The principle of the closed shop, as advocated by trades unionists, came in for a severe arraignment recently when Messrs John Kirby, Jr., President of the National Association of Manufacturers, and Joseph W. Bryce, President of the Trades and Workers' Association, engaged in a discussion of the subject in the Forum of the New York University-Mr. Kirby from the viewpoint of employers, Mr. Bryce from that of the wage-earner. The arguments of both, however, were in support of the same conclusion, unfavorable to the closed shop, though each made it clear that he was not opposed to organizations among laborers-organizations that "are founded upon, and practice, the fundamental principle that their rights end where the rights of others begin," as Mr. Kirby put it, or, as Mr. Bryce put it, those that recognize that "one of the first principles of organization is that it should live within the law."

Mr. Kirby, because, as he said, many who are familiar with the terms "closed shop" and "open shop" have no clear conception of their real meaning, took occasion 'to define them before entering into the merits of the question. The idea that a unionized shop must be a closed shop, or that the open shop is necessarily antagonistic to the principles of legitimate trade-unionism, he declared, is erroneous. "The term open shop relates to a factory or other place where labor of any kind is performed by labor

of freedom of contract and reserves to himself the privilege of employing such persons as may seem to him to be best suited to perform the labor for which he hires them, acting entirely upon the principle laid down in the constitution of this country, that all men are entitled to, and by that instrument are guaranteed, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Thus the open shop may tersely be described as being a workplace wherein honesty, efficiency and merit constitute the measure of right of employment and wherein the question whether a workman is or is not a member of a labor union is not essential to his receiving a square deal."

His definition of the term "closed shop" he quoted from The Bridgemen's Magazine, the organ of the Bridge and Structural Iron Workers' Union, as follows: "Closed shop, then, is the term for a shop, factory, store or other industrial place, where workmen cannot obtain employment without being members in good standing of the labor unions of their trades. This is demanded by the unions. Objecting to working in co-operation with scabs, rats, strikebreakers or other non-union workmen, they insist that the shop shall be closed against all employes who, not already belonging to the unions of their trades, refuse to join them. If the union is able

to coerce the employer, or he is friendly enough to yield without coercion, this demand is granted, and that establishment is consequently closed

shop."

a

But this definition, Mr. Kirby went on to say, was far from conveying its full meaning. The closed shop, he argued, "puts a premium on indolence. It encourages its members to

wage an unlawful and merciless warfare against their fellow laborers who disagree with them, and resorts to unfair, dishonorable and cruel methods to deprive non-unionists of their right to earn an honest living and to thus compel them to become unionists or suffer themselves and those dependent upon them for support to starve. its demands upon and dealing with employers it ignores the spirit, as well as the letter, of fair dealing as between man and man, and seeks to enforce the acceptance of propositions that would not be recognized as fair and proper in ordinary business life.

JOHN KIRBY, JR.

In

"It advocates and practices a policy of limiting output to a degree entirely inconsistent with the pay demanded, always to the detriment of the public. It deprives our American boys (by unreasonable limitation. of the apprentice system) of the opportunity to learn trades and thus erects a barrier to their following the occupations of their choice and adaptation creates a scarcity of skilled mechanics and thereby restrains and limits our industrial resources. It seeks to establish a class line between labor and capital by adopting policies and imposing methods which tend to destroy ambition, handicap energy

and inspire men to become strong union men rather than honorable, thrifty and well-to-do citizens. It persistently and incessantly urges and demands legislation which, if enacted into law, would remove all legal barriers to its unholy and cowardly boycotts as well as to its brutal and property-destroying practices, legislation which would be favorable to labor unions and injurious to all other classes of citizens.

"Its main purpose is to establish a trust of the most vicious and dangerous character, which, if permitted to progress to its logical culmination, would result in incalculable injury and annoyance to all citizens, its own members included. It is an irresponsible organization with which, in many cases, contracts cannot be entered into with confidence. It impedes and discourages personal advancement through personal effort. It is an avenue for graft and illegal and wrongful deals between the walking delegates of the union and unscrupulous employers. It is a hindrance to the upbuilding of character tending to promote the betterment of mankind and develop good citizenship. The attitude of the officers of the American Federation of Labor toward the courts finds its justification in the creeds of socialism and anarchy, and the example of these men, whatever their pretences may be, to the lawlessly inclined element of society is to encourage men to defy law and commit crime. Its aim is to control things which it has neither the legal nor the moral right to control, and such control as it has secured has been attained through violence, boycott or destruction of property, or the fear thereof, and it is, therefore, the domination of force, exercised in defiance of constituted authority and law. It is purely hostile to ordained government, economically unsound in principle, decidedly adverse to public policy and, therefore, a menace to orderly society."

The advocates of the closed shop, Mr. Kirby then said, contend that it has a great advantage as a means of collective bargaining, since the individual workman has no chance in the labor market to secure for himself

what is justly his due that such an institution is necessary for the maintenance of the trade union, because without it there would be no means of enforcing its recognition. “I venture the prediction, however," he continued, "that they will not tell you anything about the 'inner circle' of closed shop unionism, by which its officials are perpetuated in office; nor about the re-election to office of a number of the principle dynamiters while serving terms in Leavenworth prison; nor about the illegal conspiracy between organizations of employers and labor unions which provide for the employment of union labor only and the boycotting of non-union material, the prime factor in the high cost of building common in many cities. Nor will they tell you anything about the criminal methods by which, and only by which, closed shop unionism has been, or can be, enforced; nor the increased cost of production of all commodities, and the correspondingly increased prices to the consumer, or, if they do, their defense will be a thinly-veiled appeal to expediency. * * *

"In addition to the the crime-for crime it is of excluding from employment non-union workmen who through conscientious conviction or otherwise, do not, and cannot, approve of the principles upon which the closed shop is based and the methods by which it is enforced, and who, therefore, refuse to be enslaved in its membership, the closed shop carries with it, as a part of its demand for recognition, certain restrictions upon the employer in the conduct of his business which transfer from him. to the union rights and powers to which the latter has no legal or moral claim. The practical effect of this is to fortify the employe in his job, through the union, and remove the element of merit as a basis for employment. Under such conditions, where the union and not the employer is the master, the result is bound to be, whether through union resolution or not, destructive of the ambition, honesty and dignity of the workman, and reflected into the output of the factory, and hence upon the communi

"Another feature of the closed shop is its arbitrary determination to establish a minimum wage, which, in practice, results in a standardizing of wages, thereby placing the thrifty and the unthrifty workman on a parity in earning power, averaging the wage cost of production and removing from. the field of industrial endeavor all ambition to initiate, or to excell in skill and productivity, the inevitable tendency of which is to retard progress in the mechanical arts and turn development backwards into a channel of retrogression. No institution having brute force and dynamite as its base of support can long endure in this country. If it is in accord with modern civilization to say to a man, you cannot earn a living for yourself and family because you are not a member of the union, then it is just as reasonable to say that a man shall not work because he happens to be, or not to be, a Democrat or a Republican. There is no difference in the principle involved."

In reaffirmance of the various points he made, Mr. Kirby proceeded to quote from articles that had appeared in The Labor Digest, The Labor World, The Pacific Coast Mechanic, the platform of the National Metal Trades Association, the report of the Anthracite Coal Strike Commission and Mr. J. Lawrence Laughlin's recent work on Latter Day Problems, and, taking up the economic phases of the matter, gave numerous illustrations of the practical effect of the purchasing power of the higher wages which he said might result if the closed shop were to become general. Six years of actual experience in San Francisco, he pointed out, where in 1904 there were some 4,500 factories, employing about 45,000 workers, brought about a reduction in the number of factories to 1,398, employing only about 14,000 workers, and in reducing the value of the annual production from $238,000,000 to $78,981,879.

Mr. Bryce said in part: "I am in favor of the open shop for various reasons. In fact, there are SO

many reasons that it would be impossible to state them all clearly in the time allotted and submit the arguments to uphold them. My first reason, however, is that there is no union good enough, no matter how good it may be, and no matter what may be its purpose, to hold a monopoly of the right to work in any shop, factory, trade or calling. Whenever any man surrenders his individuality completely to an organization—political, social, religious or labor-he surrenders his freedom. The right to

work may not safely be placed in the hands of any body of men who band themselves together for the purpose of obtaining a monopoly of any kind. The constitution of the United States

gives a guarantee to all men that they shall have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and it would hardly seem to be a debatable question that the labor unions be allowed to usurp that right and prevent its being fully exercised. * * *

"In nearly every closed union shop I find from the employes themselves who are members of the union, that there is a limit placed by their organizations on how much they may turn out in a day's work. To me the closed shop unions are in an absolutely illogical position. They rail continually about the increased cost of living, yet they limit the number of hours a man may work in a day, limit the amount he may produce in those hours, and then wonder why the cost of living continues to rise. * * * I am for the open shop for the further reason that more is being done for the preservation of the health of the men and for the conservation of human energy and human happiness than in the closed shop. The rule in most closed shop industries is this, as it is in all fields of human endeavor, that the man or firm that is compelled to do anything usually never does anything more than they are forced to do. My experience has been one which may be gained by any one who travels over this country with his eyes open, and it is that the sanitary conditions of open shop factories are better than those in the closed shops. The open shop employers voluntarily

look at it from the humanitarian and also from a business standpoint, realizing that the best conditions they can have for light, heat, pure air, etc., conserve the energies of their men and naturally increase their efficiency, thus making possible a larger output in an economical way."

Origin of Boycott

"From time to time the English language is enriched by a new word," says the Cleveland Socialist, "that thoroughly describes an old condition. A landlord in the south of Ireland in 1881 was particularly se

vere

upon his tenants, whereupon dignation against him. They did not the community arose in righteous inphysically assail him but they refused to treat with him in all the affairs of daily life. Did he go to church, the congregation walked out; did he go to a store to purchase commodities. the store-keeper had nothing to sell; did he go to a hotel or restaurant, he could not find food or shelter. So completely was this work of ostracism carried on that it attracted first national, and then international attention. This man's name was Boycott, and now all the world knows what it means to boycott a man. And thus was this new word born 32 years ago."

Do Not Want I. W. W.

Five hundred citizens of Grand Junction, Col., at a mass meeting recently, adopted resolutions demanding the sheriff drive out 130 Industrial Workers of the World who had invaded Grand Junction on a pilgrimage from the Pacific coast to Denver. The meeting also demanded the resignation of Mayor Todd, a socialist. P. McEvery, leader of the Industrial Workers, announced that a meeting would later be held on the streets and that his men would organize their own police force to prevent interference. Seventy members of the order arrived afterward, and 200 more were said to be on their way to Grand Junction.