fall, overcome, at their tasks and are dragged to the hospitals, some never to return again. Rheumatism and tuserculosis claim a large share of victims. The muscular exertion and excessive heat are such that only those who start in early life can gradually become used to this daily hell. Coupled with all this is the slave code of the United States Steel Corporation which makes any organized assertion of the workers a reason

for discharge.

"The Call will support this strike and every other genuine struggle of the workers, but there has never been a struggle that it can more heartily support than this strike of the slaves of the iron- and steelmasters of the United States."

"If you only knew the conditionsin the districts-murders, assaults, arrests!"-exclaimed Samuel Gompers, president of the American Federation of Labor, before a Senatorial committee. "Workers," he added, "are prohibited from holding meetings on privately owned lots and are dispersed

the question of a conference," they announced in a published statement on September 18, four days before the strike began. And in a letter to President Wilson refusing his request for a postponement of the strike until after the conference between labor and capital, scheduled to take place in Washington in October, the same leaders said in part:

-100

1917

1918

INC.

1919 %

INC.

୪୫୫୪୫୫୫୫୫୪ ୧

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

by thugs, gangsters, and detectives." Conditions of employment in the steel industry were "intolerable," another Senatorial committee was assured by John Fitzpatrick, chairman of the Committee of Twenty-four, representing the twenty-four separate American Federation of Labor unions participating in the strike. In an earlier statement Mr. Fitzpatrick said:

"We are going to socialize the basic industries of the United States. This is the beginning of the fight. We are going to have representatives on the board of directors of the Steel Corporation. President Wilson has promised that, in effect, in his program for the placing of industry on a better basis. Under the direction of the men who now control the industry the workers have been reduced to such condition that they can not live wholesome, clean lives and can not find the means of feeding their starving children. There is no justification of such conditions in the United States, and they will not be tolerated."

But the immediate cause of the strike, official spokesmen of the strikers aver, was Judge Gary's refusal to take part in a conference to agree upon the hours and wages of labor throughout the industry. "There is only one question at issue, and that is

"Your request for postponement would have been gladly granted were it not for the following facts:

"Mr. Gary has asserted that his men need no trained representation in their behalf in presenting their grievances, notwithstanding that they can neither economically, by lack of means, nor intelligently, by lack of schooling, cope with him or his representatives.

"That ever since the men started to organize a systematic persecution was instituted, beginning with discharge and ending with murder, recalling to us vividly the days of Homestead and the reign of despotism in Russia.

"Through the efforts of the representatives of the steel industry, officials in various localities have denied the men free assembly and free speech.

"The real reason for opposition to organized-labor representation on behalf of the men who have grievances is that the steel industry is preparing to cut wages and to lower the standards to prewar times and to return to a condition that encouraged the padrone system, so prevalent in that particular industry."

The following twelve demands form the basis of the strike, according to a statement issued from Pittsburg by the National Committee of the American Federation of Labor:

Abolition of physical examination of applicants for employment.

In the New York Tribune Theodore M. Knappen thus discusses and explains these demands:

"The basic eight-hour day, with time and a half for overtime, now prevails in the steel-mills, but actual ten- and twelve-hour shifts are worked by, perhaps, fifty per cent. of the men.

"Steel-making is necessarily a continuous process, and shutting down on Sunday is not practicable. This has led to a seven-day week for a very large portion of the men.

"The unions now insist that the work shall be so planned that every man will have a regular seventh day off. A twelve-hour day in these times, even on a basic pay-day of eight hours, seems archaic, but on the part of the employers it is explained that it really means less than six hours' actual work, tho the men are on duty twelve hours. It is also represented by the employers that the last men to join the union will be these nominal twelve-hour workers, as many of them, working on a 'tonnage' basis, make so much more in a twelve-hour shift than they possibly could in eight hours that they strongly favor the twelve-hour system. Working twelve hours on a basic eight-hour day, they draw pay for fourteen hours.

"At times the men are continuously on duty for twenty-four hours. The twenty-four-hour stretch comes when the night crew becomes a day crew, this alternation taking place once every two weeks.

"As stated above, overtime is now paid for at the rate of one and one-half regular hour-time. The men want it paid for at twice the regular time-rate, in order, they say, to penalize overtime to such a degree as to abolish it.

"The demand for the abolition of company unions means the elimination of individual company unions fostered by the management and unaffiliated with outside organizations, such as have been established in the plants of the Colorado Iron and Steel Company and the Cambria and Midvale companies.

"While admitting that a man's physique determines his fitness for employment in the steel industry, the unions demand that his fitness shall be determined by actual experience, instead of by a preliminary physical examination, alleging that such an examination results in injustice to some applicants and is used as a subterfuge for denying employment to men who are objectionable to the management for reasons other than those relating to fitness for work.

"Concerning wages, the union men say that while wages in the steel industry have increased about one hundred per cent. in the last four years, and in some instances more than that,

some workers had such a low rate of pay in 1915 that even an increase of more than one hundred per cent. has not sufficed to improve their originally wretched condition, having in mind the increased cost of living. They tell of human beings living like cattle in miserable shacks and hovels.

"The answer of the employers to this contention is that with the foreigners in the mills and furnaces the rate of pay has nothing to do with the standard of living, as the purpose of this class of laborers is not to live well, but to live as poorly as possible in order to save as much money as possible, usually with the intention of returning to Europe when a certain size stake has been attained.

"They tell of how it has been necessary to employ sanitary police to enforce the simplest practises of decency and sanitation among people who have saved thousands of dollars, people to whom cleanliness and comfort have no appeal."

The employers, Mr. Knappen goes on to say, support their contention by pointing to a scale of wages ranging from $3.50 to $6 a day for unskilled help, and from $7 to $80 a day for skilled help. The total number of steel employees in America, according to the New York Evening Post, is approximately 600,000. Of these more than 268,000 are in the employ of the United States Steel Corporation, which controls, including sub-. sidiaries, 145 plants. Some 80,000 of these employees own United States Steel stock. On the fourth day of the strike, its leaders claimed, 350,000 men were out. It is admitted by both sides, according to Mr. Knappen, that the basic issue involved is recognition of the unions. To quote him further:

"For twenty-seven years the masterful men who have built up the steel industry have directed their affairs almost without concern for labor organizations. When the Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel, and Tin Workers lost its grip on the skilled workers of the industry as a result of the strike that culminated in the Homestead riots of 1892, the proprietors became supreme and they have so remained until this day.

"At its Buffalo convention in 1917 the American Federation of Labor decided that it would undertake the organization of the steel-workers from without. Little was accomplished before the convention at St. Paul in June of the following year, but at that convention an organizing committee of the interested unions was formed under the direction of men who had been successful in organizing the Western metal-miners. It was headed by John Fitzpatrick, of Chicago, with William Z. Foster as secretarytreasurer, the latter's headquarters being in Pittsburg."

Judge Gary, chairman of the Steel Corporation, published a statement giving two reasons for his refusal to confer: first, his

29780

belief that the union-leaders were not authorized to speak for large numbers of his company's employees; secondly, because a conference would have been interpreted as a recognition of the closed shop." In this statement he goes on to say:

"We do not negotiate with labor-unions, because it would indicate the closing of our shops against non-union labor; and large numbers of our workmen are not members of unions, and do not care to be.

"The principle of the 'open shop' is vital to the greatest industrial progress and prosperity. It is of equal benefit to employer and employee. It means that every man may engage in

any line of employment that he selects and under such terms as he and the employer may agree upon; that he may arrange for the kind and character of work which he believes will bring to him the largest compensation and the most satisfactory conditions depending upon his own merit and disposition.

"The 'closed shop' means that no man can obtain employment in that shop except through and on the terms and conditions imposed by the labor-unions. He is compelled to join the union and to submit to the dictation of its leader before he can enter the place of business.

"This country will not stand for the 'closed shop.' It can not afford it. In the light of experience, we know it would signify decreased production, increased cost of living, and initiative, development, and enterprise dwarfed. . It would be the beginning of industrial decay, and an injustice to the workmen themselves, who prosper only when industry succeeds. The 'open shop' will generally be approved by them, for this permits them to engage in any employment, whether they are or are not members of a labor-union.

"It is the settled determination of the United States Steel Corporation and its subsidiaries that the wages and working conditions of their employees shall compare favorably with the highest standards of propriety and justice. Misrepresentations have already and will hereafter be made; unfavorable criticisms may be indulged in by outsiders, especially by those who have little knowledge of the facts; our employees may be threatened and abused in the effort to influence them to join the unions against their own desire; but whatever the circumstances may be, we should proceed with the conduct of our business in the usual way and should give evidence to our employees that we mean to be fair with them."

In taking this stand, avers The Wall Street Journal, "Judge Gary is fighting the battle of the American Constitution." And the Philadelphia Inquirer says:

"The membership of labor-unions is not five per cent. of the population; and has been by some estimated at only two per cent. The closed shop in this instance means simply that a few delegates shall rule a manufacturing institution according to their own ideas. They could practically fix the wages and the

class of employment of every man in the factory. They could prevent him from rising by his own abilities, from increasing his earnings by extra work, from even getting any work at all, should they choose. The steel companies have never objected to unionlabor in their mills, but they refuse to be told who shall or shall not be employed and under what conditions.".

But the St. Louis Star holds Judge Gary, by his refusal to meet the labor-leaders, responsible for the strike, and in The Republic, of the same city, we read:

"The recognition of labor-unions in the steel-mills would not close the doors to ununionized labor, and Judge Gary has enough experience in industrial affairs to know that it would not. There are hundreds of concerns in the United States that recognize unions as to part of their forces only.

"That is away from the main subject. Any organization of workingmen has a right to be heard, and the right is denied only by stiff-necked reactionaries. Judge Gary is not bound to fall in with the views of the labor organization, but he is bound to hear what it has to say.

"The Steel Corporation head says it is the desire of his companies to treat employees with propriety and justice. Is it proper and just to deny a hearing to men, regardless of whether they represent but one-fifth of the employees in the plants or only ten of them?"

"It is a hot-headed and probably unpatriotic thing for these workmen to announce a strike in the present delicate situation of American industry, before giving governmental agencies a fair chance to adjust the quarrel," remarks the Tuscaloosa (Ala.) News; "but what is to be said about the attitude of the corporation which, by its unyielding antagonism to the basic principle of self-respecting unionism, incites them to that step?" But whether the responsibility rests with the Steel Corporation or with the union-leaders, most papers agree that, coming at this time, it is a crime against that innocent bystander, the general public. "It is a time when strikes are against the true economic interests of the masses of wage-earners, because wage-earners as a class have now more to gain from lower prices than from higher wages," says the Springfield Republican. "Closing our mills now would deprive America of the greatest iron and steel opportunity in her history," remarks the Philadelphia Press, noting the foreign markets that are now opening to us. "Steel is a basic industry, upon which all other industries are more or less dependent," says the Chicago Tribune, which points out that as a consequence of interrupting the manufacture of steel "the dollar will buy less; pay or profits will be worth less."

Nor is the only menace of this strike the cutting down of production when the crying need of the world is for increased production. The New York Tribune sees in it "another experiment in the way of Bolshevizing American industry," and the New York World, remarking that "it has already taken on some of the aspects of an economic revolution," goes on to say:

"It is directed quite as much against the conservative leaders of the American Federation of Labor as against the United States Steel Corporation.

"Mr. Fitzpatrick, the chairman of the committee, has boasted that the real object of the strike is to 'socialize industry.' Mr. Foster, who is the director of the strike and a radical leader of unusual abilities, was formerly identified with the Industrial Workers of the World and is still a believer in the doctrines of that Bolshevik organization, altho he stoutly insists that he is conducting this particular class war by the rules of the American Federation of Labor.

"Even if the strike is not primarily a Soviet raid against the steel industry, it presents many of the indications of such a raid, and therefore defines an issue which admits of no substantial ground for mediation and conciliation."

In similar vein the Chicago Tribune points out that in this strike the American people have before them one of the most important issues they have ever had to face. We read:

"In the end the decision means a choice between the American system and the Russian-individual liberty or 'the dictator

ship of the proletariat.' This may seem a violent conclusion, but it lies ahead of the course on which Fitzpatrick. Foster, and the radical leaders are trying to lead American lapor The American people ought to do some serious thinking in these days on these questions forced upon them by radicals and aliens. Is the American system worth keeping? Are American ideas as good as German or Russian?"

NEW YORK'S PUBLISHING CRISIS

C

OME TO CHICAGO to Publish and Print!"

says

a full-page advertisement in the New York papers, and any one anxious to discover why Chicago reaches out for New York's publishing and printing business just now will read with interest a leaflet circulated among New York printers. "We are not mules that we should get a living wage only," it says. "We don't want mere existence. We want the print-shops for the printers. Learn the ways of the One Big Union." And on the reverse side appears a "Preamble of the Industrial Workers of the World," in which are included such declarations as, "It is the historic mission of the working class to do away with capitalism," "The working class and the employing class have nothing in common," and, "between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the earth and the machinery of production, and abolish the wage system"-declarations tending to show that Bolshevik influences are at work, to some extent, among.the printers of New York City. Two New York publishing concerns- some say three have threatened to move West. Hence the bid from Chicago. But, meanwhile, there are non-Bolshevik unions in New York, and on September 18 the New York Tribune said:

"Regular' unions of the allied printing trades-those affiliated with the American Federation of Labor-yesterday joined hands with the employers in waging a war to the finish against what they term the 'Bolshevik' organizations that threaten soon to force unauthorized strikes."

More than ten days before the day set for the strike, five presidents of printers' unions signed a statement in which they denounced the strike movement-thus:

"The position taken by several of the printing-trades unions of New York City in refusing to submit certain differences with their employers to arbitration has not been encouraged or indorsed by the executive officers of the international printingtrades unions, and the strike which it has been announced will be called on October 1 will not be authorized or supported by the international organizations.

"Negotiations for the inauguration of the forty-four-hour week to be effective on May 1, 1921, have been practically completed. These negotiations have been conducted by duly authorized representatives of the international printing-trades unions whose members will be affected, and by authorized representatives of the international associations of employers in whose printing-offices the members of these unions are employed. Since this arrangement has the approval of a large majority of the members of these international organizations, it necessarily follows that the executive officers of the international unions most emphatically repudiate and condemn the unauthorized action which the spokesmen for several of the local printing-trades unions have announced will be taken on October 1. "The arbitrary position taken by the leaders of these local unions in rejecting an offer of fair arbitration is in direct conflict with the policies repeatedly indorsed by the members of the International Typographical Union, the International Printing Pressmen's and Assistants' Union, the International Stereotypers' and Electrotypers? Union, the International Brotherhood of Bookbinders, and by the American Federation of Labor. The executive officers of these international unions have persistently adhered to the policy of fair arbitration all through the war, and they do not intend to depart from it in this controversy.

"In justice to the loyal printing-trades unions represented in the local Allied Printing Trades Council, it may be stated that the charters of at least three of the local unions whose leaders are most active in this controversy have been suspended by the

international union having jurisdiction, and that the recent strike in the pressroom of the Publishers Printing Company is a fair sample of the irresponsible leadership which is at the bottom of this controversy.

"The door is open for the adjustment of this dispute through conferences of conciliation, or by fair arbitration, if necessary. The publishers and the public should know that the international printing-trades unions have not and will not give encouragement or approval to the officers or members of any local union in rejecting the offer of fair arbitration, which has been made by the employers in this instance, nor will the international unions give any support whatever to the members of any local

union participating in any strike not authorized by these international unions."

The leader of this typographical insurrection is James J. Bagley, president of the Franklin Union, which was a part of the International (A. F. L.) until outlawed, and which urged the New York printers to violate their contracts and strike for a forty-four-hour week and a $14 weekly increase on October 1. The New York Tribune identifies him as the labor-leader described in the official organ of the A. F. L., in James P. Holland's testimony before the Lusk Committee. "He would favor any form of government that would overthrow the United States Government, and has openly stated so," said Mr. Holland, adding, "this man preached that on the floor of the Central Federated Union, not alone to break up the Government, but to smash up the printing-presses. We were amazed that the United States Government permitted him to get away with it." As Mr. Holland is president of the State Federation of Labor, this incident seems to The Tribune to dramatize the relation between the new unionism represented by Bagley and the old unionism represented by Holland. In its issue for September 18 the New York Globe published an editorial headed "Not Strike-Revolution," declaring:

"These men do not want more wages and shorter hours, except incidentally and momentarily. The old type of strike, the sort for which Samuel Gompers was once so bitterly excoriated by the conservative business interests, was to get definite concessions from the owners of the business. To-day the leaders with most power are sheer revolutionists; they want the present ownership driven out of the field and absolute dictation by the workers of all the terms of production-price, quality, everything."

No comment favorable to the other side of the case has as yet come to our notice.

storage, or "conspired against the American table." In short, they are innocent of the great transgression laid at their door by the Government, the press, and common talk everywhere, and if the Federal Trade Commission's investigation appears to have caught them red-handed in manifold rascalities it is because it was a stupid investigation carried out by officials at once prejudiced and incompetent. Nor do the packers feel that in the present controversy they are defending their own interests merely; in addition, they are defending the American people against evils that must inevitably accrue from governmental control of industry, since this is the remedy proposed by meddlers and half-informed theorists. They take broad views. They are public-spirited. They are servants of the country who have the country's welfare at heart. Or, if such is not invariably their assertion, it is nevertheless a fairly logical inference from the spirit in which they write. Says Mr. Wilson, "Our deepest interest is in bringing about a solution of presentday problems." At the close of his letter Mr. Swift locks horns with the price problem, and says that "until some of the vast amounts of outstanding paper money are withdrawn from circulation and until world-production begins to catch up with worlddemand, little relief from present high prices can be hoped for," adding, "Government interference and regulation will merely tend to aggravate matters by dropping politics into the delicate mechanism of industry." And yet, as Mr. Swift reminds us, certain newspapers are clamoring for precisely such regulation, and readers get the impression that these newspapers represent

a very considerable body of public opinion. Hence Mr. Swift's comment:

"In view of this impression, the public is entirely justified in asking two questions: first, if the packers are not guilty, why is public sentiment, as exprest through the press, etc., so generally against them; and, secondly, if the packers are not guilty of the crimes with which they are charged, why do they object so strenuously to Federal regulation?

"The answer to the first question is simple. A government agency, supposedly fair and impartial, has made most sensational charges against this industry, claiming incidentally that the large packers are one of the primary causes of the high prices of food. This is a question which vitally interests every person,{ and the charges constitute the best kind of 'news story.' Consequently the papers give a great deal of space to it.

66

'Of course, any one acquainted with the facts knows that there is no truth to this charge, for even if Swift & Co. should offer to do business at cost, the elimination of its profit of a fraction of a cent per pound could make no noticeable change in prices. These small unit profits per pound amount to only about two cents on each dollar of sales.

These figures absolutely absolve the packers from all blame for the high cost of meats, hides, and by-products."

After complaining that "the Commission did not make a fair investigation," that it "supprest evidence which disproved the very charges that it made," and that the packers "were given no opportunity to present their side of the case," Mr. Swift remarks that "the difficulties encountered by a private corporation in attacking statements of an accredited government agency are apparent," and then takes up the second of the questions noted at the outset, namely, why do the packers object strenuously to Federal regulation?

"The answer to the second question is equally simple. The packers are not opposing this legislation because of any fear that government regulation will turn the search-light on any illegal practises, as intimated by some editors. The packers have nothing to conceal and will, at any time, cooperate to the fullest extent with any agency willing to approach the question with an open mind and desirous only of ascertaining the facts.

"What the packers do fear is that government regulation will tend to increase the expense of doing business, and hence the cost of handling fresh meats; secondly, that this will only be a step toward government ownership of this and other industries; and finally, they object to government interference because this power to regulate could so easily be misused by politicians.

Those who favor government regulation point to government and State supervision of banks and ask why the proposed legislation should not be similarly beneficial to the packing industry. The answer is that these two businesses are not parallel or comparable, for it would be practically impossible to divorce regulation of the packing industry from politics.

"For example-if the price of live stock should go down, in accordance with the law of supply and demand, Congressmen from rural districts would, be deluged with telegrams from their constituents demanding action to assure them better prices. If, on the other hand, the price of live stock should go up, necessitating an increase in meat prices, legislators from urban districts would be flooded with requests from wageearners to take some action arbitrarily to fix prices. Producers and consumers represent the two most powerful political interests in the country. It is obvious that it would be impossible to satisfy both groups, simultaneously. This matter of regulating prices would be agitated constantly with disastrous results to the industry.

"Many newspapers ask whether the packers are blind to public opinion and whether they can not read the handwriting on the wall. We know that public opinion has been influenced into believing that all that is necessary to get back into normal conditions is more laws. That is exactly the reason why we are fighting this legislation, because we know that unless we