Text
-FHfJ
\
VoL.
I.
No. 7.
February 9, 1913.
OUGHT TO FIGHT FAIR.
I don't believe in dog-fights or cockfights. Not beca.use they are not interesting to any man with red blood
in his veins, but because they demoralize. But the men who do believe In
these things believe in fair play,
When two dogs are set at each other,
they must be two that, so far as meas·
. nrements and judgment can deter•
mine, are pretty evenly matched.
They do not set a cocker spaniel
against a great Newfoundland, 1101· a
dachshund against a bulldog; no, each
. dog must have a fair chance, and the
rules of the fight are absolutely !mi ·partial.
It ls a fight for life, and it
would be too disgusting, even for bru: tallzed men, if the contestants were
: manifestly unevenly matched.
But the very thing that we disdain
in sport among beasts we exalt and
Idolize In business among men.
We call it competition. Instead or
smashing bones and drawing blood,
we break hearts and dwarf souls. In- ; stead of fighting for your life, yon
have to fight for your living, We
• don't shoot and stab, not according to
rules at least, but the man who loses
in the battle of competition must
starve and freeze or accept charity.
But that is not so bad; the dogfighters do no worse than that. 'l'he
satanic devilishness of our game is
that the strong are pitted against the
weak, the grasping against the openhearted, the shrewd against the nnsophistlcated, the rapaclot:e against tl1!'
tender-hearted.
Whenever I run across a se!1sitlve,
i artistic soul, struggling with the bru•
1tallties of commercial life, trying to
keep the heads of his little family
above the economic waters, I instinctively think of some beautifully
trained house-dog facing in a fightlngnen some great 11gly bulldog· trained
'for fighting,
; Men differ in physique, tempera/ ment, and ability quite as much as
,logs differ in stature, dlsnosition, and
strength. When dogs fight for their
lives, their masters see to it that they
are ennl,Y ll)atr,hed and that the rules
!'rice Ten Cents.
of the game are upheld absolutely,
When men are thrust into the arena of
competitive Industrial and commercial
life to fight for their livings, they
have to go against their competitors,
whoever they are, anrl every one is so
busy fighting his own battles that no
one is over-concerned to make sure
that the fighting proceeds according
to the rules; namely, the laws as to
rebates, adulteration, child-labor, sanitary conditions, etc.
.
·we are wonderf111ly tender-hearted
to animals, When shall we he as kind
to ourselves?
NEXT SUNDAY'S SPEAK,ER,
Stewart Anderson of Springfield,
Mass., will talk to us next Sunday, on
"As An Immigrant Sees It." These
w:ll be firsUiand impressiqns, too, for
Anderson \vas a poor lad when he
came to this country, not so very
many years ago, and he )ias risen to a
position of Influence in his community
through liis own efforts. He will tell
us why America seems a promised
land to the stranger from o'erseasand the degree to which It fulfils its
promise.
-·-·---=====:-------------=--,-,---,----------
l
2
FORD HALL FOLKS
THE TARIFF AND H'UMAN LIFE,
Although cancel' in Its worst form is
declared by matly to be incurable, yet
there are many reputable physicianR
w.ho declare that il is curable, and
many specifics are announced to stay
its ravages. 'l'he point to which this
p11ragraph calls attention is that suc;h
a specific has been announced in Germany called mesothorlum.
Positive
claims are made for Its elflciency, and
cases In which its use has actually
effected a cure are cited. But the
exactions of our tariff system are such
that the Import duty on a mere teaspoonful of it would amount to $54,000.
A Boston physician lately went to Berlin and bought a small drop of the
specific for a local patient, for which
he Paid $383, including cost of trans•
portation to this country, and the imJJOl't duty was $145.20, 'I'he duty on a
potmd of this specific would, under
present tariff schedules, be $5,227,200.
Provided all these statements are
true-and there see1i1s 'to be no goo(!
reason to doubt their tr11th-then common humanity would seem to require
two things: one is that tariff duties in
matters that concern human life as directly as this specific might concern
it ought never to be so nearly prohibitive as the duty here involved
seems to be, The other thing ls that
no remedy, if it will do what _ls alleged of mesothor!um, should be allowed to be held as a private possession. It should, either voluntarily or
by force of law, be devoted to the free
use, under suit.able professlon;:il guicL
ance, of afflicted humanity, Let the
discoverer or inventor be suitably
compensated for his right of discovery, but let him not hold his discoveu
at rates that forbid the boon of life
to so many thousands of sufferers, the
majority of who·m may be classed as
poor people.-Editorial in the Watchman (Baptist).
THE RIGHT AND WRONG OF THE
LABOR UNION.
(Address of Father John A. Ryan, at
the Ford Hall r.~eeting, February
2, 1913.
l\fr, Chairman, Ladles anrl Gentle·
men. I have nothing but the pleasantest recollections of my visit here
last year, and I thank you very' heartily for the ,velcome that yon have extended to me this evening,
I am to speak on . the right and
wrong of the labor union and I shall
endeavor to discuss the question from
!he point of view of morals because
the moral judgment and the moral
test are the ones by which any lnstltut ion must in the long run stand or
. fall.
The first question one ought to ask
one's self is whether a social Institution Is right-whether it ls necessary
for social welfare or for the welfare
o!' any large section of soc'iety,
,Judged, by thio basis, a labor union as
a social institution ls justifiable hecunse it is necessary for the welfare
of' a large sP.etion of tile people,
rt is the clear right and the duty of
the wage earner to protect his ability
to maintain a home, To this end he
may make nse of all legitimate means;
he may combine with others to enforce this right and form a union with
his follow workers to exert adequate
moral power to maintain it and better
·his condition within the limits of justification, To deny him this dght to
organize is a direct injustice. He has
,no other way to safeguard his Interests. The rich and the powerful have
many ways which they do not hesitat_e
to employ to protect their investment.
The working man has only the sup1iort of possible combination.
If there were not a single combination of capital in existence, if there
was not a single trust or monopoly
the labor union would still he necessary for the simple reason that the
· Individual laborer Is not the match
for the lnllivlrlual employer,
In bargaining power the employer
ordinarily has a gren.t advantage, He
has a certain amount of economic resources which he can fall back upon
which enables him to wait until the
laborer Is more willing to come to his
terms and after all the bargaining
scale is chieny that of the ability to
wait. until Urn other man accepts your
terms or at least is more willing to
accept them.
As his Eminence Cardinal O'Connell has recently pointed out the employers have other means to advocate
their rights which they do not hesitate to use. They do not. have to maim
a bargain today or starve: sometimes
labor has to do that. That Is the
cause for the labor union then: the
inPqtiality of the individual laborer
and the Individual employer in bar·,
gaining power. That brings us lo the
utility of the labor union.
' T I;aven't the time to go into any
'rxt.en<led discussion of what has been
0
l
accomplished J
by the union ht
briefly to sho11
In 'the first
has succeeded i
large sections
I do not say i
all of them-I
but it has betl
employees as tc
tions or tne l,E
de2d, among
but not exclm
,vorkers who h
this matter by
to be the built
Ing· trades, the ,
the women ver,1
working trades,
in Chicago, T
but these are t
one can deny ti
Increase In the
of workers can
their organizatlc
the coal miners
the benefit.s in
tended not mer,
also to the UIJSI
in the matter ol
wise been a g1·1•
lions of the . wo
tivlties of the un
clitions of ern1il1
The unions
members, too, ir
denial for the I
Even a strike do
!hat sort; it cloc1
to snbordinnlc h
the sake or t.he
And the nnlonR
work ih that lit
also taught their
of real democrac
ment. Every uni
cessful has been
cause the mcmh<
discipline, have I
dinate their pri
passions to the 1
authority of lhe
authority was 1
have also done a
eating public senl
the public to liste
pie and to hear
understand that
class is made np ,
that they are no
human beings difl
other human hei
men and w01nrm
claims to recogn
women of other ,
.
accomplished for the laboring people
by the union but I will undertake very
briefly to show a few points.
In the first place, the labor un1011
has succeeded in 1'aising the wages for
large sections of the laboring people.
I do not say it has raisec! wages for
all of them-I do not think It hasbut it has bettered coriditions of the
employees as to wages, over large sections of tne teld of labor chiefly, indeed, among the skilled workers
but not exclusively, 'rl1e kinds of
workers who have lleen benelited in
this matter by the uni011 may be said
to be the building trades, the printing 'trades, the coal miners and among
the women very recently the garment
working trades, both in New York and
in Chicago. There are many otheru
but these are the principal ones. No
one can deny that a very considerable
increase In the wages of these classe$
of workers can be traced directly to
their organizations and in the case of
the coal miners and garment workers,
the benefits in this matter have extended not merely to the skilled but
also to the unskilled workers. Then,
in the matter of honi·s there has likewise been a great gain for large sections of the . workers through the actl vitles of the union; and In other conditions of employnient also.
The unions have educated their
members, too, in the practice of self
denial for the benefit of their class.
Even a strike does teach something of
that sort; it does teach the individual
to subordinate his present desires for
the sake of the welfare of the mass.
And the unions have done a great
work in that line. The unions have
also taught their members something
of real democracy and of self government. Every union that has been successful has been successful largely liecause the members have been taught
discipline, have been taught to subordinate their private and individual
pnssions to the mass and to obey the
authority of the unions wherever that
authority' was needed. The unions
have also done a great work in educating public sentiment, in compelling
the public to listen to the working people and to hear their grievances, to
understand that all of the working
class is made np of human beings and
that they are not a separate kind of
human beings differing radically from
other human beings; that they are
111,en and women who have the same
claims to recognition that men and
women of other classes haYe.
If you wlll bl'iefly use your historical imagination and ask yourseH
"what was the status of the laboring
person or laborer in society 300 or
400 years ago and even 100 years ago?"
and compare that status with the status of the laborer today, you will realize something of what I mean. "\Ve
might as well he honest with ourselves
a11d admit that we who belong to the
comfortable class do somehow look
down more or less n]Jon the laborer
as belonging to An inferior class. We
would not admit that but unconsciously we do it. (Applause.) And
it' there is less of that done by the
average person in the comfortable
class today, than there wAs 100 or 200
years ago, the reason is largely because of the power which labol' has exercised through the unions in compelling people to consider them and their
grievances; because we always respect
power even· if we do not res11ect anything else.
Now no one makes any serious objer.tion to what I have been saying up
to thls point. 'l'he real cause of disagreement as to the labor union, its
merits and demerits, is to he found in
the methods of the union. Not in the
union as an institution; not in the
main thingi:; for what it stands; not
in its achievements hut in its methods.
'
There are several leading methods
or practises which almost every labor
union advocAtes and clings tenaciously
to. 'l'he fil'st of these is the method
of collective bargaining and that, of
course, ls lhe one about which there
is little discussion or disagreement.
The union stands essentially for collect! ve bargaining; that is to say for
the bargain between the members of
the union as a group and the em]Jloyer or several employers in the
tfade. It insists that all employers
in a given trade, say in coal mining,
shall come together and meet the representatives of all the laborers in that
employment and that they shall form
an agreement as to wages and hours
and other conditions of em]Jloyment
which will apply throughout the trade;
to every worker in the trade. The
bargain is made by collective means;
that is A collection of individuals on
either sirle acting as one person., T1iat
is the primary method of the labor
union, and against that there can beno valid arguments raised. The employer who refuses to treat with his
working people as a group or to treat
with their re[Jresentatives is occupy-
4
FORD HALL FOLKS
ing an Indefensible position. Bnt thls
Is a general statement and like all
such statements, it Is subject to exception of one sort or another. For example:
vVhen the members of a union deliberately and formally proclaim that
they do not Intend to abide by any
agreement that they make exceJ)t and
so long as it shall 'seem useful to them
to do it, then I think the employer Is
perfectly justified In refusing to deal
with that union because there is no
reason why he should. Why should
he make an agreement with a body of
men or women who telr him beforehand that they do not intend to keep
their part of the agreement exceJJt so
long and In so far as they think It is
worth while? That Is one or tlle cases
In which an employer is J)erfectly justified in refusing to deal with the union. But as a general thing I say that
the emJ)loyer who takes the position
that he will not deal with the representatives of a union but will deal
with union members individually occupies In Indefensible position for• the
simple reason that he Is trying to prevent his employees from having that
source of strength which Is necessary
In order that they may occupy something like an equal basis or an equally
advantageous J)osltlon In bargaining
JJ0Wer with him. Passing from the
method of collective bargaining to the
method of the closed shop, we come to
a device or practise about which there
Is very much disagreement, and here
as elsewhere, I mean to discuss the
matter from the vleWJ)oint of morals,
right and wrong.
The closed shop as I presume yon all
know-or the union shop-means that
condition in which all of the employees
of an establishment-say a factory or
store or a railroad-belong to a union,
in which no one is penni/.ted. to wor/1.
who does not belong to the union.
That iR the closed shoJJ. That Is to
say, It Is closed to every one exceJ)t
»>•m<)Jers of the union-the union 11eo"-- mselves prefer to call it the
op.
that device. that situation, Is
nonnced by people who are
fondly otherwise to union lals denounced on the ground
s an infringement of the conal rights of the Individual.
, a non-union man has a right
without joining a union If he
and that when any body of
111 a labor union and say to
u shall not work in this place
Ile,
tho>
unless you belong to the union,"
that th11-t Is a violation of his constitutional rights of liberty and action.
Constitutional rights have nothing at
all to do with this situation, But· If
It is true that the non-nnlon man has
a right to work in a given establishment without joining the union, It
onght to be likewise true that the unlo1i man has a right not to work In
that establishment so long as the non1111lun man works beside him.
( Appia use.) So If the matter Is to be put
Into this phraseology of rights the honors are about equal.
The reasonable way to look at the
matter Is, however, to Inquire whether
this condition of .iolning the union,
wh lch the union people put up to the
,10n-un1on man as a cona1t1on or permitting him to work in this shopwhether it Is, all things considered, a
reasonable condition to impose u11on•
the non-union worker. I think sometimes It ls not ,a reasonable condition.
Bul a great deal of the time I. think It
is reasonable because there are some
other very good reasons why the union
people insist upon this union shop situation. In the first pince, they say, if
union men and non-union men work
side by side the employer very ·often
takes advantage of that in order to
gradually snbplnnt his union em1il9yees
with non-union people until, after a
t'me, the shop becomes instead of
an open shop a closed shop to the
members of the union.
( Appia use.) .
'I'hat is one of the arguments fllld I.
presume that is verified In a great
many cases. I do not suppose It is in
all. Another argument that they bse
Is that the non-union workers are·
really enjoying the benefits of organization, when they are employed in a
shop in which union conditions are
established:-11nion rates of wflges,
union conditions as to hours and the
rest.
They say here we have a
group of persons who are getting· just
the same benefits of the union as the
members themselves are and that
these men, in all fairness, ought to be
compelled to pay for these benefits br
becoming members of the union. A11d
of course there ls a great deal to be
said In .favor of that. There are some
other arguments which the union 11eople use in order to advocate these
closed shops but these, I think, are
the two principal ones.
..
SUJJJJOSe for example that for one
reason or another, an employer does
not want to maintain a union shop but
says "I am willing to enforce and
FU
maintain nnlon conditions I
tnbllshment and priy the. uni
of wages and comply with :
lions of a union shop l>nt
wnut to be put In the allltnd,
[H•!llng nnylHHly to joill th,
He say8 lo the union me11, "II
get the 11on-unlo11 lllcn-all
to join your union, all rlgl11
quite willing I.Jut I do 11,
to put It to a man as hi
lion of L e111ploy111ent llrnl I
join the n11lon." l lhinl< 11
perfectly legltlmale 111.tllnd11
Rnd If the elllJ)ioyer IH
It 011t honestly, I do 110I. SI'!!
can rensonahl,11 he req11lrl•1l to
ther. I SU,\' the bnrd1•11 of' lllll
no11-1111ionlsts snpport the 1111!1
l11rn for the hencllls thP,I' gl'f
the IIICIIIIHll'S or the 11111011 th,
rnlhc1· than npo11 1111! l'll1ploy1
concerning the rlghl.s of' tlw
lonlst I say I.hat, In a grr!HI 1
of cases, ft ls n 1·1ms1J11nhll' ,.
lo f111prme to ask hllll lo Join
Ion fr he Is to get till' ht!lll'fll
1111io11.
Another praetlce of thP nnl,:
wh lch there Is n grca I !Im I of
slon Is boycotting, Bo,1·1·01 I Ing
ernl means thn ref11sal of' a g
persons to deal will! a1111fl11•1·
nal. '!'hat is a very ge111•rn I r!PI
and it is llleant to he 111 1)1'(!1'1'
all kinds of 1,o,1·1·olt.. :'\1J11· 111
n hoycolt Is J)l'llct il'1,tl h.1· p:•opl
ery class of societ.1·. \\'hp11 a
prlvnt.e so!'lety or 1111.1· !<ind· J'l'I
11d111it II n1emhe1· IH!CHIIHI' th<•y
want to associate wllh thal. m,•
Is J)ractleing a boycott In n
limitecl wa~·. ThPy sn~·. 11·p
want to deal with 1·011 on lhl' I
co111111on IIICIJIIJe1·shii, l11 !his -o,
tlon.
When I.he Prlesls In Ilic <"ill'
erlck Inst ~•par advlspd fhel·,.
loners not lo palronii;e ,~1!rlai1
paJ)er dealers who lnslstl'd in
l11g <1isrcp11tn1Jle and dnnw1
English Sunday 11e11·spapNs 01·
the city, these Priests 1rNe 1
Ing or advocating a kind of' I
so thnt the IJoycott is qnltl' gr•
J)t acticed t hrnughont sol'inl ,1· i1
form or another.
In the labor world IHJ\'('O( t la!,
prlnelpnl forms, whnt 'are C'nll
primary and the se<"ondn r,· '101
Primary boycott means ·s1111,;1
a nmulrnr of members of IIH• uni
their friends say that lhey 11·
h1y goods from a certi11 Psl!ihlls
Jror example in the fnmo11s IJucl
0
...,
lielong to the union,"
violatlpn of his constltuor liberty and acllon.
I rights have nothing at
Ii this situation. But If
l the npn'union man has
.,rk in a given establlshl joining the union, It
i Im wise true that the una right not to work In
111ent so long as the nonvorks bes! de him. ( A pi r the matter is to be put
seology of rights the hon1e(Jual.
a Ille way to look at the
vPver, to Inquire whether
11 of joining the union,
ion people put up to the
ll as a conc11t1011 or perto work in this shopall things considered, a
111(1ition to impose upon
, worker. I think some,t a reasonable condition.
c;al of the time I think it
ilecause there are some
,tl reasons why the union
11pon this union shop sit,, first place, they say, If
1Hl non-union men work
t lie employer very often
1ge of that in order to
dant his union employees
m people until, after a
1p becomes instead of
, a closed shop to the
tile union.
(Applause.)
Df the argume·nts nnd I
is verified In a great
I do not suppose It is in
argument that they use
11 on-union workers are
~ the benefits of organlzhey are employed in a
It union conditions are
·Hnion ·rates of wages,
ms as to hours and the
say here we have a
111s who are getting just
,fits of the union as the
111selves are and that
all fail'lless, ought to be
Ht v for these benefits bv
11Jers of the union. Anil
·,· is a great deal to be
,f that. 'l'here are some
its which the union peorder to advocate these
l,nt these, I think, are
pal ones.
example that for one
,t lier, an employer does
lintaln a union shop but
willing to enforce and
I,
maintain union conditions In my establishment and vay the union scales
of wages and comvly with all condl·
lions of a union shop but I do not
waut to be 1rnt in the attitude of compi,1llng anyllocly to join the union."
~e says to the union men, "If yon can
get the non-union men-all of them
to join your union, nil right. I a111
quite willing but r · clo not want
to put it to a man as his condition of [ em1iloyment that he must
join the union." I think that is a
perfectly legitimate attitude to take,
and it' the employer is carrying
it out honestly, I do not see how he
can reasonably be required to go further. I say the burden of making the
non-unionists support the union in return for the benefits they get is upou
the members of the union themselves
rnther than 111)011 the em[)loyer. And
concerning the rights of the non-unionist I say that, in a great majority
of cases, it is a reasonable condition
to impose to ask him to join the union if he is to get the benefifa of the
union.
Another practice of the union about
which there is a great deal of discussion ls boycotting, Boycotting in general means the refusal of a group of
persons to deal with another Individual. That is a very general definition;
and it is meant to be in order to cover
all kinds of boycott. Now in general,
a boycott is practiced by peo]Jle in ev•
ery class of society. When a club or
private society of any kind refuses to
admit a member because they do not
want to associate with that' member it
is practicing a boycott in a certain
limited way. They say, we do not
want to deal with you on the basis of
common membership in this organlza•
tion.
When the Priests in the city of Limerick last year advised their parishioners not to patronize certain newspaper dealers who,. insisted in importing disreputable and demoralizing
English Sunday newspapers over into
the city, these Priests were organizing or ad vacating a kind of boycott,
so that the boycott is quite generally
practiced throughout society in some
form or another.
In the labor world boycott takes two
principal forms, what are called the
primary and the secondary boycott,
Primary boycott means simply that
a number of members of the m1ion and
their friends say that they will not
h1y goods fron1 a cert.in establishment.
For example in the famous Buck Stove
& Range Co. it took ~he form of a resolve not to vurchase stoves made by
this firm. 'I'here we have what Is
called primary boycott because it is directed against the pdmary person who
is supposed to be at fault in the quarrnl. Now that kind of thing Is justified, of course, if the grievance is a
real one. lt is quite as much justified
as a st.rike. If people have a right to
strike and thereby inflict injury upon
an employer when he ls not doing the
fair thing by the1i1 they have a right
to refuse to buy the things that he
produces and inflict injury upon him
In that way.
'l'he secondary boycott goes a step
further and taKes in some third verson who refuses to join in the primary
or original boycott. For example, In
the same Buck Stove & Range case, IL
look the form of a boycott upon the reta_il dealers who refused to comply
with• the demand of the union that
they should cease to handle theso ,
stoves. Here we have secondary boy,
~ott-a boycotting of the person who
refuses to co-operate in carrying on
the original boycott. Now that is a
boycott about which there ls a great
deal of argument, which is generally
denounced and which, so far as I can
see, is not morally justified in a great
majority of cases. It is expecting too
much of the innocent third party to
assume that he is going to make your
case his own and join with yon in the
boycott when it means a loss of trade
or money or some financial' loss to
him, -So I say secondary boycott may
be set down in most cases as not justifiable.
I say in most cases, Here
again as in the case of every othei·
·condition, life is not simule. The situation is not simple, and, we have to
make allowances for exceptions.
'l'he restriction of output by members of the union is often set down as
a great cause of blame to the union.
·rhls restriction means that a certain
limit of work is set by the union anct
the members thereof are forbidden to
do ·any more work or turn ont any
more work than that given number-to lay no more bricks for examplfcl, It
iil assumed by critics of th!s practice
that the practice ls altogether wrong,
Again, that makes the situation too
simple. It all depends on how much
restriction is practiced; it all de pen du
on how much is asked of the workers.
Over against the evil of restriction of
output we have the evil of excessivll
speeding in the running of the machinery in factories, for example. It
6
•
FORD HALL FOLKS
a t(nlon restricts the output only so
'far as it Is necessary to prevent the
veople ft om being overworked, there Is
no wrong In it and nothing to be condemned. If in any given shop the m;;,chinery is speeded up so as to equal
,he speed or exceptionally fast workers and to exceed the average iipeed
ol the average worker, then the
restriction of output is perfectly
justifiable because the average worker
ought to be required to work only at
the average speed, not at the speed
that Is capable of being reached only
by an exceptional worker. Now there
Is a great deal of that prevailing In
. our modern industry-a great deal of
speeding up. In so far as restriction
of output Is practiced by the unloos as
directed against this abuse of fast
w01 k, it Is, of course, justifiable. If it
goes beyond that, if it attempts merely
to restrict the amount of the product
in order to kee11. the job going longer,
there ls, of course, no justification.
That is pure and simple dishonesty.
Now, as to the restrictl_on of apprentices-the limiting the number of persons who will be allowed to learn the
trade to a certain proportion of say
011e In ten. I know there Is something to be said In favor of this. lt
is said if too many apprentices are allowed to learn the trade, wages will
be reduced and that in self defense,
therefore, the members· of the union
must restrict their number. These are,
their arguments. But I never can see
that that Is justifiable. Assuming that
this Is true, that If an unlimited nnm- ·
her of persons is permitted to learn a
trade that as a result of this the trade ,
will be relatively overstocked to the
extent that wages will be reduced, even
if that be true, I maintain that that
fact Is a far more normal condition
than the condition in which you keep
up wages by artificially restricting the number of persons In that
trade.
I try to consider the situa tlon not merely from within the
trade but for all the workers who
might become members of the trad.e;
and if that trade becomes so popular,
as a res:1lt of unlimitecl facilities for allowing the people to learn it,-that as
a result wages will be reduced, it
means that, com1mred with other occupations outside of that. trade, It Is better to be a member of that trade even
at the rednced wage. I know that Is
not the way the labor union people regard this matter, bnt I think from a
viewpoint of the laboring class as a
whole it is absolutely reasonable and
fair.
I meant to have said something
about t·he use of the Injunction In labor disputes but that ls rather a large
question and I do not think I had better go Into it, I will say, however,
that I think that most of the grievances of the labor union people In this
respect will be removed before a very
long time goes by and will be removed
by law. In the main I think the people are right In their criticism of the
use of the injunction In labor disputes.
The injunction ls granted largely to
prevent boycott; to prevent the enforcement of the closed shop. As In
many other judicial decisions, this
practice of granting an injunction is a
relic of a former age-a relic of the
time when strikes were looked upon
when all combinations of working peo'.
pie were looked upon as a conspiracy
and therefore forbidden by law· and
if the judges who grant injun~tions
against primary boycott and against
the closed shop were logical they
would grant Injunctions against strikes
also. In theory the cases are exactly
the same but the reason why injunctions are not granted against strikes
now while they are still granted
against boycott is that the strike Is
much older and the judges have come
to see that although the primary end
of the strike Is to injure somebody, It
Is not the main end. They have come,
through actual contact with life, to
see that the injury inflicted upon the
employer ls not the important thing
and ultimate thing; that that thing IA
the benefit which is expected to be gotten by the strikers.
Another thing in methods which
causes a great deal of discussion is the
strike. The strike itself should be
'resorted to only when all other methods have failel. The strike should be resorted to likewise only when the grievances which the workers •have or the
aim ,v,hich the workers are seeking to
attabi Is a just one. Because there Is
such· a thing as justice In the relation
bet\veen the employer and the employee. The employee has not the simple right to get all that he can. Sometimes a man gets more than he is entitled to. A' strike is also justifiable
only when there is some reasonable
chance of success. No man Is justified
to make war on another man, no matter how just· ls his cause, if he is going to come out of it worse off than
he went In. Then during the conduct
of a strike, all methods of violence, or
physical force should be avoided because they are wrong,
I will admit that you can make out
FUl{IJ HALL FOLKS
g
l(!
l1·
0
I-
ll
H
•J
e
I-
a pretty good theoretical argument
that will have some force in it In fa•
vor of the proposition that in some
cases the working man has a sort of
dght to his job. Let me try to formulate such a situation.
Let us suppose that there is a wellestablished industry in which all the
workers have been employed for a
Jong lime. They ·have their homes
there and if they are to be thrown out
of that employment It means they will
not only have to leave that particular
kind of work but go into another city.
~ow here we have a situation in which
the working people may be said to
have had a sort of right to their jobs.
Then a strike is called. In order to
break the strike, what are known as
strike-breakers are brought In. These
are men who do not Intend to remain
permanently in that employment.
They are brought there for the purpose of carrying on the work until the
strikers get tired and go back to the
wo1·k at the old unfair conditions.
Now I say in a situation of that sort,
yon can draw a theoretical argument
that will ·he in favor of the proposition that these striking persons have
a right to use violence in order to induce these strike-brealrnrs , to stay
away from that establishment. (Applause.)
.
If these strike-breakers are really
co-operating with the employer In inflicting an Injustice upon the workers
-upon the old employees-I think you
can make out of the Issue a fair theoretical argument in favor of that
proposition and It will be a good one,
-theoretically,-because you left out
of account one of the essential elements in the situation. And that Is
the fact that there are other parties
concerned besides the employer and
the strikers and the strike-breakers.
There Is society in general. Every use
of violence ln the strike ls a violation
of social order in that it Involves ln·
Jury not merely to the parties who ·are
concerned but to society and the social
order, And for the benefit of social
order we must require people with a
just grievance of that sort to refrain
from the use of violence. We cannot
permit lt any more than we can permit the members of different families
who are at war with each other to
work out their quarrels on thelr own
account and with the use of violence.
In other words in order to maintain
social peace, lt ls necessary that, no
matter how just the cause of the strikers, there should not be any violence
used. I am speaking of conditions in
this country, (Applause.)
7
What might happen in other countries where there is less freedom, less
possibility or the workers using what
power they have politically and other·
wise for ~he correction of their grievances; what might be justified in that
country I am not now talking about ..
I am talking about the sltuallon in
this country where t-hings are nul as
had as they might be, anrl where soelal
peace ls of primary importance. So I
have nothing but condemnation for the
whole theory of that form of unionism
which is known as Syndicalism. I say
there can be, from the viewpoint of
morals, nothing but condemnation for
-that theory of unionism. 'I'he men of
that organlr.ation go even further than
nations go when they war with one
another. They say that the working
class Is at war with the capitalist class
and that society is backing up the capitalist class, that, therefore, the work·
ing class has a right to use weapons
which no power at war with a11other
uses in canylng on this fight-that it
ls right to use these weapons against
the capitalist class anrl against all or•
ganizatlon and society ·ancl against policemen. Now of course that idea of
the situation Is entirely false. The
syndicalists go further than any political power goes. Political powers
admit that If they make an agreement
with another power with whom they
are at war they must respect that
agreement. But the Syndicalist. defends every kind of practice and does
not admit that he ls bound by any
agreement made with the capitalist
class. That attitude, I say, is not justifiable in any sense or any clegree
from the viewpoint of the ethics that
we know-the Christian ethics. Of
course the adventurers of this practlct3
and of this school maintain they have
got a brand new kind of ethics. ·wen,
that means that there ls not any such
thing as truth, and that every man ls
law unto himself in the matter of conduct. Where Is that going tq land us?
Of course the remedy of thls menaci>
of ·Syndicallsin and the I. W. W. business will be the extreme actions of
some members of these orga~1lzatlons.
They are not the whole organization
and they will provoke a reaction which
will destroy their usefulness.
Now just one word which is suggested by this question of violence.
Wibh regard to the conviction of the
McNamaras and others for dynamiting: From what I have already said,
you will conclude naturally that I denounce the practice of dynamiting and
all these practices for which these
men are convicted. I am not saying
FORD
8
HALL FOLKS
anything about their guilt.
I say
these practices cannot be justified-of
co11,l'sr. 'l'hat they are not only unjust
but that they harm labor In the long
run. But In judging the conduct ot
these men and the conduct of others
like them, we ought to Lry and place
the matter in Its proper proportions.
We ought to try to realize that injus•
tice always breeds Injustice; that violence brings on violence. ( Appia nse.)
And if we have to point t.o these men
ahd say that they are guilty of unjustifiable destruction of property on a
large scale; on the other side, we
ought to point to the capitalist class
and say that they have often been
guilty of unjustifiable exposure of
llvES of human beings by refusing to
install safety appliances in their
works. ( Appia use.)
For many years the railroads resisted all attempts to require them to
use automatic couplers between the
cars.
Men were· being killed anti
maimed in great numbers for years be·
cause these automatic coupling devices
were not Installed.
I draw a parallel between that kind
of practice and the destruction of
property by these dynamiters.
'l'he railroads exposed lives to dan·
ger and the dynamiters exposed llves
to danger.
So I say that we ought to consider
t-hls matter In its proper proportion;
that vJolen~n causes vlolence-lnjustlce cat1ses Injustice - but that two
wrongs do not make a right. (Applause.)
A
FEW OF THE
QUESTIONS.
Q. What ls the attitude of u{e
Catholic Church towards the speaker's
work-say towards · his lecture tonight?
A. I think It would be quite sympathetic. The Catholic priests as a rule
are appreciative of what little work I
have don'? in this field. I rarely see
any unfavorable crit.lclsm.
Q. Do you give any credit for the
f. W. W. for the assistance that they
rendered in Lawrence. (Applause.)
A. Well I do not know anything
about that matter personally, although
I have read a great deal about It. I
do not know how to. answer that. I
presume they i:Ieserye credit for the
spect.acnlar way In which they called
the attention of the country at large to
certain abuses in that city.
Q. How can a minimum Jiving
wage he maintained In the presence of
bargain hunters?
A. I do not thi'nk a living wage can
be established without lel?,'islation. l
lhlnk we are getting somewhat nearer
to it gradually; that the field over
which the living wage extends ls becoming wider, slowly, and that condl•
tions are improving. I think through
legislation and the unions, we shall
get n living wage sooner than by any
other me::ins.
Q. Since Catholicism ls supposed to
help peo]J!e and Socialism is for the
people, why ls Catholicism against Socialism?
A. 'l'he gentleman assumes that it
Is a fact that Socialism is for the people. I don't believe that it ls.
Q. How can yon say Sociali8m is
not for the J)eo11Ie? Who is it for, the
capitalists? (Laughter and Applause.)
A. vVhy, I don't think it is for anybody.
(Applause.)
It ls meaut by
those who believe in it and advocate
It to be for the 11eople. I think it ls a
great mistake.
Q, Would it be advisable to have
unions lncorporat.ed and thus made responsible institutions?
A. I think that If our incorporation
laws were changed somewhat in order
to make it a fairer proposition for
them than the present laws are, that
would be true. On the other hand, I
do not think that the unions have
proved themselves irresponsible to
such a large extent as to make lncor·
poratlon a very great necessity,
Q, If the gentleman were a workIng man, which would he join the · A.
F. of L. or the I. W. W.
A. I should join the A. F. of L.
Q. In view of the fact that l!HJ
strike-breaker knows he is Injuring
the striker in taking his job, hasn't
the striker a moral right to -injure the
strike-breaker?
A. No, for the reason that I gave:
that that means a disturbance of public order and iujury to the whole of
society and that. soriety must. he con·
sider.eel· as well as the grievances of
the individual.
Q. Isn't. it wrong for the speaker to
speak so rlepreciatlngly of socialism in
view of the great strength that It has
in Germany.
A. I don't think so. That might
simply Imply that there are a lot ot
people In - Germany capable of being
misled. (Laughter and Applause.) A
very large proportion of those who
vote tlie socialistic ticket in Germany
do not lean to,vards socialism at all;
they vote the ticket as the only avalla•
ble method of protest against certain
abnsrs. (Applause.)
~81
I
I
j;
\
VoL.
I.
No. 7.
February 9, 1913.
OUGHT TO FIGHT FAIR.
I don't believe in dog-fights or cockfights. Not beca.use they are not interesting to any man with red blood
in his veins, but because they demoralize. But the men who do believe In
these things believe in fair play,
When two dogs are set at each other,
they must be two that, so far as meas·
. nrements and judgment can deter•
mine, are pretty evenly matched.
They do not set a cocker spaniel
against a great Newfoundland, 1101· a
dachshund against a bulldog; no, each
. dog must have a fair chance, and the
rules of the fight are absolutely !mi ·partial.
It ls a fight for life, and it
would be too disgusting, even for bru: tallzed men, if the contestants were
: manifestly unevenly matched.
But the very thing that we disdain
in sport among beasts we exalt and
Idolize In business among men.
We call it competition. Instead or
smashing bones and drawing blood,
we break hearts and dwarf souls. In- ; stead of fighting for your life, yon
have to fight for your living, We
• don't shoot and stab, not according to
rules at least, but the man who loses
in the battle of competition must
starve and freeze or accept charity.
But that is not so bad; the dogfighters do no worse than that. 'l'he
satanic devilishness of our game is
that the strong are pitted against the
weak, the grasping against the openhearted, the shrewd against the nnsophistlcated, the rapaclot:e against tl1!'
tender-hearted.
Whenever I run across a se!1sitlve,
i artistic soul, struggling with the bru•
1tallties of commercial life, trying to
keep the heads of his little family
above the economic waters, I instinctively think of some beautifully
trained house-dog facing in a fightlngnen some great 11gly bulldog· trained
'for fighting,
; Men differ in physique, tempera/ ment, and ability quite as much as
,logs differ in stature, dlsnosition, and
strength. When dogs fight for their
lives, their masters see to it that they
are ennl,Y ll)atr,hed and that the rules
!'rice Ten Cents.
of the game are upheld absolutely,
When men are thrust into the arena of
competitive Industrial and commercial
life to fight for their livings, they
have to go against their competitors,
whoever they are, anrl every one is so
busy fighting his own battles that no
one is over-concerned to make sure
that the fighting proceeds according
to the rules; namely, the laws as to
rebates, adulteration, child-labor, sanitary conditions, etc.
.
·we are wonderf111ly tender-hearted
to animals, When shall we he as kind
to ourselves?
NEXT SUNDAY'S SPEAK,ER,
Stewart Anderson of Springfield,
Mass., will talk to us next Sunday, on
"As An Immigrant Sees It." These
w:ll be firsUiand impressiqns, too, for
Anderson \vas a poor lad when he
came to this country, not so very
many years ago, and he )ias risen to a
position of Influence in his community
through liis own efforts. He will tell
us why America seems a promised
land to the stranger from o'erseasand the degree to which It fulfils its
promise.
-·-·---=====:-------------=--,-,---,----------
l
2
FORD HALL FOLKS
THE TARIFF AND H'UMAN LIFE,
Although cancel' in Its worst form is
declared by matly to be incurable, yet
there are many reputable physicianR
w.ho declare that il is curable, and
many specifics are announced to stay
its ravages. 'l'he point to which this
p11ragraph calls attention is that suc;h
a specific has been announced in Germany called mesothorlum.
Positive
claims are made for Its elflciency, and
cases In which its use has actually
effected a cure are cited. But the
exactions of our tariff system are such
that the Import duty on a mere teaspoonful of it would amount to $54,000.
A Boston physician lately went to Berlin and bought a small drop of the
specific for a local patient, for which
he Paid $383, including cost of trans•
portation to this country, and the imJJOl't duty was $145.20, 'I'he duty on a
potmd of this specific would, under
present tariff schedules, be $5,227,200.
Provided all these statements are
true-and there see1i1s 'to be no goo(!
reason to doubt their tr11th-then common humanity would seem to require
two things: one is that tariff duties in
matters that concern human life as directly as this specific might concern
it ought never to be so nearly prohibitive as the duty here involved
seems to be, The other thing ls that
no remedy, if it will do what _ls alleged of mesothor!um, should be allowed to be held as a private possession. It should, either voluntarily or
by force of law, be devoted to the free
use, under suit.able professlon;:il guicL
ance, of afflicted humanity, Let the
discoverer or inventor be suitably
compensated for his right of discovery, but let him not hold his discoveu
at rates that forbid the boon of life
to so many thousands of sufferers, the
majority of who·m may be classed as
poor people.-Editorial in the Watchman (Baptist).
THE RIGHT AND WRONG OF THE
LABOR UNION.
(Address of Father John A. Ryan, at
the Ford Hall r.~eeting, February
2, 1913.
l\fr, Chairman, Ladles anrl Gentle·
men. I have nothing but the pleasantest recollections of my visit here
last year, and I thank you very' heartily for the ,velcome that yon have extended to me this evening,
I am to speak on . the right and
wrong of the labor union and I shall
endeavor to discuss the question from
!he point of view of morals because
the moral judgment and the moral
test are the ones by which any lnstltut ion must in the long run stand or
. fall.
The first question one ought to ask
one's self is whether a social Institution Is right-whether it ls necessary
for social welfare or for the welfare
o!' any large section of soc'iety,
,Judged, by thio basis, a labor union as
a social institution ls justifiable hecunse it is necessary for the welfare
of' a large sP.etion of tile people,
rt is the clear right and the duty of
the wage earner to protect his ability
to maintain a home, To this end he
may make nse of all legitimate means;
he may combine with others to enforce this right and form a union with
his follow workers to exert adequate
moral power to maintain it and better
·his condition within the limits of justification, To deny him this dght to
organize is a direct injustice. He has
,no other way to safeguard his Interests. The rich and the powerful have
many ways which they do not hesitat_e
to employ to protect their investment.
The working man has only the sup1iort of possible combination.
If there were not a single combination of capital in existence, if there
was not a single trust or monopoly
the labor union would still he necessary for the simple reason that the
· Individual laborer Is not the match
for the lnllivlrlual employer,
In bargaining power the employer
ordinarily has a gren.t advantage, He
has a certain amount of economic resources which he can fall back upon
which enables him to wait until the
laborer Is more willing to come to his
terms and after all the bargaining
scale is chieny that of the ability to
wait. until Urn other man accepts your
terms or at least is more willing to
accept them.
As his Eminence Cardinal O'Connell has recently pointed out the employers have other means to advocate
their rights which they do not hesitate to use. They do not. have to maim
a bargain today or starve: sometimes
labor has to do that. That Is the
cause for the labor union then: the
inPqtiality of the individual laborer
and the Individual employer in bar·,
gaining power. That brings us lo the
utility of the labor union.
' T I;aven't the time to go into any
'rxt.en<led discussion of what has been
0
l
accomplished J
by the union ht
briefly to sho11
In 'the first
has succeeded i
large sections
I do not say i
all of them-I
but it has betl
employees as tc
tions or tne l,E
de2d, among
but not exclm
,vorkers who h
this matter by
to be the built
Ing· trades, the ,
the women ver,1
working trades,
in Chicago, T
but these are t
one can deny ti
Increase In the
of workers can
their organizatlc
the coal miners
the benefit.s in
tended not mer,
also to the UIJSI
in the matter ol
wise been a g1·1•
lions of the . wo
tivlties of the un
clitions of ern1il1
The unions
members, too, ir
denial for the I
Even a strike do
!hat sort; it cloc1
to snbordinnlc h
the sake or t.he
And the nnlonR
work ih that lit
also taught their
of real democrac
ment. Every uni
cessful has been
cause the mcmh<
discipline, have I
dinate their pri
passions to the 1
authority of lhe
authority was 1
have also done a
eating public senl
the public to liste
pie and to hear
understand that
class is made np ,
that they are no
human beings difl
other human hei
men and w01nrm
claims to recogn
women of other ,
.
accomplished for the laboring people
by the union but I will undertake very
briefly to show a few points.
In the first place, the labor un1011
has succeeded in 1'aising the wages for
large sections of the laboring people.
I do not say it has raisec! wages for
all of them-I do not think It hasbut it has bettered coriditions of the
employees as to wages, over large sections of tne teld of labor chiefly, indeed, among the skilled workers
but not exclusively, 'rl1e kinds of
workers who have lleen benelited in
this matter by the uni011 may be said
to be the building trades, the printing 'trades, the coal miners and among
the women very recently the garment
working trades, both in New York and
in Chicago. There are many otheru
but these are the principal ones. No
one can deny that a very considerable
increase In the wages of these classe$
of workers can be traced directly to
their organizations and in the case of
the coal miners and garment workers,
the benefits in this matter have extended not merely to the skilled but
also to the unskilled workers. Then,
in the matter of honi·s there has likewise been a great gain for large sections of the . workers through the actl vitles of the union; and In other conditions of employnient also.
The unions have educated their
members, too, in the practice of self
denial for the benefit of their class.
Even a strike does teach something of
that sort; it does teach the individual
to subordinate his present desires for
the sake of the welfare of the mass.
And the unions have done a great
work in that line. The unions have
also taught their members something
of real democracy and of self government. Every union that has been successful has been successful largely liecause the members have been taught
discipline, have been taught to subordinate their private and individual
pnssions to the mass and to obey the
authority of the unions wherever that
authority' was needed. The unions
have also done a great work in educating public sentiment, in compelling
the public to listen to the working people and to hear their grievances, to
understand that all of the working
class is made np of human beings and
that they are not a separate kind of
human beings differing radically from
other human beings; that they are
111,en and women who have the same
claims to recognition that men and
women of other classes haYe.
If you wlll bl'iefly use your historical imagination and ask yourseH
"what was the status of the laboring
person or laborer in society 300 or
400 years ago and even 100 years ago?"
and compare that status with the status of the laborer today, you will realize something of what I mean. "\Ve
might as well he honest with ourselves
a11d admit that we who belong to the
comfortable class do somehow look
down more or less n]Jon the laborer
as belonging to An inferior class. We
would not admit that but unconsciously we do it. (Applause.) And
it' there is less of that done by the
average person in the comfortable
class today, than there wAs 100 or 200
years ago, the reason is largely because of the power which labol' has exercised through the unions in compelling people to consider them and their
grievances; because we always respect
power even· if we do not res11ect anything else.
Now no one makes any serious objer.tion to what I have been saying up
to thls point. 'l'he real cause of disagreement as to the labor union, its
merits and demerits, is to he found in
the methods of the union. Not in the
union as an institution; not in the
main thingi:; for what it stands; not
in its achievements hut in its methods.
'
There are several leading methods
or practises which almost every labor
union advocAtes and clings tenaciously
to. 'l'he fil'st of these is the method
of collective bargaining and that, of
course, ls lhe one about which there
is little discussion or disagreement.
The union stands essentially for collect! ve bargaining; that is to say for
the bargain between the members of
the union as a group and the em]Jloyer or several employers in the
tfade. It insists that all employers
in a given trade, say in coal mining,
shall come together and meet the representatives of all the laborers in that
employment and that they shall form
an agreement as to wages and hours
and other conditions of em]Jloyment
which will apply throughout the trade;
to every worker in the trade. The
bargain is made by collective means;
that is A collection of individuals on
either sirle acting as one person., T1iat
is the primary method of the labor
union, and against that there can beno valid arguments raised. The employer who refuses to treat with his
working people as a group or to treat
with their re[Jresentatives is occupy-
4
FORD HALL FOLKS
ing an Indefensible position. Bnt thls
Is a general statement and like all
such statements, it Is subject to exception of one sort or another. For example:
vVhen the members of a union deliberately and formally proclaim that
they do not Intend to abide by any
agreement that they make exceJ)t and
so long as it shall 'seem useful to them
to do it, then I think the employer Is
perfectly justified In refusing to deal
with that union because there is no
reason why he should. Why should
he make an agreement with a body of
men or women who telr him beforehand that they do not intend to keep
their part of the agreement exceJJt so
long and In so far as they think It is
worth while? That Is one or tlle cases
In which an employer is J)erfectly justified in refusing to deal with the union. But as a general thing I say that
the emJ)loyer who takes the position
that he will not deal with the representatives of a union but will deal
with union members individually occupies In Indefensible position for• the
simple reason that he Is trying to prevent his employees from having that
source of strength which Is necessary
In order that they may occupy something like an equal basis or an equally
advantageous J)osltlon In bargaining
JJ0Wer with him. Passing from the
method of collective bargaining to the
method of the closed shop, we come to
a device or practise about which there
Is very much disagreement, and here
as elsewhere, I mean to discuss the
matter from the vleWJ)oint of morals,
right and wrong.
The closed shop as I presume yon all
know-or the union shop-means that
condition in which all of the employees
of an establishment-say a factory or
store or a railroad-belong to a union,
in which no one is penni/.ted. to wor/1.
who does not belong to the union.
That iR the closed shoJJ. That Is to
say, It Is closed to every one exceJ)t
»>•m<)Jers of the union-the union 11eo"-- mselves prefer to call it the
op.
that device. that situation, Is
nonnced by people who are
fondly otherwise to union lals denounced on the ground
s an infringement of the conal rights of the Individual.
, a non-union man has a right
without joining a union If he
and that when any body of
111 a labor union and say to
u shall not work in this place
Ile,
tho>
unless you belong to the union,"
that th11-t Is a violation of his constitutional rights of liberty and action.
Constitutional rights have nothing at
all to do with this situation, But· If
It is true that the non-nnlon man has
a right to work in a given establishment without joining the union, It
onght to be likewise true that the unlo1i man has a right not to work In
that establishment so long as the non1111lun man works beside him.
( Appia use.) So If the matter Is to be put
Into this phraseology of rights the honors are about equal.
The reasonable way to look at the
matter Is, however, to Inquire whether
this condition of .iolning the union,
wh lch the union people put up to the
,10n-un1on man as a cona1t1on or permitting him to work in this shopwhether it Is, all things considered, a
reasonable condition to impose u11on•
the non-union worker. I think sometimes It ls not ,a reasonable condition.
Bul a great deal of the time I. think It
is reasonable because there are some
other very good reasons why the union
people insist upon this union shop situation. In the first pince, they say, if
union men and non-union men work
side by side the employer very ·often
takes advantage of that in order to
gradually snbplnnt his union em1il9yees
with non-union people until, after a
t'me, the shop becomes instead of
an open shop a closed shop to the
members of the union.
( Appia use.) .
'I'hat is one of the arguments fllld I.
presume that is verified In a great
many cases. I do not suppose It is in
all. Another argument that they bse
Is that the non-union workers are·
really enjoying the benefits of organization, when they are employed in a
shop in which union conditions are
established:-11nion rates of wflges,
union conditions as to hours and the
rest.
They say here we have a
group of persons who are getting· just
the same benefits of the union as the
members themselves are and that
these men, in all fairness, ought to be
compelled to pay for these benefits br
becoming members of the union. A11d
of course there ls a great deal to be
said In .favor of that. There are some
other arguments which the union 11eople use in order to advocate these
closed shops but these, I think, are
the two principal ones.
..
SUJJJJOSe for example that for one
reason or another, an employer does
not want to maintain a union shop but
says "I am willing to enforce and
FU
maintain nnlon conditions I
tnbllshment and priy the. uni
of wages and comply with :
lions of a union shop l>nt
wnut to be put In the allltnd,
[H•!llng nnylHHly to joill th,
He say8 lo the union me11, "II
get the 11on-unlo11 lllcn-all
to join your union, all rlgl11
quite willing I.Jut I do 11,
to put It to a man as hi
lion of L e111ploy111ent llrnl I
join the n11lon." l lhinl< 11
perfectly legltlmale 111.tllnd11
Rnd If the elllJ)ioyer IH
It 011t honestly, I do 110I. SI'!!
can rensonahl,11 he req11lrl•1l to
ther. I SU,\' the bnrd1•11 of' lllll
no11-1111ionlsts snpport the 1111!1
l11rn for the hencllls thP,I' gl'f
the IIICIIIIHll'S or the 11111011 th,
rnlhc1· than npo11 1111! l'll1ploy1
concerning the rlghl.s of' tlw
lonlst I say I.hat, In a grr!HI 1
of cases, ft ls n 1·1ms1J11nhll' ,.
lo f111prme to ask hllll lo Join
Ion fr he Is to get till' ht!lll'fll
1111io11.
Another praetlce of thP nnl,:
wh lch there Is n grca I !Im I of
slon Is boycotting, Bo,1·1·01 I Ing
ernl means thn ref11sal of' a g
persons to deal will! a1111fl11•1·
nal. '!'hat is a very ge111•rn I r!PI
and it is llleant to he 111 1)1'(!1'1'
all kinds of 1,o,1·1·olt.. :'\1J11· 111
n hoycolt Is J)l'llct il'1,tl h.1· p:•opl
ery class of societ.1·. \\'hp11 a
prlvnt.e so!'lety or 1111.1· !<ind· J'l'I
11d111it II n1emhe1· IH!CHIIHI' th<•y
want to associate wllh thal. m,•
Is J)ractleing a boycott In n
limitecl wa~·. ThPy sn~·. 11·p
want to deal with 1·011 on lhl' I
co111111on IIICIJIIJe1·shii, l11 !his -o,
tlon.
When I.he Prlesls In Ilic <"ill'
erlck Inst ~•par advlspd fhel·,.
loners not lo palronii;e ,~1!rlai1
paJ)er dealers who lnslstl'd in
l11g <1isrcp11tn1Jle and dnnw1
English Sunday 11e11·spapNs 01·
the city, these Priests 1rNe 1
Ing or advocating a kind of' I
so thnt the IJoycott is qnltl' gr•
J)t acticed t hrnughont sol'inl ,1· i1
form or another.
In the labor world IHJ\'('O( t la!,
prlnelpnl forms, whnt 'are C'nll
primary and the se<"ondn r,· '101
Primary boycott means ·s1111,;1
a nmulrnr of members of IIH• uni
their friends say that lhey 11·
h1y goods from a certi11 Psl!ihlls
Jror example in the fnmo11s IJucl
0
...,
lielong to the union,"
violatlpn of his constltuor liberty and acllon.
I rights have nothing at
Ii this situation. But If
l the npn'union man has
.,rk in a given establlshl joining the union, It
i Im wise true that the una right not to work In
111ent so long as the nonvorks bes! de him. ( A pi r the matter is to be put
seology of rights the hon1e(Jual.
a Ille way to look at the
vPver, to Inquire whether
11 of joining the union,
ion people put up to the
ll as a conc11t1011 or perto work in this shopall things considered, a
111(1ition to impose upon
, worker. I think some,t a reasonable condition.
c;al of the time I think it
ilecause there are some
,tl reasons why the union
11pon this union shop sit,, first place, they say, If
1Hl non-union men work
t lie employer very often
1ge of that in order to
dant his union employees
m people until, after a
1p becomes instead of
, a closed shop to the
tile union.
(Applause.)
Df the argume·nts nnd I
is verified In a great
I do not suppose It is in
argument that they use
11 on-union workers are
~ the benefits of organlzhey are employed in a
It union conditions are
·Hnion ·rates of wages,
ms as to hours and the
say here we have a
111s who are getting just
,fits of the union as the
111selves are and that
all fail'lless, ought to be
Ht v for these benefits bv
11Jers of the union. Anil
·,· is a great deal to be
,f that. 'l'here are some
its which the union peorder to advocate these
l,nt these, I think, are
pal ones.
example that for one
,t lier, an employer does
lintaln a union shop but
willing to enforce and
I,
maintain union conditions In my establishment and vay the union scales
of wages and comvly with all condl·
lions of a union shop but I do not
waut to be 1rnt in the attitude of compi,1llng anyllocly to join the union."
~e says to the union men, "If yon can
get the non-union men-all of them
to join your union, nil right. I a111
quite willing but r · clo not want
to put it to a man as his condition of [ em1iloyment that he must
join the union." I think that is a
perfectly legitimate attitude to take,
and it' the employer is carrying
it out honestly, I do not see how he
can reasonably be required to go further. I say the burden of making the
non-unionists support the union in return for the benefits they get is upou
the members of the union themselves
rnther than 111)011 the em[)loyer. And
concerning the rights of the non-unionist I say that, in a great majority
of cases, it is a reasonable condition
to impose to ask him to join the union if he is to get the benefifa of the
union.
Another practice of the union about
which there is a great deal of discussion ls boycotting, Boycotting in general means the refusal of a group of
persons to deal with another Individual. That is a very general definition;
and it is meant to be in order to cover
all kinds of boycott. Now in general,
a boycott is practiced by peo]Jle in ev•
ery class of society. When a club or
private society of any kind refuses to
admit a member because they do not
want to associate with that' member it
is practicing a boycott in a certain
limited way. They say, we do not
want to deal with you on the basis of
common membership in this organlza•
tion.
When the Priests in the city of Limerick last year advised their parishioners not to patronize certain newspaper dealers who,. insisted in importing disreputable and demoralizing
English Sunday newspapers over into
the city, these Priests were organizing or ad vacating a kind of boycott,
so that the boycott is quite generally
practiced throughout society in some
form or another.
In the labor world boycott takes two
principal forms, what are called the
primary and the secondary boycott,
Primary boycott means simply that
a number of members of the m1ion and
their friends say that they will not
h1y goods fron1 a cert.in establishment.
For example in the famous Buck Stove
& Range Co. it took ~he form of a resolve not to vurchase stoves made by
this firm. 'I'here we have what Is
called primary boycott because it is directed against the pdmary person who
is supposed to be at fault in the quarrnl. Now that kind of thing Is justified, of course, if the grievance is a
real one. lt is quite as much justified
as a st.rike. If people have a right to
strike and thereby inflict injury upon
an employer when he ls not doing the
fair thing by the1i1 they have a right
to refuse to buy the things that he
produces and inflict injury upon him
In that way.
'l'he secondary boycott goes a step
further and taKes in some third verson who refuses to join in the primary
or original boycott. For example, In
the same Buck Stove & Range case, IL
look the form of a boycott upon the reta_il dealers who refused to comply
with• the demand of the union that
they should cease to handle theso ,
stoves. Here we have secondary boy,
~ott-a boycotting of the person who
refuses to co-operate in carrying on
the original boycott. Now that is a
boycott about which there ls a great
deal of argument, which is generally
denounced and which, so far as I can
see, is not morally justified in a great
majority of cases. It is expecting too
much of the innocent third party to
assume that he is going to make your
case his own and join with yon in the
boycott when it means a loss of trade
or money or some financial' loss to
him, -So I say secondary boycott may
be set down in most cases as not justifiable.
I say in most cases, Here
again as in the case of every othei·
·condition, life is not simule. The situation is not simple, and, we have to
make allowances for exceptions.
'l'he restriction of output by members of the union is often set down as
a great cause of blame to the union.
·rhls restriction means that a certain
limit of work is set by the union anct
the members thereof are forbidden to
do ·any more work or turn ont any
more work than that given number-to lay no more bricks for examplfcl, It
iil assumed by critics of th!s practice
that the practice ls altogether wrong,
Again, that makes the situation too
simple. It all depends on how much
restriction is practiced; it all de pen du
on how much is asked of the workers.
Over against the evil of restriction of
output we have the evil of excessivll
speeding in the running of the machinery in factories, for example. It
6
•
FORD HALL FOLKS
a t(nlon restricts the output only so
'far as it Is necessary to prevent the
veople ft om being overworked, there Is
no wrong In it and nothing to be condemned. If in any given shop the m;;,chinery is speeded up so as to equal
,he speed or exceptionally fast workers and to exceed the average iipeed
ol the average worker, then the
restriction of output is perfectly
justifiable because the average worker
ought to be required to work only at
the average speed, not at the speed
that Is capable of being reached only
by an exceptional worker. Now there
Is a great deal of that prevailing In
. our modern industry-a great deal of
speeding up. In so far as restriction
of output Is practiced by the unloos as
directed against this abuse of fast
w01 k, it Is, of course, justifiable. If it
goes beyond that, if it attempts merely
to restrict the amount of the product
in order to kee11. the job going longer,
there ls, of course, no justification.
That is pure and simple dishonesty.
Now, as to the restrictl_on of apprentices-the limiting the number of persons who will be allowed to learn the
trade to a certain proportion of say
011e In ten. I know there Is something to be said In favor of this. lt
is said if too many apprentices are allowed to learn the trade, wages will
be reduced and that in self defense,
therefore, the members· of the union
must restrict their number. These are,
their arguments. But I never can see
that that Is justifiable. Assuming that
this Is true, that If an unlimited nnm- ·
her of persons is permitted to learn a
trade that as a result of this the trade ,
will be relatively overstocked to the
extent that wages will be reduced, even
if that be true, I maintain that that
fact Is a far more normal condition
than the condition in which you keep
up wages by artificially restricting the number of persons In that
trade.
I try to consider the situa tlon not merely from within the
trade but for all the workers who
might become members of the trad.e;
and if that trade becomes so popular,
as a res:1lt of unlimitecl facilities for allowing the people to learn it,-that as
a result wages will be reduced, it
means that, com1mred with other occupations outside of that. trade, It Is better to be a member of that trade even
at the rednced wage. I know that Is
not the way the labor union people regard this matter, bnt I think from a
viewpoint of the laboring class as a
whole it is absolutely reasonable and
fair.
I meant to have said something
about t·he use of the Injunction In labor disputes but that ls rather a large
question and I do not think I had better go Into it, I will say, however,
that I think that most of the grievances of the labor union people In this
respect will be removed before a very
long time goes by and will be removed
by law. In the main I think the people are right In their criticism of the
use of the injunction In labor disputes.
The injunction ls granted largely to
prevent boycott; to prevent the enforcement of the closed shop. As In
many other judicial decisions, this
practice of granting an injunction is a
relic of a former age-a relic of the
time when strikes were looked upon
when all combinations of working peo'.
pie were looked upon as a conspiracy
and therefore forbidden by law· and
if the judges who grant injun~tions
against primary boycott and against
the closed shop were logical they
would grant Injunctions against strikes
also. In theory the cases are exactly
the same but the reason why injunctions are not granted against strikes
now while they are still granted
against boycott is that the strike Is
much older and the judges have come
to see that although the primary end
of the strike Is to injure somebody, It
Is not the main end. They have come,
through actual contact with life, to
see that the injury inflicted upon the
employer ls not the important thing
and ultimate thing; that that thing IA
the benefit which is expected to be gotten by the strikers.
Another thing in methods which
causes a great deal of discussion is the
strike. The strike itself should be
'resorted to only when all other methods have failel. The strike should be resorted to likewise only when the grievances which the workers •have or the
aim ,v,hich the workers are seeking to
attabi Is a just one. Because there Is
such· a thing as justice In the relation
bet\veen the employer and the employee. The employee has not the simple right to get all that he can. Sometimes a man gets more than he is entitled to. A' strike is also justifiable
only when there is some reasonable
chance of success. No man Is justified
to make war on another man, no matter how just· ls his cause, if he is going to come out of it worse off than
he went In. Then during the conduct
of a strike, all methods of violence, or
physical force should be avoided because they are wrong,
I will admit that you can make out
FUl{IJ HALL FOLKS
g
l(!
l1·
0
I-
ll
H
•J
e
I-
a pretty good theoretical argument
that will have some force in it In fa•
vor of the proposition that in some
cases the working man has a sort of
dght to his job. Let me try to formulate such a situation.
Let us suppose that there is a wellestablished industry in which all the
workers have been employed for a
Jong lime. They ·have their homes
there and if they are to be thrown out
of that employment It means they will
not only have to leave that particular
kind of work but go into another city.
~ow here we have a situation in which
the working people may be said to
have had a sort of right to their jobs.
Then a strike is called. In order to
break the strike, what are known as
strike-breakers are brought In. These
are men who do not Intend to remain
permanently in that employment.
They are brought there for the purpose of carrying on the work until the
strikers get tired and go back to the
wo1·k at the old unfair conditions.
Now I say in a situation of that sort,
yon can draw a theoretical argument
that will ·he in favor of the proposition that these striking persons have
a right to use violence in order to induce these strike-brealrnrs , to stay
away from that establishment. (Applause.)
.
If these strike-breakers are really
co-operating with the employer In inflicting an Injustice upon the workers
-upon the old employees-I think you
can make out of the Issue a fair theoretical argument in favor of that
proposition and It will be a good one,
-theoretically,-because you left out
of account one of the essential elements in the situation. And that Is
the fact that there are other parties
concerned besides the employer and
the strikers and the strike-breakers.
There Is society in general. Every use
of violence ln the strike ls a violation
of social order in that it Involves ln·
Jury not merely to the parties who ·are
concerned but to society and the social
order, And for the benefit of social
order we must require people with a
just grievance of that sort to refrain
from the use of violence. We cannot
permit lt any more than we can permit the members of different families
who are at war with each other to
work out their quarrels on thelr own
account and with the use of violence.
In other words in order to maintain
social peace, lt ls necessary that, no
matter how just the cause of the strikers, there should not be any violence
used. I am speaking of conditions in
this country, (Applause.)
7
What might happen in other countries where there is less freedom, less
possibility or the workers using what
power they have politically and other·
wise for ~he correction of their grievances; what might be justified in that
country I am not now talking about ..
I am talking about the sltuallon in
this country where t-hings are nul as
had as they might be, anrl where soelal
peace ls of primary importance. So I
have nothing but condemnation for the
whole theory of that form of unionism
which is known as Syndicalism. I say
there can be, from the viewpoint of
morals, nothing but condemnation for
-that theory of unionism. 'I'he men of
that organlr.ation go even further than
nations go when they war with one
another. They say that the working
class Is at war with the capitalist class
and that society is backing up the capitalist class, that, therefore, the work·
ing class has a right to use weapons
which no power at war with a11other
uses in canylng on this fight-that it
ls right to use these weapons against
the capitalist class anrl against all or•
ganizatlon and society ·ancl against policemen. Now of course that idea of
the situation Is entirely false. The
syndicalists go further than any political power goes. Political powers
admit that If they make an agreement
with another power with whom they
are at war they must respect that
agreement. But the Syndicalist. defends every kind of practice and does
not admit that he ls bound by any
agreement made with the capitalist
class. That attitude, I say, is not justifiable in any sense or any clegree
from the viewpoint of the ethics that
we know-the Christian ethics. Of
course the adventurers of this practlct3
and of this school maintain they have
got a brand new kind of ethics. ·wen,
that means that there ls not any such
thing as truth, and that every man ls
law unto himself in the matter of conduct. Where Is that going tq land us?
Of course the remedy of thls menaci>
of ·Syndicallsin and the I. W. W. business will be the extreme actions of
some members of these orga~1lzatlons.
They are not the whole organization
and they will provoke a reaction which
will destroy their usefulness.
Now just one word which is suggested by this question of violence.
Wibh regard to the conviction of the
McNamaras and others for dynamiting: From what I have already said,
you will conclude naturally that I denounce the practice of dynamiting and
all these practices for which these
men are convicted. I am not saying
FORD
8
HALL FOLKS
anything about their guilt.
I say
these practices cannot be justified-of
co11,l'sr. 'l'hat they are not only unjust
but that they harm labor In the long
run. But In judging the conduct ot
these men and the conduct of others
like them, we ought to Lry and place
the matter in Its proper proportions.
We ought to try to realize that injus•
tice always breeds Injustice; that violence brings on violence. ( Appia nse.)
And if we have to point t.o these men
ahd say that they are guilty of unjustifiable destruction of property on a
large scale; on the other side, we
ought to point to the capitalist class
and say that they have often been
guilty of unjustifiable exposure of
llvES of human beings by refusing to
install safety appliances in their
works. ( Appia use.)
For many years the railroads resisted all attempts to require them to
use automatic couplers between the
cars.
Men were· being killed anti
maimed in great numbers for years be·
cause these automatic coupling devices
were not Installed.
I draw a parallel between that kind
of practice and the destruction of
property by these dynamiters.
'l'he railroads exposed lives to dan·
ger and the dynamiters exposed llves
to danger.
So I say that we ought to consider
t-hls matter In its proper proportion;
that vJolen~n causes vlolence-lnjustlce cat1ses Injustice - but that two
wrongs do not make a right. (Applause.)
A
FEW OF THE
QUESTIONS.
Q. What ls the attitude of u{e
Catholic Church towards the speaker's
work-say towards · his lecture tonight?
A. I think It would be quite sympathetic. The Catholic priests as a rule
are appreciative of what little work I
have don'? in this field. I rarely see
any unfavorable crit.lclsm.
Q. Do you give any credit for the
f. W. W. for the assistance that they
rendered in Lawrence. (Applause.)
A. Well I do not know anything
about that matter personally, although
I have read a great deal about It. I
do not know how to. answer that. I
presume they i:Ieserye credit for the
spect.acnlar way In which they called
the attention of the country at large to
certain abuses in that city.
Q. How can a minimum Jiving
wage he maintained In the presence of
bargain hunters?
A. I do not thi'nk a living wage can
be established without lel?,'islation. l
lhlnk we are getting somewhat nearer
to it gradually; that the field over
which the living wage extends ls becoming wider, slowly, and that condl•
tions are improving. I think through
legislation and the unions, we shall
get n living wage sooner than by any
other me::ins.
Q. Since Catholicism ls supposed to
help peo]J!e and Socialism is for the
people, why ls Catholicism against Socialism?
A. 'l'he gentleman assumes that it
Is a fact that Socialism is for the people. I don't believe that it ls.
Q. How can yon say Sociali8m is
not for the J)eo11Ie? Who is it for, the
capitalists? (Laughter and Applause.)
A. vVhy, I don't think it is for anybody.
(Applause.)
It ls meaut by
those who believe in it and advocate
It to be for the 11eople. I think it ls a
great mistake.
Q, Would it be advisable to have
unions lncorporat.ed and thus made responsible institutions?
A. I think that If our incorporation
laws were changed somewhat in order
to make it a fairer proposition for
them than the present laws are, that
would be true. On the other hand, I
do not think that the unions have
proved themselves irresponsible to
such a large extent as to make lncor·
poratlon a very great necessity,
Q, If the gentleman were a workIng man, which would he join the · A.
F. of L. or the I. W. W.
A. I should join the A. F. of L.
Q. In view of the fact that l!HJ
strike-breaker knows he is Injuring
the striker in taking his job, hasn't
the striker a moral right to -injure the
strike-breaker?
A. No, for the reason that I gave:
that that means a disturbance of public order and iujury to the whole of
society and that. soriety must. he con·
sider.eel· as well as the grievances of
the individual.
Q. Isn't. it wrong for the speaker to
speak so rlepreciatlngly of socialism in
view of the great strength that It has
in Germany.
A. I don't think so. That might
simply Imply that there are a lot ot
people In - Germany capable of being
misled. (Laughter and Applause.) A
very large proportion of those who
vote tlie socialistic ticket in Germany
do not lean to,vards socialism at all;
they vote the ticket as the only avalla•
ble method of protest against certain
abnsrs. (Applause.)
~81
I
I
j;