tion of flat rate and percentage, and try to discover some plan that will appeal to both factions.

Then adopt the increased and graduated burial benefit as proposed at the fifty-sixth session, as follows:

For a membership of one year or less, $50. For a continuous membership of over one year and not more than two years, $100.

For a continuous membership of over two years and not more than three years, $150.

For a continuous membership of over three years and not more than five years, $200.

For a continuous membership of over five years, $250.

Is

Under the present law the burial benefit is $75, no matter whether the deceased was a thirty-year member and had paid dues amounting to more than the benefit or only a six months' member. not the graduated plan fair and equitable, placing a premium upon continuous membership? And is not the cost (25 cents per month) as small as can well be expected, when the increased benefits are taken into the account? Of course, the member of one year or less would get $25 less under the graduation than under the present plan; but all who are more than one-year members would receive an increase of from $25 to $175, and the cost would be only 25 cents per month.

Last year, when the insurance proposition was defeated by a small majority, and in spite of the fact that I had opposed that proposition, I predicted and proposed that a law would be promulgated by the Minneapolis convention that would meet the approval of the membership and be carried by a decisive majority. Now, in the face of defeat, but with a majority of only 203, I say, let's up and at it again and try at San Francisco to submit a proposition along the lines suggested, with the hope that it will receive favorable consideration at the hands of the whole membership, and to the end that the bounds of the International Typographical Union shall be lengthened and its influence strengthened thereby. C. S. GOOKIN.

Bristol, Tenn.

THE TRUE "OPEN SHOP."

The trade union that admits to membership all competent workmen, providing all of them with equality of existing opportunity, is the true "open shop." It is this characteristic which distinguishes such an organization from the capitalist trust, which has its doors closed to all except the favored few. There is no wrong in an organization when all are helped and none are hurt by it, but an organization which seeks to control the labor market and then will not give some men a chance to sell their labor by not letting them join the combination is as un-American and undemo. cratic as the organization which seeks to control the oil market or the meat market, for instances, by keeping out a part of the business men. venge or oppression has no legitimate place in either organized labor or organized capital.

Re

The business men's "open shop" is not necessary when unions are conducted along legal and just lines, and there can be no argument to sustain it. The mistakes of some unions, and the mistakes of

some members of all unions, are no justification for a fight on all organized labor, just as the mistakes of some employers are no justification for a fight on all employers.

The business men's "open shop" will neither settle, nor help to settle, the labor question. It not only tends to divide wage workers and increase agitation, but keeps wages down to the discour agement of all business. All fair-minded and farsighted employers are helping the wage workers to get higher wages, up to the point where on the other hand wages are not so high as to discourage business by causing it to run at a loss, and there is no present better way to do this than the encouragement of well-regulated and businesslike unions.

Because a man does not want to join a union is not a good excuse for the business men's "open shop," or for the employer who does not want to run a union shop. Both of these men are in much the same position which the driver and the owner of the stage coach were in when railroads were evolved. They could have spent their time talking about the tyranny of the new condition that drove them out of their particular ideas of business, but it would not have paid them. They did well to adjust themselves to progress, just as thousands of the members of our own union did who were compelled to forego their right to set type by hand when the linotype was invented. Omaha, Neb.

WILLIS HUDSPETH.

THE ACCUMULATIVE OVERTIME LAW. In the January number of THE JOURNAL the Seattle correspondent has something to say in behalf of the sub, whom he conceives to be defrauded to a measurable extent by the present method of computing accumulative time. It does not appear to occur to the correspondent that the regular has any rights that should be respected. Pray, does a regular sustain no injury by working overtime? How many regulars shall you find avid to squander their leisure time in the shop, especially if there be a reasonable assurance that some one will be along to collect in due time? The question is, under the present law, where does the regular get compensation for the injury done him in being compelled to work overtime?

Like the Seattle correspondent, I purpose to criticize the accumulative time law, but for a totally different reason. To me it seems about the most arbitrary and fantastic thing in the law line that could be conceived. By what system of equity a man may walk into a shop and claim time accumulated while he was elsewhere, and possibly working himself, I would like to have some advocate of the law elucidate.

The policy of a large section of the typographical union seems to be to shut out opportunity from the horizon of its membership. Cut the regular down to the least possible time. If he makes an extra dollar, take it away from him. Don't let him get anything ahead. This policy will obviously intensify our troubles in the future, for it will compel men to remain on the active list, who, under

a more liberal regime, might have retired at a reasonable age. We don't all want to remain in the printing office until we are carried out on a shutter. Give us the shadow of a chance, and some of us, at least, will in due time step out and make room for other men.

Have the regular time limit six days, or five days, as you will, but what the regular earns by compulsory overtime he should be allowed to keep, and no law should be invoked to despoil him of his extra pennies. All the responsibilities of the situa tion are upon his shoulders. He must work, willynilly, sick or well, when there is no substitute at hand, the occasion demanding it. Where in the world will you find any justification for a law which penalizes a man for a condition he had no hand in making?

One of the results of this law has been to deprive the sub of any real value to cities like Walla Walla. He comes, makes his clean-up, and goes his way, to repeat the process in Boise and other towns. Why should he settle down? He has just as much coming anyway. Thus the sub's career has become a perpetual junket, and his visits, so far as the regulars are concerned in the smaller cities, are more of a disturbing factor than a benefit. C. J. O'BRIEN.

Walla Walla, Wash.

TO GOVERNOR HOKE SMITH. Hon. Hoke Smith, Governor-Elect of Georgia: DEAR SIR-AS a union printer, I believe I voice the opinion of 55,000 union printers composing the International Typographical Union when I send congratulations on your election to the governorship. Twenty years ago, when the International Typographical Union was in session in Atlanta, and you were several hundred miles away, at which time you were the owner of the Atlanta Journal, you sent this message to the International:

As an employer I would not employ any but union men; as a workman I would not be out of the union.

This message was practiced and proved your loyalty to the typographical union in the operation of your great daily newspaper-the Journal.

Long will your message be remembered by union. printers, and that is why I say I believe the whole International Union congratulates you.

During your first term as governor your action in refusing to order out the military against the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen has been commended by typographical unions and trade unions everywhere, and by all good citizens. The consensus of public opinion is that railroad corporations have no more right to demand of the gov ernor that he order the military against the workers.in instances like that of the locomotive, firemen than the firemen have to demand of the governor that he send the military against the railroad owners to arrest them and force them to surrender.

In the case of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, when the railroad owners, seeking to destroy the firemen's union, called for the military,

no violence had occurred, none was anticipated. The firemen even offered to man engines to take the United States mail trains over the railroads tied up by the strike, without pay, free gratis.

Great strikes frequently occur here, but no soldiers are ordered out. Public opinion in an enlightened community disapproves of using bayonets and bullets to destroy trade unions. Violence must at all times be arrested, but violence seldom occurs in strikes until military (hired by the public) interferes.

Advancing civilization decrees that the time has come when governors should cease ordering out military to crush workingmen at the behest of railroad monopolies, and your action has set a precedent that all other governors must follow.

Be assured, however, that the good will of a million stanch organized workingmen is of more value than that of one railroad official, who would have the governor crush the people with the very military that the people hired and supported.

In your message to the legislature, if you will recommend the creation of a commission, vested with power to render decisions, and in cases like the controversy of the firemen with the railroads, have mandatory power to compel all parties to the dispute to come and present their argument, and then render a decision binding on all concerned for a specified time, this would eliminate the strife so often caused by strikes, and the use of military in strikes would be a thing of the past.

STATE AND DISTRICT UNIONS.

The interesting discussion being carried on in THE JOURNAL by J. T. Van Houten, of Oklahoma City, who was noted for his enthusiasm and originality while working in New Haven a few years ago; by Charles Carroll, of Providence, R. I., whose pen and brains in union affairs are never idle, and by John S. Murphy, of Hartford, who is one of Connecticut's most active union typos, is certainly timely and full of opportunities. discuss district representation at International Typographical Union conventions and methods of more popular attendance of delegates, which phase of the subject I will leave to their experienced minds. But may I say a few feeble words on the "ground floor"-the desirability of subordinate state and district unions?

They

It is my humble belief that the International Typographical Union constitution and laws should be amended so as to provide for state, territorial and provincial (Canadian) subordinate unions. There are a few such scattered bodies in our craft, all doing good work. Every other national organization that I can think of-many of them labor organizations, too-are most closely and effectively linked to the supreme society by state bodies. If

we would adopt that plan, it would be the means of drawing the membership and its efforts closer together. We are altogether too remote and unfraternal when held by only national ties. The expense and per capita of state bodies would be only trifling and hardly worth arguing about. Of course, very limited powers are required by state branches. At any rate, all present authority, jurisdiction and powers should remain with the supreme body-the International Typographical Union.

My limited observation of the conditions here in Connecticut-and my imagination leads me to think that there are many other states and sections

Typothetæ or the Connecticut Press Association, which bodies meet quarterly and monthly, too, so unconcerned about their joint and intimate interests? THE JOURNAL doesn't supply us with the lack of information and intimacy complained of above because only one or two unions send regular correspondence to our official publication.

Why, I knew of union operators, not thirty-five miles away, working overtime setting type for a struck office in New Haven during the big eighthour strike. They hustled for days until it was accidentally reported to the local officers. Then the International representative was sent for. He came and stopped it. These men were ignorant of

in the same boat-convince me of the expediency of my suggestion. For example, in Connecticut there are eleven typographical unions, two of which have reached the century mark in membership, and the remainder much less in numbers. Hardly one member of New Haven Union No. 47, I dare say, knows one thing about the success or struggles, methods or plans of another sister union in the state. I also assert that this lack of understanding, sympathy and knowledge applies alike to the entire membership of the other ten typographical unions in our state. Here in New Haven we do not know what they are doing, and they know not what we are doing, and apparently none of us care. Are the Connecticut State

the state of affairs in their neighboring city. Is this not an example of remoteness? Indianapolis alone was where the members of that sister union

set their eyes. Some of the benefited employers must have had a good chuckle to themselves during the early days of that struggle.

Along state social and fraternal lines we are also entirely out of joint, although much material benefit and useful knowledge could be forthcoming through this source. Very seldom, if ever, do the typographical unions of the Nutmeg state hold outings, smokers or socials, and even less frequently than that are invitations extended or accepted or fraternal visits paid.

The representation question referred to at the

beginning has many arguments showing the necessity of subordinate state typographical unions.

Perhaps there are a few more "horrible emamples" that could be told by others in this and other states, due at least to some extent to the handicap caused by nonfraternalism and unacquaintanceship of members of neighboring sister unions. JOHN G. McGowan.

New Haven, Conn.

JAMES RODGERS AND THE VOICE. James Rodgers, who died on November 13, 1910, was one of the oldest journeymen printers in Boston, and, possibly with one exception, the oldest member of Boston Typographical Union. He was born in St. John, N. B., in 1834, and came to this city when 18 years of age. Throughout his life he served in various capacities on Boston newspapers. In 1852 he was with the Advertiser; in 1854 he began his first connection with the Transcript; in the middle sixties he was an active participant in the publication of the Voice; a few years later he became foreman of the Times, an afternoon paper of short existence; and eventually he returned to the Transcript, where he was employed until his death. In apparent good health, he remained at work up to the day before he was taken with an attack of pneumonia, from which he died after three days' illness. The funeral was attended by representatives of the Transcript composing room, and the. Franklin Typographical Society, of which Mr. Rodgers had been a member for thirty-five years. Burial was in Riverside Cemetery, East Saugus, Mass.

In that phase of Mr. Rodgers' life covering his connection with the Voice perhaps will be found the greatest interest to the readers of THE JOURNAL. The Voice was an evening paper, published in 1865-67 ostensibly in the interests of working people, but its sphere of influence became enlarged to the extent of making it a close rival to the other newspapers of the city. In size and appearance it was fully the equal of its contemporaries and its columns contained the customary journalistic features of the day. Amos Cummings was its New York correspondent, writing over the signature of "Ziska." It had an excellent advertising patronage and sold first at 3 cents and later at 2 cents per copy. If the Voice did not institute the movement for the general eight-hour workday, it was a powerful factor in the agitation. As a corollary to its editorial support resolutions were prepared calling for eight hours in the various departments of the federal government, and a full-fledged campaign with brass band accompaniment was ducted in the various labor centers about Boston under the auspices of its energetic directors. The resolutions were presented in congress by Nathaniel P. Banks, then a member of the house of representatives, and after narrowly escaping the fate of labor measures they passed both branches and became law.

con

Now this brief statement of what the Voice was and what it accomplished, with all that is implied in a struggle that kept the paper alive for

nearly three years, is hightened by the fact that it was entirely the fruit of the efforts of members of Boston Typographical Union. The Voice Printing and Publishing Company was not a co-operative scheme; on the contrary, it was a corporation formed in 1864 under Massachusetts laws, with a capital stock of $20,000, in 200 shares of $100 each. For obvious reasons the share valuation was later reduced to $5 and the number increased to 4,000. Just how many shares were issued and to whom is not known, but only trade unionists were permitted to hold stock. Henry L. Saxton, William Knollin and Abram Keach were trustees, and Alexander Troup was conspicuous among the directors. James Rodgers possessed considerable stock, but his principal activities centered in the composing room. His connection with the paper continued during almost its entire existence, and his reminiscences of his associates were full of interesting anecdotes. He was the last survivor of a notable group, and with the exception of a file of the Voice in the possession of the Boston Athenæum, very little now remains to recall a most remarkable venture in the field of labor journalism.

Mr. Rodgers became a member of Boston Typographical Union long before it acquired anything like stability, and, as he often stated, before he was 21 years of age. Always its loyal advocate, he witnessed its history for more than half a century. In times requiring great moral stamina to be a trade unionist, and when No. 13 was at its lowest ebb, he refused to stand with any but the few zealous men who held it together. His choice materially affected his whole life. The writer of this brief record was privileged to know him only during the past dozen years, but in common with his fellow workmen, he will ever hold in affectionate memory the quiet, unassuming man who accepted patiently what life offered as the reward for his early activities. CHARLES H. PHINNEY. Boston, Mass.

A MINER'S OPINION. [Addressed to the Editor of the San Francisco Chronicle. ]

EDITOR CHRONICLE-I notice in your issue of January 6, 1911, an item or two about the Los Angeles Times explosion, in which the three suspects purchased 500 pounds of dynamite at Giant. Later the 500 pounds of dynamite were used to blow up the Times building, October 1, 1910, and the balance was found in a bomb under Zeehandelaar's residence in Los Angeles, and fifteen days later, October 16, the 500 pounds of dynamite were found "in an uninhabited house at 1622 Nineteenth avenue, south."

As a poor miner I am unable to comprehend how so much dynamite could spread itself so as to be used in Los Angeles and be found intact later in San Francisco. None of the dynamite I have used in mining ever came back; it was like Jim Jeffries, it never came back. It mostly stayed "went."

And all miners agree that dynamite will not cause a fire, its use in the gas-filled coal drifts in

the east proving this fact, and also the fact that we use it in all outside operations during the dry season, when everything is ready to burn for months, under a daily temperature ranging from 85 to 110 degrees, and a spark would burn the country up.

But that dynamite circulating itself around so variously and then being found intact makes me inclined to view the story at a safe distance, for one does not know where that blamed 500 pounds of dynamite will go to next. A. S. WINCHESTER. Colfax, Cal.

THE INTERESTS OF CAPITAL AND LABOR.

Arthur D. Chapman says in reply to my answer to his assertion that there is no justice for the wage worker under the capitalist system:

Mr. Hudspeth assures us that "there is such a thing as an equitable economic point between employer and employe, even under the capitalist sysIf Mr. Hudspeth can by any sort

tem.

of logic or legerdemain show just how much of the worker's product may be withheld by the capitalist without injustice to the laborer, and exactly what proportion of the wealth he creates can be retained by the laborer without wronging the capitalist-if Mr. Hudspeth can do this, he will have performed a feat that has never yet been accomplished by any one of the brilliant apologists of capitalism.

I am neither an apologist nor a defender of the capitalist system, but I believe in giving even the devil his due. I believe that public ownership and operation at cost of all businesses relating to the necessities of life would give every citizen the opportunity to possess the full product of his toil, and I believe that this is the cheapest and easiest means yet proposed to bring about this end. But that is no good ground for the belief that there is no justice in the single tax, in profit sharing or in the trade agreement, for instances.

Let us consider the trade agreement. If the employers will concede to the trade union an equal voice in establishing wages, hours and other conditions of the employes, agreeing to arbitrate all questions on which the two parties can not agree, the employes will have the opportunity to arrive at an equilibrium between capital and labor. If the employes do not give themselves justice when they have this chance-if they do not add to their wages enough to counterbalance the too high cost of living as an example-it is their own fault, not the fault of the capitalist system. If they are not strong enough to do this, they are not strong enough to establish socialism.

It is not in order for me to "show just how much of the worker's product may be withheld by the capitalist without injustice to the laborer," nor to show "exactly what proportion of the wealth he creates can be retained by the laborer without wronging the capitalist." The question is one of equal opportunity, not one of equal wealth division. If the wage workers have the chance to secure all they earn and do not do so, the capitalist system is not to blame. Mr. Chapman might as well ask me to count the number of grains in a bushel of wheat which I insist on being measured in an honest bushel measure. The same question would be as

irrelevant and as hard to determine under socialism. Under socialism the workers would divide all wealth in the various trades, professions and callings according to the basis of an equal opportunity for every person to own all the wealth that he produces, with no question of profit to consider. Under the capitalist system they can add to their wages all unearned increment claimed by the capitalist. If the workers and the capitalists are not wise and just enough to make honest agreementsagreements providing for wages high enough to permit the workers to buy the capitalists' goods at a fair price, and not so high as to shut down business because of business loss-if the workers and the capitalists are not wise and just enough now to cooperate for mutual benefit, they are not wise and just enough now to establish socialism.

The interests of capital and labor are (or should be) identical only at that point which guarantees each other justice. When either party does the other injustice, it does injustice to itself. The capitalist, by exacting too much, hurts himself by curtailing the purchasing power of labor; and the laborer, by exacting too much, hurts himself by curtailing the employing power of capital. It is proverbial that honesty is the best policy. A greedy or envious person will find this proposition hard to believe, but it is a fact as true scientifically as the fact that the sun does not revolve around the earth, notwithstanding all appearances to the contrary.

I am opposed to the capitalist system because it permits economic injustice according to law, and because it permits much unnecessary waste, but I can not change the law, and the majority of the people want the capitalist system, which permits but does not force them to do economic justice. Therefore, let us make the most of the capitalist system. We can do this without violating our ideal of socialism in the same manner that we can work examples in addition and subtraction, for instance, while still believing in the principles of geometry. In other words, if we don't go along with the bunch, we will make still less progress. In the language of Grover Cleveland, it is a condition and not a theory that confronts us.

Let us give all those capitalists due credit who, for any reason, are trying in any way to help the wageworkers to help themselves. Omaha, Neb.

WILLIS HUDSPETH.

THE OFFICE PEST.

Did you ever work next to the chronic pest, who never gives one a moment's rest; who spends all his money on Sunday for "booze," and the rest of the week comes to you for his "chews;" and who, lest he slight some ignorant plodder, rotates from one to the other for fodder?

If you take the newspaper, he's right on your track, and never has time to bring the sheet back. If you want to read it, it's your sincere pleasure to look up "his royal" at his place of leisure.

The quarter he paid back on Saturday night, he borrows on Monday--yes, he'll make it right! He's always in debt and "broke flat" every dayin fact, 'most as soon as he draws his pay.