then there has been a succession of howls as one yank after another broke under the strain. Prior to the last convention the man with a pull was assuring everybody that the law would be swept off the boards when the convention met. Somehow a cog slipped-just how I don't know-and the law remained. The enforcement of the law has been in the hands of its enemies here, with the result that it has caused unnecessary friction, and this doubtless influenced many to vote against it at the last election who were in accord with its spirit. No. 6 is now in a healthier condition in some respects than it has been in twenty years, and this is mainly due, in my opinion, to the enforcement of the priority law. Let no man con you into the belief that the majority here are really opposed to the law. C. R. WELKER.

New York, N. Y.

THE NEW YORK PRINTERS' LEAGUE AT

DINNER.

Tuesday, November 24, was the date set by the Printers' League of America, New York branch, to be observed as the second annual meeting and dinner of the organization. The league members attended in force, there being about seventy present. The Hon. Joseph J. Little was the chairman of the evening, gracing the situation as well as showing a firm grasp of affairs. With the advent of the coffee and cigars the chairman addressed the assembly. He then introduced and was followed by President Francis, who spoke on the subject "The League." Following the remarks of the president, the chairman, in a few well-chosen words, introduced the retiring vice-president, Henry W. Cherouny, who has served in this capacity since the formation of the league. Mr. Cherouny took as his topic "Economic Evils and Their Remedy," and handled the subject, one to which he has devoted years of study, in a masterly manner. During the course of his address he showed that the league represented the only logical and sure means for a leveling of the caste prejudices existing be tween the employing and the employed classes. William H. Van Wart, the recording secretary, followed the vice-president, speaking on the league's meaning to the employe. The Rev. Percy Stickney Grant, rector of the Church of the Ascension, had graciously accepted the league's invitation to dine and to respond on the subject, "The Union and the Church." The keynote of Rev. Mr. Grant's remarks was the absolute necessity of harmony by means of consultation, conciliation, and finally ar bitration, between the employer and his men, and pointed out to his audience that it was this to which the league aspired, and that it was meeting with undoubted success-a success that, on the one hand, meant increased prosperity to the employer, and on the other, and as a consequence, better pay and more lasting positions to the employe. T. Channon Press followed Rev. Mr. Grant, speaking on "The Union and the Law." Being formerly a practical printer himself, and so being able to fitly gauge the workingman's needs, Mr. Press spoke direct to the point, interlarding his

remarks with a bit of dry humor here and there, which strongly appealed to his hearers. The chairman of the executive committee, Oswald Maune, took as his subject "Fair Play." No more fitting one could he have chosen, as this has been the fundamental principle of the league from the start, and has been rigidly adhered to by Mr. Maune, acting as chairman of the executive committee, on more than one trying occasion-times when the league was openly accused of double dealing in some instances, and in others at the least of indulging in subterfuges. In each case brought be fore it for adjudication the executive committee, under the leadership of its chairman, saw right triumph-"fair play." J. William Walker, the chairman of the dinner and reception committee, closed the proceedings with a hearty welcome to the league's guests, and touched happily on the meaning of the league's invitation to those who were not yet members.

The meeting broke up at about midnight, and many have been the expressions as to its successful issue received by members of the league. The course adopted by the league in making this second annual meeting a public one will surely be productive in giving a more widespread knowledge of what the league means, and that its cardinal principle is "justice to all." D. W. GREGORY. New York, N. Y.

SPELLING.

H. St. V. Hickey, in the December JOURNAL, commented on the spelling of our English words. I was pleased to see the matter up, but my joy was dampened when I came to the last chunk but one. Then I felt as though somebody had given me a slug with a rope tied to his end. I take it that Mr. Hickey is a printer, but I would not think when I find him giving us the "proper" spellings of "tho," "thuro" and "thru."

It was Horace Greeley who said that the way to resume was to resume. That was sound logic. If he had been thinking of spelling reform he would have said: "The way to get reformed spelling is to reform the spelling."

I hope Mr. Hickey will pursue the matter further, and when he wishes to use "program," "catalog," "dialog," "monolog," etc., he will use the modern and logical spellings, and not dig up the ancient or medieval monstro-sities. I had to dash this word, it was so long.

Let me give him a pointer for his next: Look up the old and proper spellings of these words—when, why, sovereign, foreign, heinous, cough, slough, through, though. If he will look up these and about 1,199 others, I will trust him not to repeat the fear held firmly in some quarters, that if we return to phonetic spelling the etymology of words will be lost. G. S. HUGHS.

Chicago, Ill.

AMBITION, like a torrent, ne'er looks back.Ben Jonson.

EARTH has no sorrow that heaven can not heal. -Moore.

HATS OFF TO THE I. T. U.

When the tale of Labor's doings shall be writ on history's page,

Telling of the fight for progress, warfare for a living wage;

How men struggled, sacrificing, that a principle might live,

Straining every nerve to conquer-giving all they had to give

In the forefront of the volume, writ in letters large and bold,

There the story of Our Union's gallant battle will be told;

How they hewed a path to glory; how they blazed. a living way,

Never faltering, never yielding, till they won the Eight-Hour Day.

Hats off to the boys of the I. T. U.!

They're true as the riven steel;

For each man knew there was work to do
In this battle for woe or weal.

They met the charge with spirits gay,
And they fought as soldiers fight;

They wouldn't stay till they'd won the day,
For they knew their cause was right.

There were hardships to encounter; there were problems to be met:

Some must work while others idled, so's to liquidate the debt.

To the everlasting credit of these brothers be it told

Few there were who failed in duty-few were bought by traitor gold.

But with confidence unequaled, marching onward side by side,

Sharing all their joys and sorrows till they turned the battle's tide,

Gloriously these stalwarts triumphed, causing all the world to say

That the printers won Progression when they won the Eight-Hour Day.

Hats off to the I. T. U., I say;

Hats off to the printer clan;

For they won the day and found a way

To help every union man.

And as long as the earth endureth,

Till the end of the race be run.

Our heirs will reap what we sowed so deep
When the Eight-Hour Day was won.
Minneapolis, Minn.

E. S. KERN.

REFORMING THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL. A professor in a university carried into his classroom one morning a galley pot containing a liquid. Addressing the assembled students, he said: "Now, gentlemen, observe what I do, and then do likewise." So saying, the professor, observed by all the class, apparently thrust one finger into the liquid, carried the finger to his mouth and tasted the liquid. In turn each student tasted the contents of the galley pot-a concoction of bitters-in the same way, and as the last student, like all the others, made a wry face as he licked his finger, the professor said: "Ah, gentlemen, you do not observe, for if you had. watched me carefully you would have seen that the finger which I placed in my mouth was not the same finger which I thrust into the galley pot."

This story is old and familiar, no doubt, to many readers of THE TYPOGRAPHICAL JOURNAL, but it illustrates in a concise manner the writer's emotion after reading three letters in the December JOURNAL, written, respectively, by William N.

P. Reed, of New York; Herbert W. Cooke, of Boston, and M. H. Battenberg. of Chicago, all called forth in response to a letter in the November JOURNAL, in which the writer discussed critically a letter in the October JOURNAL, in which Mr. Cooke had a great deal to say about the executive council. Metaphorically speaking, the writer feels as if he had placed a doughnut before each of the gentlemen, with the following results: Mr. Reed tried to find the hole in his doughnut and then tried to climb through the hole, leaving the substantial portion of the doughnut untasted. Mr. Cooke's doughnut was of the twisted kind, like a cable, that our grandmothers used to make; and after seeing that the cable doughnut was securely fastened at both ends, so that it couldn't move, Mr. Cooke tried to walk around it without tasting it. On the other hand, Mr. Battenberg knew a doughnut when he saw it, but he swallowed the doughnut whole, so that, while his system has ultimately assimilated the substance of the doughnut, he has had a little indigestion and some discomfiture. Consequently, he has rushed into print. But Mr. Battenberg's letter, on the whole, and particularly in its conclusion, shows so much study and good reasoning that he ought to be encouraged to write more frequently.

Each and all of the gentlemen object to my selection of nations and historical characters to illustrate a well recognized principle of political science, namely, that a powerful and perfect organization must have an executive, controlling power clothed with ample authority. The supremacy of the state has been recognized for centuries, and nations which have approximated the ideal have risen to power. My selection of nations and historical characters were well-known illustrations of the principle. And while I believe that the acts and methods of an historical personage should be measured by the standard of morality and ethics and the customs of his era, far be it from me to condone or apologize for the arbitrary acts which some of them did, or the gross brutality which many of them displayed. I mentioned Rome because the unity and supremacy of the state was recognized in the earliest times; the rods and axes of the consuls were emblems of the authority of the state. The Roman state survived for 1,000 years; it declined when wealth and luxury had undermined Roman manhood, when Romans had degenerated, when the spirit of sectionalism raised warring factions, weakening the authority of the state itself. In Greece, upon the other hand, the sectional spirit was rampant from the earliest times, and Greece fell victim to the conquering Romans. And so on through the list; when unity succeeded sectionalism, when some powerful king or statesman centralized power and made the state supreme, the state rose to greatness. I used the examples cited particularly with reference to Mr. Cooke's plea for a sectional council. And yet Mr. Reed has so far failed to grasp the main idea that he characterizes my selection of characters as autocrats and bureaucrats, and marvels that I include

among the men who made nations the five American statesmen who exerted so much influence toward welding together the great American nation, and Mr. Cooke writes at length on matters of history known to every school boy. Of course the ancient states declined; they were founded upon the "divine right" or the usurped right, and their governors ruled the people and not by the grace of the people. Yet centralization in modern states has paved the way for better government, because the responsibility of the sovereign to the people has been emphasized; and "our forefathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty," but the founders recognized that the supreme authority and power in the gov ernment is the bulwark of liberty.

Mr. Reed also accuses me of inability to distinguish between the administrative and judicial. If he will turn to his October JOURNAL he will find, at pages 395-398, a statement of my views on the matter; this article was specifically mentioned in my November letter, but apparently has escaped his observation. Therein I classified the powers of the council as executive, administrative and judicial, and I expressly commended the direct appeal to the executive council without an intermediate appeal to the president, as an expedient method of securing quickly a status quo and a modus vivendi, subject to a final appeal to the convention. Mr. Reed speaks of the executive council as our "court of last resort," but he ap parently has failed to observe section of article ix of the constitution, which expressly provides for the appeal from the executive council to the convention, which "shall be final." The convention, therefore, is the "court of last resort." Aside from this, it seems to me that a special appellate council for the handling of appeals, which would be necessary were the executive council shorn of its judicial authority, would not be ex pedient unless the appellate council could be maintained in the headquarters or some central city. Otherwise, if it must conduct its business by correspondence, or must meet on call or at regular intervals, the delay in reaching a decision might offset every other advantage. It seems to me that such an appellate council would entail every disadvantage urged at Boston against an enlarged executive council not maintained at headquarters. The present system facilitates early settlement for the time being, and the appeal to the convention goes to the broadest appellate council imaginable short of the referendum.

Mr. Cooke's failure to observe the drift of my argument for centralization crops out repeatedly in his discussion of my historical characters. He fails completely to appreciate the difference between autocratic authority and democratic authority, and yet that was a point which I urged specifically in my November letter. If he will consider the matter more carefully he will understand how it is possible, as it is true, that the president of the United States is a more powerful executive in a representative democracy than the czar of Russia in an autocracy, and he will stop talking about two men controlling the Interna

tional Typographical Union. The membership rules. The membership has elected and re-elected its officers, and clothed them with authority to exercise for the membership the vast powers which the membership in its wisdom has decreed should rest with the executive. The executive council is directly responsible to the membership.

Passing now to metaphor again, Mr. Cooke admits that the old saw about the weakest link in the chain must be dropped, and that the cable is more modern and a more fitting symbol of the strength of the International Typographical Union, but he believes that the cable should be "securely grounded and fastened at each end, and the fastenings guide the cable in its swayings, and prevent it from swinging away from the position it was placed there to occupy." Inevitably the picture of Gulliver on the morning when he woke up in the land of the Lilliputians arises to the mind's eye. But need Mr. Cooke be reminded

that the great International Typographical Union cable is "securely grounded and fastened at each end" by the convention and the referendum. These fastenings strengthen it and control it from within, hold it firmly and guide its swayings. The strands of the cable are the local unions, the fibres of the strands are the individual members. The fibres control directly through the referendum, the strands guide through the convention. The referendum and the convention are the element of democracy which bring the cable home to the hearts of the membership; the firm power within which resists external attacks and tendencies to degeneracy. When laws are abused, when the cable sways from position, the membership retains the power to punish and correct, and it is an intelligent membership with knowledge of its rights and privileges and powers and ability to exercise them.

It seems to me, too, that Mr. Cooke's revision of his old saw, making it read, "no cable is stronger than its weakest fastening," needs fresh revision, if not elimination. In the councils of the International Typographical Union the will of the majority prevails, and the individual idea yields to the general average. In this view of the matter, weak fastenings do not count, because they yield to the combined strength of the majority of the fastenings. To illustrate by a specific exam. ple: When in December, 1905, the 10 per cent assessment proposition was submitted to the referendum, some of the weak fastenings, men who lacked confidence and whose courage was not strong, voted against the proposition, but the strong majority voted for it. The militant majority prevailed, and the International Typographical Union has come through that now historical greatest industrial struggle of modern times with renewed strength and vigor. If the cable had been as weak as its weakest fastenings at that time, the realization of the eight-hour day must have been postponed a decade, and the International Typographical Union itself might in the meantime have rotted in desuetude. The word "weak" and its derivatives should never be used in connection with the International Typograph

ical Union cable. I would suggest that Mr. Cooke drop his old saw (and hammer) and take up this new one: "The International Typographical Union cable is firmly welded; its resisting strength is commensurate with the combined cooperative power of its membership. The International Typographical Union cable is securely grounded and fastened at both ends by the referendum and the convention. Its fastenings are as strong as the combined strength of its membership. It does not sway lightly, for its membership is conservative; but it is mobile and it moves as one body under intelligent leadership, controlled, counseled, advised and guided by the combined average wisdom of the membership pronounced and expressed through the convention and the referendum."

As for the remainder of Mr. Cooke's letter, he still advocates the sectional executive council, which two conventions have rejected; he admits that the powers of the executive council should not be diminished; he accuses me of advocating the present organization of the United States senate because I referred to it in the illustration of an argument, whereas I am just as earnest an advocate of popular election of United States senators as can be found in the United States; he accuses me of having no desire to be represented in the government, when I know that I am well represented through the convention and the referendum; he laments inability to amend the law, forgetting that amendments have failed heretofore because the majority didn't want them; and, in conclusion, he says that the gas jetthough he assumes the more modern name of chandelier-has only been shaken. So much the worse; I believe I have taken him far too seriously.

I have to thank Mr. Battenberg for his correc tion in regard to Edward VI. I had in mind Edward IV, Duke of York, who at the second battle of St. Albans defeated the Earl of Warwick in a decisive battle, and thus forever ended in England the idea of sovereignty within sovereignty, or the assumption of powers paramount to the king's. The subsequent struggles in England were all directed to establishing the king's responsibility to the people, and the people's rights. Magna Charta did not weaken the idea of the state, and Henry VII's suppression of the barons was aimed at special privilege. In France Richelieu, Mazarin and Colbert were successive, not concurrent, laborers for a unified state, the im mediate result of their efforts being the absolutism of Louis XIV. But, under king, emperor, or president, France has been and still is France. The antipodal contrast is Germany, which, for want of centralizing, nationalistic control continued until the days of Bismarck, Moltke and Frederick, a loose confederation of states, principalities, duchies, etc. And while it is an anachronism to associate Charlemagne with the Holy Roman Empire, that empire did not spring into existence on the day when Otto IV assumed the title. Mr. Battenberg's conclusion that corruption, dishonesty and low-pressure morality must eventually

follow centralization has not been established in respect to modern free and liberal governments. The element of responsibility to the people was always wanting in the ancient and mediæval states; it is the sense of direct responsibility which modern democracy has developed that is the great bulwark of modern nations. The people must and shall rule, whoever holds the reins of government. And in the International Typographical Union the referendum is our safeguard against bad government.

I find myself in almost complete accord with Mr. Battenberg's final conclusions. He believes as I do, that the executive council should be maintained in its present form and with undiminished powers and ample authority to take decisive action when opportunity demands it. He believes in a larger deliberative body for the purpose of handling large questions of policy an administration; and, agreeing with him in this also, I think we have just that body in the convention. Further, I think that Mr. Reed, Mr. Cooke, Mr. Battenberg and I can all four get together and reconcile our apparently diverse contentions on this common ground. In the October JOURNAL I advocated improving the tone and quality of the convention by raising the standard of the delegates elected, and I predicted that if this were done the convention would speedily assume a dignity more worthy of it and an influence which would surely and effectively offset any aggression of the executive council. In the convention Mr. Reed has the court of last resort which he desires. In the convention Mr. Cooke can find the sectional council which shall advise and counsel in a responsible and authoritative manner the executive council. In the convention Mr. Battenberg can find that large deliberative body, which, without diminishing the powers or interfering with the authority of the executive council in its own particular field, can yet handle broad questions of administration. And the laws necessary to accomplish all this are already in the book, though some of us have not observed them.

Let us all labor to spread this idea of raising the standards for delegates. Let us bury the junket idea. Let us choose our delegates with special regard to their fitness to represent us, forgetting social qualification and good fellowship. Let us impress upon them before they start for the convention the idea that we want them to come back with enlarged ideas, and after giving to the convention business the attention which it deserves. And, finally, let us get rid of the idea that "the honor should and must go around." Let us send the best that we have, even if we send him repeatedly. In short, let us choose delegates as we would men to administer our property-if we had any. CHARLES CARROLL.

Providence, R. I.

THEY never taste who always drink; they always talk who never think.-Prior.

ABSENCE of Occupation is not rest.-Cowper.

OVERPRODUCTION AND NOT PRIORITY LAW

AT FAULT.

Much has been said for and against section 109 of the priority law, and those opposed to this section of our laws are gradually coming to life after the two stunning blows of the past year-one by the referendum, while the other was by the International convention at Boston-and are threatening another effort to defeat this section by a referendum vote. In fact, at time of writing a petition is being circulated asking President Tole to call a special meeting of the union on December 20. Another move was the issuing of a four-page circular, which contained two letters recently printed in THE TYPOGRAPHICAL JOURNAL over the sig nature of Frank C. Wells, and an introductory statement which seems an insult to the intelligence of the majority of the members of the International Typographical Union. It seems more in the light of one man of a jury who called the other eleven the most contrary men he had ever met. The writer enjoys good argument on any interesting subject, but when those of the minority of a large organization like the typographical union come out in a statement in which they accuse the majority of passing "the most unjust, impolitic and fallacious enactment ever placed on our statute books," it is time to have a few words to say in its defense. The whole cry of those opposed to the priority law seems to be that they are tied down to one situation; that they can not resign one situation today and slide into another tomorrow. It appears to the writer that the real issue to better the conditions in the printing trade is not being argued, and that the real cause for discontent is the extremely large number of printers in excess of the situations. Would there be any more situations given out should the section above referred to be abolished? It is the writer's opinion that there would not. The critics of this law cite facts before the enactment of this law. Did they ever stop to think of the difference in the condition of the trade at that time and that of today? Did they ever consider that a few years ago the demand for Mergenthaler operators was far greater than the supply? If they do they may fear to argue on the true merits of the case, that it might hurt the delicate feelings of some foreman. It is the writer's belief that, should the section referred to be abolished tomorrow, very few if any more printers would "throw" their "sits" than under the present law. Why? For the simple reason that no man is going to resign one situation and join the large army of unemployed unless he has some excellent reason or a guarantee of a situation safely tucked away in his pocket. On the Herald, American and World there are close to 300 men looking for subbing and extra work. One night recently sixty-seven extras were employed by the Herald. And then there were quite a few that walked out at the call of time. With those that were subbing the number would nearly if not quite reach the 100 mark. Is there any man so foolish as to believe that a situation holder, with this condition staring him in the face (especially

if he has a family to support), is going to resign and join this out-of-work contingent? No, I can hardly believe it, unless he is either insane, his grievance is of a most serious character or he knows where he can get another situation. Then again, would it show the true spirit of unionism for a man to resign from one office and go into another, "peel" off his coat and go to work while an army of members with cards just as good as his maybe cleaner-are looking for a night's work with hopes of a situation some time in the future? And many of them just as good workmen as he, and some far better. This question of the priority law is getting to be a very serious problem, and the more fine points brought out by argument the more serious it becomes and more convinced is the writer that it is a good law to retain within our book of laws, for we have no law that is more fair to all than this section.

Before the enactment of the section referred to, when foremen had the power of hiring whom they pleased, they very frequently abused the privilege, not doing justice to their employer or fulfilling their obligation to their fellow members, and we have no guarantee that, should this law be repealed, they would act any differently than they did in the past. There is no reason, all things being equal, why one man should go into a union office and be given a situation over an army of others. With the abolition of the priority section referred to it would be (as Mr. Thompson, of Salt Lake | City, states) impossible for a sub, who will stand up for right notwithstanding it is not the fore- : man's view, to get a situation in many instances. It would be the pliable sub, in most instances, who would get the situation, notwithstanding he might be by far the most inferior printer, and especially would this be so of some of the large offices in New York city, where a foreman can take care of quite a few incompetents without the front office being any the wiser. Before section 109 was placed in our book of laws the writer was an eyewitness to several cases where an inferior man loomed up and was put to work while many older and superior workmen, at the call of time, marched out of the office.

William A. Lenehan also takes another "rap" at the priority law in the December JOURNAL, this time including section 108. It appears to the writer that a few discontents that would like to move from one situation to another about eleven times in seven years, have in mind the abolition of the entire priority law, and instead of bettering the condition of the majority, to retrace their steps that a few may have their greedy desires satisfied. { Why don't Mr. Lenehan and other enthusiasts for the abolition of this law go a little farther while they are about it and ask for the abolition of all laws that protect the workmen from the greedy and selfish foreman-those of this class that belong to our union simply because it is to their interest to do so? Then the members would suddenly retrace their steps to conditions before the civil war, when the foreman was the all power, and could discharge because he might dislike the color of a man's eyebrows, and place a man who