being a part of his belief. They seek to create a breach between those having property and those without it. They make outcasts of law-abiding and industrious people. They declare that men shall not vote or be voted for who employ labor and derive profit therefrom; or who derive profit from savings or interest; or who having worked hard and from savings have built houses or stores from which rents are derived to maintain the owners in old age. No clergyman is allowed to vote-showing their hatred and opposition to religious teaching. These, and other persons considered as respectable and desirable citizens in other lands, are not only suspicious characters in the body politic, but are decreed to be legal outcasts.

In every country, especially America, we find men branching out in trade and business for themselves, after having first served as an apprentice or laborer. Having thus helped themselves to better their condition, they in turn assist others to provide against the day of old age and infirmity. This, however, must not be, says the Bolshevist. Men of large means and of small holdings are enemies of society: only the man who works with his hands is recognized. Today more despotism and inequality exists in Russia under the red flag and Soviet than under the reign of grand dukes and Czar. They have wrecked Russia and it will take many years to regain security and stable government. These revolutionists are against all government, and their forces are working westward; they are in France, England and in our country.

They seek to influence the minds of American workmen with their revolutionary ideas. Some headway is being made, due to the fact that labor is restless and unsettled. The American workman as a class is law-abiding and loyal to his country. He and his family enjoy practically the same benefits and advantages as his neighbor; opportunity for advancement is ever before him. The American workingman, we believe, is against state socialism, but there is a growing tendency in the wage earners to insist upon their

right to organize and bargain collectively. The war has done more to augment this movement and make it a live issue than all the work and agitation of its sponsors for the past seventy-five years.

It is said that the attitude of our courts toward collective bargaining is hostile, notwithstanding a contrary policy taken by the War Labor Board, The Federal Fuel Administration, The War Industries Board, and other Bureaus created by legislative act or executive appointment. These Boards and Commissions are usually composed of three members, one representing the army or navy, one representing the public, and the third representing labor. In some instances the representative of labor has been nominated by the President of the American Federation of Labor, thus bringing the government to recognize and deal with organized labor, which, until the breaking out of the war, it had always refused to do.

Thus we see organized labor made an equal partner by and with the government in its war activities. The handling of the railroad men, coal miners, dock hands, ship builders in the emergency fleet corporation, cantonment construction men and the hundreds of thousands of men engaged in other branches of labor and industry have been under the jurisdiction and control of organized labor. Their duly accredited representatives sat upon every Board and dominated the fixing of hours of work, wage scales and working conditions.

As a result of these experiences on the part of organized labor it has assumed greater activities and makes additional demands. There have been many new developments. A new and independent labor party has been organized that proclaims, "The unqualified right of the workers to organize," and to insist upon the right of labor to hold, manage and control the natural resources of the country equally with the title owners of the same. It proposes to make the government the owners of railroads, express companies and telegraph and telephone lines, and then manage and oper

ate them, fixing the hours of work, scale of wages, and working conditions of all employees, and to divide equally with the government any profits that may be made. If, however, the properties are run at a loss, these new managers will bear no part thereof, but will require the government to supply the deficit. This radical change in the objects and purposes of government we regard as impracticable, unwise and should be condemned.

Now that the War is ended, we find plants and factories turned back by the government to their owners to manage and control. We also see the dissolution of these Boards and Bureaus. But what is the effect of the former management upon the employees? Have they, like the property been turned back to prior status quo? Many employers propose to bar the unions from their factories, as they might do before the war. The great majority of laborers resent this action. The effect of this change of policy is summed up by former President Taft, who said, "This is a very painful situation to me. We wish to secure what these workers are entitled to under our previous award. The present attitude of the company in refusing to accept after what has been done colors the whole situation with a sense of injustice which makes one yearn for judicial power to compel compliance. But this Board has not that power."

Following this statement Mr. Taft has, within the past few weeks, come out boldly in favor of labor's contention for the right to organize and bargain collectively, and this with knowledge of the hostile attitude of some of our courts upon this question.

Here, then, is a sharp conflict. In time of war the government, in all branches and departments, recognized and dealt with organized labor. The President of the United States, and the only living ex-President, both declare in favor of organized labor and its right to bargain collectively. Furthermore, before this war was dreamed of we saw the present President and both branches of Congress

accede to the demands of organized labor and pass the Adamson bill.

It cannot be doubted that the courts in their decisions correctly interpret the statutes and decide the questions brought before them for review in which labor is interested. But do their opinions upon these questions reflect the growing public sentiment and opinion of the times? Are we not confronted by "A condition and not a mere theory?" Must not the individualistic ideas that appear to have heretofore guided our courts in certain controversies involving the labor question be modified or changed so as to recognize the legal right of labor to contract by and through its accredited representatives? This clearly seems to be the tendency of the times. But if labor is to have the right to bargain and contract collectively it must accept the responsibilities attending.

For many years it has been impossible for certain industries, such as coal mining, great construction works, and similar enterprises employing large numbers of laborers, to deal directly with the individual. In these cases labor must be organized and the employer must deal with its agents. Such condition does not, however, require that there should be joint ownership or joint control of the enterprises or industry by labor and capital, nor give to the wage-earner the right to control the business of the employer. This appears to be the ambition of many leaders in the labor movement.

One objection to this is that it would impair efficiency. The rule "Every man to his own work," should apply here as elsewhere. The man who has spent many years of his life in the management of great enterprises will be more efficient there than he who has spent his years in producing one element or factor only used in such enterprises. Capital has its proper sphere for employment, likewise labor, its sphere. Both should work in harmony for the benefit of each.

The reasonable demands of labor should always be con

sidered and the security and safety of capital also must be regarded. The successful carrying out of great enterprises involving the employment of large numbers of men requires the combination and co-operation of labor and capital. Great enterprises cannot be carried forward by either labor or capital alone.

The tendency of the times, we believe, is toward recognition of the right of labor to bargain collectively and to sustain its right to organize. Courts will keep pace with the changing necessities of business and the demands of human society. Necessary changes will come in a peaceable and orderly manner and not by force, or attempted revolution.