concerns in the trust." Does The Journal imagine that this business can go to another concern without that concern employing additional workers or just about that same number of workers who went on strike, and thus, though the personnel of the workers will not be, the net social and economic results are the same, with the exception that the latter are employed under generally improved conditions. course, it is true that the combinations and trusts reach across the country, but so do workingmen and so do labor organizations.

Of

The Journal does itself no honor when it flippantly and contemptuously refers to the effort of the working people to secure higher wages and less hours of labor and improved conditions generally by saying that they are

66

chattering about little local salary regulations, or quarreling about hours of overtime." The Journal is a strictly union office in which the wages, hours of labor of all employes, are regulated according to the union rules; it carries the union label as an evidence that it is a union establishment; but it has taken years of effort of the workers in the printing and other trades to organize and create a healthy public sentiment and judgment which have reached The Journal proprietors and thousands of other concerns and caused them to see the wisdom, the justice, the equity and self-interest in conducting a union establishment. It is something not yet understood by the wiseacres of the public press, how potent the influence for material, moral, social, and political reform are the constant and persistent effort and "chattering" about wages and hours of labor.

We shall not worry ourselves at this time about the "trust of trusts." We know that every attempt to deal with the trusts legislatively or judicially has proven a dismal failure. We do know that there is an effective power arisen, and that that power is constantly growing, which does and will effectually deal with the trusts so that they shall be operated in the interests of the whole people. That power, Mr. Editor of The Journal, is the oftridiculed, seldom understood, and always opposed trade unions. You "just watch out."

A TRUST MAGNATE ON ORGANIZATION.

In the current issue of the Cosmopolitan the great trust magnate, F. W. Morgan, dilates upon the supposed good which the "trusts," under the euphonious title of "industrial organization," are designed to do for the people of our country. It is unnecessary for our present purpose to show how mistaken even a brainy man can be, but that his conception of organized effort is keen cau not be successfully disputed.

There is enough matter in Mr. Morgan's

article for criticism of the trusts and combines in modern industry, but there can be no gain saying that his conception of organized effort is accurate and applies with great force and clearness to the trade union movement. In order that he may more clearly describe his subject he quotes Goethe's famous definition of "organism" as follows:

"The more perfect an organism, the greater the differentiation of the parts, each part from the whole and each part from each other part. "The more imperfect an organism, the more each part resembles the whole and each part each other part."

The trade unions under the banner of the American Federation of Labor may well appropriate the writer's language as properly descriptive of their autonomous functions, and yet comprehensive and fraternal course and purpose, when he says:

"To attain perfection in an organism, it is required that each widely differentiated part shall maintain itself in perfect equipoise as related to the whole mass, and that its complete function shall be properly adjusted to the object to be attained by the whole mass."

Of course, organized effort has always existed among men, and is as old as society itself. The contrast between the organization of the trust and the organization of the trade union however, is that the former is parasitical, lives and thrives upon the great mass of the wage-earners and tends to vitiate the people's rights, and gives therefor little or nothing in return; while the trade unions's aim is the uplifting of the great body of wage-workers, the enlightenment of the masses, humanizing the conditions of life more every day and working for the good of the whole human race.

With equal truth the trust magnate says, "the greater the advancement of a people, the more perfect does organized effort become." A view of the present conditions of the toiling masses of America demonstrates this beyond the peradventure of a doubt. "One is the outcome of the other. Each is dependent upon the other. Neither can exist without the other," and it is to the greater advancement of the people that the effort of organized labor is directed and will beyond question be achieved.

We shall again recur to the subject of this very interesting article, when we shall deal more fully with its trust feature and its influence upon labor and the people.

have expressed astonishment that the Senator, who was appointed as chairman of the Senate Committee on Education and Labor, and Chairman of the Industrial Commission because of his supposed friendliness toward labor, should have been guilty of any conduct so reprehensible as that referred to.

We have no desire to do Senator Kyle an injustice. We shall simply relate a few facts which all should know, and rest there. The Legislative Committee of the American Federation of Labor, together with its president, called upon Senator Kyle at his residence on January 26, 1898, and asked him to take charge of the Eight-hour Bill (H. R. 7389), which had already been introduced in the House. Organized labor could have secured any Senator to introduce the bill, but we wanted a Senator who was favorably inclined and fortunately situated for the favorable consideration of such a measure, and who could stand as its sponsor, advocate, and defender. Senator Kyle readily assented, and he introduced the bill in the Senate the following day. Two hearings were had, and at their close the Senate Committee on Education and Labor adopted a motion that the next hearing of the committee should be "an executive session to vote upon the bill." Months passed before a meeting of the committee was called, notwithstanding frequent urging. We were then advised that a hearing would be held, but it would be devoted to hearing arguments in opposition to it. On June 16, this meeting of the committee was held, when the great shipbuilding companies were represented by their management in person, and by their attorneys and lobbyists. It was only by reason of the confidence that the shipbuilders' attorneys had in their own case, that they defiantly challenged the representatives of labor to answer their arguments, that an opportunity was afforded for an answer at all that day.

It was clearly shown that Senator Kyle, as chairman of the committee, had corresponded with the manufacturers and had provoked their antagonism to the measure. The bill, however, was reported to the Senate without recommendation, as Senator Kyle stated to the representatives of labor, in order "to avoid a minority report being submitted against it." Notwithstanding the fact that we were anxious that the bill should be passed, or forced to consideration and vote before the close of the second session of the Fifty-fifth Congress, Senator Kyle falsely stated to several Senators that it was the purpose of organized labor that the bill should not pass at that session, but that it should go over until the next session, so that, as he said, "its friends could properly amend it."

Finding that Senator Kyle could not be relied

upon in this measure, and it being understood in the committee that any member thereof could call up the bill at any time, we persuaded Senator Cannon, of Utah, who gladly assented, to call up the bill in the Senate. Senator Platt, of Connecticut, in open Senate stated that he had received assurances from Senator Kyle that the bill would not be called up during that session. Senator Cannon replied that if that assurance was given, it was without warrant or authority of the committee. The second session closed, and the Eight-hour Bill was not passed.

At the opening of the third session, December 1898, the Eight-hour Bill was on the calendar. Senator Kyle, during the "morning hour," in the early part of January, 1899, when but few Senators were present, and without consultation with any other member of the committee or any other Senator or friend of the bill, moved and secured the recommittal of the bill to the Senate Committee on Education and Labor.

Then two other hearings were held a month later, February 3 and 4, 1899, and the opponents were out in full force, with the same magnates and attorneys who appeared at the June hearing, but augmented by the august presence of another attorney, ex-Secretary of the Navy Herbert. Men appeared before the committee having not the remotest interest in the bill either one way or another-such men as can always be drummed up in favor of or opposed to any measure in which the money power is interested. Notwithstanding all this legerdemain, the Senate Committee again directed the bill to be reported.

Senator Caffery, of Louisiana, was opposed to the bill, and later stated to the representatives of the American Federation of Labor that he would submit a minority report; but, from the information which we had, we felt reasonably assured that the Senator would desist, and that he so advised Senator Kyle, when, in order to secure a minority report, he (Senator Kyle) joined with Senator Caffery in the minority report against it, thus doing exactly what he distinctly avowed was his purpose to avoid.

When the bill was taken up by the Senate, Senator Kyle was oue among those who voted to set it aside, to take up another bill, and thus kill the Eight-hour Bill for that Congress.

We thus had the unprecedented spectacle of a United States Senator introducing a bill with the distinct promise of fathering, defending, and advocating it, and urging its passage, submitting a minority report against its passage, and voting for its displacement and death.

Another matter in connection with this Eight-hour Bill and the hearings upon it. should be stated. When the first hearings were had and representatives of labor only argued in advocacy of its passage, there was

no stenographer present to take notes. When the opponents of the bill were heard, June 16, 1898, a regular expert stenographer was present, and the statements of both sides taken down accurately. At the last hearing on the bill, an inexperienced stenographer was pressent to take notes. The opponents were given an opportunity to revise their statements; the representatives of labor were accorded no such courtesy or privilege. Owing to the admitted inexperience or incompetency of the stenographer, the representatives of labor at that hearing are reported as having said things which are absolutely incomprehensible and without meaning.

We deem it our duty, in view of the many inquiries and the previously supposed friendship for labor which Senator Kyle assumed, that the above facts should be generally known.

We might add that, though disappointed at the failure of the passage of the bill, we are not discouraged, but shall continue to press it home upon the Congress and all others that the eight-hour day must be the maximum hours of labor for all wage earners; by law for Government employes, and for Government work, and by agreement in all private employments. The eight-hour day is destined to come, and soon, too, in spite of all opposition or treachery.

CHEAP LABOR, NOT CIVILIZATION,

THEIR PURPOSE.

When the AMERICAN FEDERATIONIST first attacked the wisdom of the policy of imperialism and expansion and asserted that its influence would tend to the injury of the working classes of the United States, many of our jingoist newspapers flaunted the idea, and no invective was deemed fully expressive of the contempt with which our criticism was regarded. We now have before us a copy of an editorial published in the New York Commercial Advertiser, one of the most representative of the expansionists, and thoroughly capitalistic in its every line, makeup, and purpose, in which it is averred that without the outlets of a foreign trade we would soon reach another period of industrial congestion and stagnation; and it continues, "which will bring within its wake a falling in wages and prices."

With this statement for the present we have little to do, except that the editorial continues in this strain:

"But to secure control of foreign markets, it is necessary to meet foreign conditions of production, and this is futile as long as there is sharp difference in wages and prices between one competing country and another."

Inasmuch as it is the policy of the expansionist to adopt "the open door" in the new possessions, The Commercial Advertiser insists that we can not secure the foreign markets and even the Philippines unless the sharp differences in wages between the workers of the United States and those of cheap labor countries, and the Philippines themselves, are more nearly equalized. And since no one ever accused The Commercial Advertiser of being the advocate of higher wages for any workers, the only inference which can drawn from its expression is that the wages of the American workers must come down more nearly to the level of the cheap labor countries, and thus diminish the "sharp differences in wages."

be

We are now only in the initiatory stages of ! the development of this policy of expansion and imperialism, and the advocates are extremely modest and moderate in the expression of their hopes and purposes, and the means by which they propose to attain them; but the Commercial Advertiser hints, perhaps prematurely, but very broadly, of what one of the purposes and methods is which our friends, the imperialists, have in mind.

The imperialists shout loudly that it is "The White Man's Burden" to carry civilization, liberty, and freedom among uncivilized peoples; but beneath it all lies the sordid motive. We recently said:

'Scratch a Russian, and the Tartar will immediately appear; scratch the hide of an imperialist, and, though the veneering of patriotism and civilization may for a time resist the operation, there will soon be exposed to view the glimmer of the dollar in the trade with breech-clouted five-cents-a-day semi savages."

If we mistake not, the sober second thought of the people will soon assert itself, and demonstrate that the people of our country are determined that their interests, their future, their happiness, their liberty, shall not be hazarded upon so dangerous a policy as is implied under that term imperialism or expansion. They will find organized labor demonstrating the truth that "The best laid schemes o' mice and men gang aft a-glee."

AND THE ORGANIZER CAME BACK!

The coal miners of the Indian Territory were organizing. The operators sought to nip the effort in the bud and discharged a number of union men, whereupon all the miners struck for an increase of wages, the eight-hour day, and the reinstatement of the discharged men. The coal operators with the co-operation of the Indian agent ordered Mr. James Boston, the

organizer, to quit the Territory on the ground that he had been "playing the role of an agitator and inducing men to strike,' " and that this was 66 a menace to the repose of society." Mr. Boston complained against this treatment, and the President of the American Federation of Labor called upon the Secretary of the Interior and had a conference regarding the matter. The Secretary issued an order suspending the Indian agent's notice to Mr. Boston until otherwise notified by the Department. Addressing a letter to the Secretary of the Interior Hitchcock upon the same subject, on the date of March 20, we said:

"It certainly seems that Mr. Wisdom (Indian agent) has overstepped his authority, and has assumed to characterize a peaceable, law-abiding citizen as 'one who has been playing the role of an agitator.' It is denied that he has induced men to strike; but I submit that even if that be a fact, it is not a violation of law for a man to induce other workmen to quit work or to strike against low wages, long hours, and slave-like conditions of labor.

"We do not think that the organizations of labor are a menace to the repose of society;' on the contrary, we maintain that they are necessary to its safety. In either event, we contend that neither Mr. Wisdom nor Mr. Wright (the other agent) has been commissioned by society as its savior.

"We ask no special privileges for Mr. Boston other than are accorded to every other citizen bent on a lawful pursuit. Should he violate law, he becomes amenable to it the same as every other citizen; and I respectfully request that the order of your Department, under date of the 16th inst., suspending the enforcement of the notice of Messrs. Wisdom and Wright of the 7th inst., be made permanent."

We are advised that Mr. Boston returned to the Territory, and is exercising his rights as a citizen, a man, and an organizer in the labor movement. The prospects for victory for the miners are reported to be good.

LET ALL ASSIST TO UNITE THE PAINTERS.

Constantly concerned with the effort to organize the workers and to unite the movement, and realizing that the division among the painters' organizations is fraught with gave injury to the men engaged at that trade as well as to the general labor movement, the Executive Council of the American Federation of Labor at its last session directed the President of the American Federation of Labor to address a letter to Mr. John Barrett, Secretary of the Painters' Organization with headquarters at Lafayette, and to suggest that the terms of a conference and unity proposed last year should be the basis ubon which a conference should be held at as early a date as possible. In pursuance with that instruction, the following letter was transmitted:

OFFICE OF

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR.
WASHINGTON, D. C., March 9, 1899.

Mr. JOHN BARRETT, Secretary, etc.,

Lafayette, Ind.

DEAR SIR: At the last meeting of the Executive Council, held in this city, the undersigned was directed to enter into correspondence with you with a view of bringing about the amalgamation of the painters' organizations of the country.

It is needless for me to call attention to the sad sight witnessed by all lovers of unionism, now presenting itself by reason of the division in the trade. Intelligent men have long ago held that no two bodies can claim jurisdiction over one trade without antagonism and conflict resulting. That this is specifically as well as generally true is evidenced by the condition now prevailing among the paintLast year I had the honor of transmitting to you a series of resolutions adopted by the Executive Council, of which the following is a copy:

ers.

"RESOLVED, That the Executive Council advise and urgently recommend that each of the two representative National Organizations of Painters, both known as the Brotherhood of Painters and Decorators of America, shall choose or elect five representatives to meet in a general çonference (upon a date to be agreed upon), with full power to agree upon such terms of consolidation or amalgamation as will unite both bodies in one organization, and thus put an end to the present factional quarrels which are so hurtful to the welfare of the painters, and so damaging to the entire trade union movement.

"RESOLVED, That at this conference, after joint terms of agreement are therein adopted, plans shall be arranged for the election of general officers of the consolidated body by general vote of the members of the two respective National Organizations of Painters, and that, after the general officers are thus elected, those now at the head of both of the present organizations shall retire from office.

"RESOLVED, That a copy of these resolutions be forthwith transmitted to the headquarters of each organization of painters for further action, and President Gompers is hereby instructed to enter into correspondence with them to carry out the purposes of these resolutions."

These resolutions were adopted by the Brotherhood of Painters and Decorators of America, then in convention assembled, and a committee appointed in accordance with its provisions. The propositions in somewhat different form were submitted by you to your membership, and by a small majority defeated. Subsequently, overtures were made for the purpose of bringing about unity upon the basis contained in these resolutions, but they were rejected by you.

However, at the Kansas City Convention of the American Federation of Labor, during the discussion then taking place upon this subject, you were good enough to say that you would favor the proposition for amalgamation. It was with these facts in mind that the Executive Council directed me to enter into correspondence with you upon the subject, and, at the same time, urge and appeal to you to give your hearty and prompt support to end the awful conditions now prevailing among the painters.

It is needless for me to say that if the division continues, it will simply devolve upon the American Federation of Labor to continue placing the responsibility for the division where it rightfully belongs, and to give that recognition and support which the American Federation of Labor can give to the organization of painters affiliated with us.

In the interest of unity and with a view of more promptly effecting the desired result, I suggest that the resolutions quoted above be submitted to your local unions for ratification. The time and place of meeting for the committee of both painters' organizations can be mutually agreed upon;

or, in the event of failure so to do, can be set by our Executive Council.

I beg to say that by instructions of my colleagues a copy of this letter will be forwarded to the officers of the local unions attached to your organization.

Sincerely hoping that this action may meet with your cordial co-operation and that it may tend to unite and amalgamate the painters' organizations of America and heal the sores of the past, I am, Very truly yours, SAMUEL GOMPERS, President A. F. of L. Desirous of accomplishing the best results in the shortest possible time, in pursuance of instructions, a copy of the letter was mailed to the secretaries of the local unions affiliated with the organization referred to. We are firmly of the opinion that if the letter and proposition are received with the same cordial, earnest spirit which prompted its authorization and transmission, that which is now a bone of sore contention in the labor field will soon be healed, unity accomplished, and a new impetus given to the progress and success of the cause. We appeal to our fellow-unionists and our fellow workers everywhere to aid in the laudable effort to heal the breach among the painters.

EDITORIAL COMMENT.

Trade unions are possible only in industrial and in civilized countries.

Organization of labor on trade union lines is the means to labor's education, and will as surely lead to the toilers' emancipation.

Wherever a union exists, the workers are reaping some of the advantages of the revival in industry. In few places, if anywhere, where organization is non-existent, have the workers obtained any improvement. And yet, our radical friends say trade unions are "no good."

Liberty and trade unions are synonymous terms in modern civilized life. The more general and powerful the trade unions, the more tangible and patent is freedom.

That which we call tyranny in our time is simply the clearer conception we have of our rights; the clearer conception which the trade unions' achievements have made clear to our mental vision.

The wage worker who is not a member of his union is the clog on the wheels of the industrial improvement and the freedom of the workers.

The splendid service our organizers are rendering the cause of labor and labor reform is bearing good fruit. The workers are being organized in their unions, and the toilers are marshaling their forces for their gradual yet inevitable emancipation.