure" the employer, or how inconvenient the time for the strike may be for his interests. We contend—and in due time it will be the law-that men may agree to withhold their patronage from any one person, or from any number of persons, for any reason whatever, providing they do not libel or misrepresent, and provided they refrain from all manner of unlawful coercion and aggression. We assert, in short, the moral right of peaceful boycotting, which is only another name for peaceful withholding of patronage from men to whom they are under no legal or moral duty to give their custom or trade. Talk of "conspiracy," injury, malice, and so on, is misleading and irrelevant and question-begging, for it all assumes that men may not do collectively what they may do admittedly, individually.

For the present the Supreme Court has ruled that peaceful boycotting, as explained above, is illegal. There is no body to overrule it, except Congress and the people, whose views may be different and whose conception of public policy and public good may lead to a change in the laws. For such a change we shall work, as we have a right to work, and we are convinced that it must and will come. Lies and abuse and slander will, not be permitted to obstruct the movement for saner and juster laws affecting the rights of workmen and citizens under the constitution.

The Norfolk convention of the American Federation of Labor designated the second Sunday in May of each year as labor's Memorial Day. In setting apart this day labor recognizes the great services of the men and women who have gone to the "great beyond" and in their lives rendered valuable aid in the great uplifting work of the toilers, the masses of our country.

Organized Labor and Farmers, begin at once your preparations for Mass Meetings Sunday or Monday, April 19 or 20.

A

WOMEN IN WELFARE WORK.

NOTABLE conference of women was held in New York City recently to discuss plans for improving the conditions of wage-earners throughout the country. The women who called this conference were the wives, sisters, and daughters of men who manage great industries.

The preliminary meeting for the organization, which will be national in scope, was held at the home of Miss Anne Morgan, Friday noon, March 6th. There were present Mrs. Joseph Medill McCormick, Chicago Ill.; Mrs. C. P. Orr, Birmingham, Ala.; Mrs. Thomas Sherwin, Boston, Mass.; Mrs. Samuel Mather, Cleveland, Ohio; Mrs. Cornelius Stevenson, Philadelphia, Pa.; Mrs. Talcott Williams, Philadelphia, Pa.; Mrs. Archibald Alexauder, Hoboken, N. J.; Mrs. Julia K. West, New York City; Mrs. Eva McDonald Valesh, of the American Federation of Labor, Washington, D. C.; Mrs. J. Borden Harriman, New York City; Mrs. William H Crocker, San Francisco, Cal.; Miss Anne Morgan, New York City; Mrs. Sarah S. Platt Decker, Denver, Colo.; Mrs. Frederick R. Hazard, Syracuse, N. Y.; Mrs. S. Thruston Ballard, Louisville, Ky.; Mrs. J. K. Ottley, Atlanta, Ga.; Mrs. A. F. McKissick, Greenwood, S. C.; Mrs. Richard Wainwright, Washington, D. C.; Miss Eunice Smith, St. Louis, Mo.; Mrs. William Corcoran Eustis, Washington, D. C.

Mrs. J. Borden Harriman, of New York City, presided, and Mrs. Eva McDonald Valesh, of the American Federation of Labor, of Washington, acted as secretary.

At three o'clock that afternoon the New York Woman's Committee was organized at the Colony Club. Mrs. J. Borden Harriman presided. In explaining the object of the organization, she said in part:

"The object of this committee shall be to use its influence in securing needed improvements in the working and living conditions of women and men wage-earners in the various industries and governmental institutions.

"All of us have an influence and some of us are the wives or sisters of employers of large numbers of factory operatives, or perhaps ourselves are owners and stockholders in companies. Should not the woman who spends the money, which the employes help to provide, take a special interest in their welfare, especially in that of the women wage-earners?

"Should we not frankly recognize our own ignorance of the conditions under which they live and work and seek from those whose knowledge can be relied upon to guide us intelligently, a better understanding of the existing conditions and difficulties?

"This we can do by taking the trouble to acquaint ourselves with things as they really are, by coming into contact with those whose weakness is a call upon our strength. We will learn to know from actual practical experience what should be done for the betterment of conditions, among wage

earners.

"Of course we can only do this by going slowly and after educating ourselves, and one way of doing the latter is to hear from leaders in their specific trades. Some of them will speak to us today, and I understand will be willing to tell us of the surroundings and conditions of the workers whom they represent.

"This welfare work is not in fact simply a matter of charity; a decent, wholesome environment for the worker has come in this progressive age to be a part of the social and civic obligation of the modern employer."

Mrs. Eva McDonald Valesh delivered the following address on welfare work from the wageearners' point of view:

"It gives me a great deal of pleasure to be present at a meeting which promises so much in the way of practical good as this movement which you have inaugurated today. I feel, perhaps, a little embarrassed, having to break the ice on the part of the wage-workers, but my qualification for the task is that I have for many years been studying economic conditions and the various welfare movements on the part of men and women more fortunately situated than the wage-workers.

I know that many of the wealthy women of this country have generous and kindly hearts and brilliant intellects, and I know that for years some of them have wanted to do something for those who were less fortunate. But it required many experiments to find out the practical method of getting at the problem. It seems to me that in this movement you have inaugurated today that you are getting down to a practical method.

If the wife or daughter of an employer, or a woman who owns stock in a big industry, takes interest enough to find out what are the conditions under which the men and women in that employment work, it then becomes a matter of almost personal pride with her, that if the conditions are not what they should be, they shall be improved. In many cases they are not what they should benot altogether because the employers are too selfish or too mercenary to do what is right. Many of them have never given any thought to the welfare of their employes. We must remember that there has been such a remarkable revolution in industry in the last half century that it is very difficult to keep up with all its effects and balance it on all hands.

We have advanced from the small shop and

hand worker, with the personal contact between employer and worker to the immense factories and establishments, where the worker is not at all in personal touch with his employer. The employer, unless he is very much impressed with his responsibility, is apt to hold only an impersonal interest towards his employe. Then, in the new system of industry which has come up, in the rush of accumulating vast fortunes and vast profits, it has been very easy to overlook the wage-worker, and to forget that he who was contributing so much, was not getting the share that he should. Now, the wage-workers have done much for them

[ocr errors]

men will have their usual success in persuading the American men to do what they want.

Now, I want to call your attention to the fact that welfare work is a good business proposition for the employer. Every worker is entitled to perform his or her work in a properly constructed, well ventilated, and hygienic factory. The speed of production is such now that an average of eight hours is enough to ask anybody to work. Those are reasonable hours. Any employer who fails to house his employes properly during working hours, who rushes them too greatly, who is not careful, not conscientious about the conditions

[graphic][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

selves. In fact, it has been incumbent upon them to get what improvements they could by organization; by protests of various sorts. But as a wageworker I can tell you that one of the most discouraging things about that is, that neither the employers nor general public are willing to believe that what we say is true when we point out bad conditions of employment. They think we exaggerate them, because we feel ourselves to be a somewhat injured party.

Now, that criticism can not apply if the women whose husbands and fathers are interested in business come into this work. Such women will go and see for themselves exactly what the conditions are, and if they make up their minds that improvement is needed, I think the American wo

which surround them, is not getting the results from the labor of those people which he should.

There was at one time somewhat of a feeling in this country that we had so many wage-workers that it didn't matter very much if you did wear them out and throw them aside. I do not think that feeling obtains so generally now. I think that there is growing-up a strong public opinion in favor of the more humane and kindly side of industrialism. In this movement started today I see a strong illustration of that feeling.

I know from some of the things that I have already heard your members say that they propose to view and to study actual economic conditions. This is certainly a wise plan, for it would not be of much use for you to go around and visit the

various industries if you had not some means of judging whether or not the conditions you saw were good, nor would your interest avail you much unless you know how to remedy what is wrong. I believe that the study of practical and scientific economics will appeal to you and you will find it most interesting and fascinating.

Some have said to me that they thought, perhaps, the working girls would not be appreciative of what is known as welfare work. Personally I am in favor of accepting the best conditions of work an employer is willing to offer me. He can not make my wages too high or surroundings too pleasant to suit me. The better he makes them, the better work I will do for him. I think that is the position of those who look at welfare work reasonably. But I do admit this, there are a great many wage workers who feel a certain sense of pride and independence; they don't wish to be patronized. Welfare work should not be patronage. As I said, it is a good business proposition for the employer. If a man gives employes a well-lighted, clean factory, serves a hot lunch at a reasonable price, and pays good wages, and gives reasonable hours, that is good for the employer and brings him good

returns.

If the wives, the daughters, the sisters of large employers will exercise the same tact and courtesy toward the wage-workers that they do among ordinary social acquaintances, I think they will find a ready and appreciative response.

I know that some of you, though new in this work, are very earnest and enthusiastic, and I ask you to keep your eyes open for the occasional talented girl among the workers. There is the occasional girl who has talent, perhaps genius, who has a really artistic soul. You know it is likely to be crushed out of her in the factory or shop. You can do much for the one who is worthy of something far better than a factory or shop. To put even one soul on the road of finding what life really should mean-what greater good could you do?

Then, too, there are so many average bright girls, who, if treated in a friendly and frank sort of way, will respond, and go about among their fellow-workers and help you to institute welfare work in the way in which it will be most effective.

To have the wife of an employer-I put it in that way as typical of your movement-the wife, sister or daughter of the employer going into the factory or the shop and seeing for herself what the conditions are, and if they are not just what they should be, persuading the head of the firm to see that proper reforms are instituted, and taking a real and kindly interest in the workers, is one of the dreams I long have cherished; I hope now to see it fulfilled. It will help those who give as well as those who receive.

We are a little too hard and commercial in all our manifestations of modern industry. Surely it is about time that the softer and more humane side of life should be touched upon.

Then, too, there is this important phase of it, the working girls of today will be the mothers of the coming generation. We are looking to their children to uphold our institutions in the spirit in which they were founded and in which we hope to see them carried on. If there is some criticism today that the tendency is in the wrong

direction, the responsibility really rests with those who have the leisure, the intelligence and the ability to set things right. Of course, your welfare work is not identical with my own work as a trade unionist, but to me it seems that there could be nothing finer for the woman who has the leisure, the means and the opportunity, than to get outside of herself; to interest herself in other women less fortunately situated.

I don't know that I could, and indeed I have not the time to indicate to you all the various phases which your welfare work may take on. I am sure that you will find out those for yourselves. You will find in this work more attractive features than you had ever expected. I don't know that I need to caution you about being carried away by fads, because I think women sensible enough to take up this line of work will not be given to too much emotionalism, but I have sometimes felt in reference to various so-called reform movements that they degenerate into mere fads or empty sentimentalism. But that caution is not necessary to women who are level headed enough to see that the work of self-help begins right at home, right at your own door-step, in the factory, or the business in which you or your men folks are interested.

I don't think welfare work can go too far if conducted on proper lines. I don't think it can do too much good, or is likely to do too much. I will say this on the part of the workers, that welfare work, no matter how generous and kindly in intention, should never attempt to deprive the workers of a certain independence which belongs to them. A clean, beautiful, well-ventilated factory, with modern improvements, should not be made to take the place of good wages and reasonable hours. Wages should not be charged to the welfare account, so to speak. That has been done occasionally by those who were not wise in their method of going about it.

In your study of economics, which I am certain you will soon undertake if you have not already done so, you will find yourselves agreeing with me, that the 'prevailing union rate' of wages is none too great for any worker, whatever his skill or trade, because the workers are entitled to have sufficient earnings to expend in a fair way of living, and employers should add much more for special skill. Wage-workers are entitled to comfortable homes. They wish to educate their children. Finally, I should say that welfare work most emphatically, should not be a bar to the trade organization of the workers. It should encourage and supplement the work of trade organization.

You will find when you come to investigate, that there is not as much organization among workingwomen as there should be. One reason for that is that girls who work do not expect to stay long, in factory or shop. They expect to be married soon, and have homes of their own. They do not take the interest in organization that men do, who expect to stay in an industry during their whole life. I am sure, as your work progresses, you will find the unions among the workers one of the most helpful and hopeful indications of progress.

I wish to personally assure you of my deep interest in the work you are so earnestly undertaking, and my hope it will be quite as successful as you expect, and that its influence for good will be felt in every industry and every city in the country."

« ForrigeFortsett »