« ПретходнаНастави »
would consider success in industry as a crime. Bigness, in itself, has been looked upon by many, as prima facie evidence of crookedness, corruption or an illegal disregard for the proper rights of others.
Now is this public policy justified by the facts? Of course, there have been evils and evildoers in industrial progressmen, who for some reason or other, committed depredations against rights of life as well as property—but look back and see if these have not really been in the minority. Logic dictates, however, that it is neither to our own or anybody's interest, to seek to destroy by restriction or retard legitimate growth by the same means.
Intelligent and progressive business men, these are actually in the majority. They are men who abide by the law, who profess and practice their sincere belief in all the higher things of life. Then why believe in and support the man or men who try to teach the false gospel that business and robbery are synonymous?
The elements of chance which the captain of industry and the investor in industry have faced since enterprise in such lines began, still exist. Indeed, in some respects, the chances are more hazardous in nature at present than they have been for years, business having grown to its greatest known magnitude. A considerable portion of the legislative and labor forces in the United States have apparently lost sight or interest in these matters.—Industrial Conservatism.
Judgment Against Machinists' Union The Max Ams Machine Company, Bridgeport Conn., has been awarded damages to the amount of $5,000 in a suit against Bridgeport Lodge No. 30, International Association of Machinists. The claims for damage were under three heads: 1. The necessity of employing watchmen and constables to protect the factory. 2. The fact that the company was forced to advertise for help in out of town papers. 3. The loss of money by the surrender of contracts for work. The case was tried before a jury.
“This whole thing was started by three or four socialists. I would like to get hold of the fellow who started it. Our employees generally are satisfied, but an attempt has been made to cause us trouble.”
No: you're wrong. This is not the statement of an employer whose men have just been called on strike by the union business agent: it is what Frank Morrison, Secretary of the American Federation of Labor, said when confronted with a demand from the employees of his own union. Mr. Morrison had been appearing before the Congressional Committee, to urge a minimum of $3.00 a day for government employees, and, upon his return, found that his own office employees had put their heads together and decided they were entitled to a like wage rate, threatening to strike if it was not granted them.
Of course the experience will teach Mr. Morrison nothing new. He cannot afford to profit by it, for his position depends upon his ability to call his workmen off a job whenever the exigencies of the union require it. It is interesting, however, that Mr. Morrison's opinion of the “fellow who started it” is exactly the same as the employer's opinion of Mr. Morrison in a like situation. Mr. Morrison is doubtless much chagrined that he was surprised into making such a common sense statement.
Two years ago, at the behest of the labor unions, the Seaman's Act was passed by Congress. At that time, according to Captain: Robert Dollar, the veteran trader and steamship owner, American merchant tonnage on the Pacific amounted to 26.10 per cent of the whole. It is now but 1.97 per cent. In the meantime, Japanese merchant tonnage has increased from 26.05 per cent to over 50 per cent.
The trial in the Federal Court of Chicago of the four former members of the electrical workers' union and eleven switchboard manufacturers, charged with having attempted to create and enforce a monopoly by means of a union boycott, is bringing out some interesting testimony in regard to union practices. J. F. Nichols, former business agent, electrical workers' union, Local 376, testified that Michael Boyle, business agent, local No. 134, kept “a little black book” in which were the names of men marked for violence. “Boyle," he said, “was a czar and ruled with an iron hand. He had plenty of sluggers and gunmen to support him.” Boyle, it is alleged, on his salary of $50 a week as business agent, was able in a few years to save $350,000.
"Coercion” is the basic principle of the closed shop union. Its members are taught that the sole qualification for employment is membership in the union; that the man without a union card has absolutely no rights, and any means are justified to prevent him from working. The case on page 68 is the natural result of such teaching.
President Wilson has vetoed the immigration bill recently passed by Congress because of its literacy test provision. In · discussing his reasons for the veto, he stated:
“I cannot rid myself of the conviction that the literacy test constitutes a radical change in the policy of the nation which is not justified in principle. It is not a test of character, of quality, or of personal fitness, but would operate in most cases merely as a penalty . for lack of opportunity in the country from which the
alien seeking admission came.” · Measures similar to this have already been vetoed by Presidents Cleveland and Taft, and also by President Wilson at the previous session of Congress. An attempt will be made to pass the Bill over the President's veto.
MURDERED BECAUSE HE DID NOT JOIN A UNION
Here are portraits of Joseph Bader, the pretty little home at 986 Canton Avenue to which his broken, bleeding body was carried, and the
FUNDAMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS IN SOCIAL
LEGISLATION* By Colonel George Pope, President of the National Asso
ciation of Manufacturers
The first real constructive efforts in workmen's compensation in this country, so far as I know, were made by an association of manufacturers. They realize that this was a social effort which must soon be taken up by the legislators of the several states, and recorded experience of accidents in this country was of little use for the enactment of such laws. The National Association of Manufacturers, after much deliberation, decided to send a competent commission abroad to study the experience of the workmen's compensation laws in the various European countries. While several of these peoples had been working for some years under such laws, Germany proved to be the only country that had complete records covering any considerable length of time and these covered a period of twenty-five years, complete in all the workings of the law, and it was from these records that the commission made its report. This report was complete in detail, showing the hazard of the several industries and occupations, and the information thus gained was used to a considerable extent by a number of our states and I think I am correct in stating that no one of the states had seriously considered laws on workmen's compensation until after this report had been published. It is still in use and is a standard work on the subject.
I do not mean to give the impression that all manufacturers, or other employers, immediately supported the passage of these laws. By some they were considered oppressive and as adding a burden of expense which must be placed upon their product that was unnecessary, but I do state that the major part of manufacturers supported the passage of these laws and immediately made every effort to assist in carrying them out. The results were more than the mere carrying out of the compensation part of the acts, as every broad-minded
Abstract of address before the Conference on Social Insurance, held at Washington, D. C.
December 5-9, 1916.