THE ADVERTISING ROUTE TO LABEL-LAND. The November 26 issue of the Trades Union News, the Philadelphia labor paper, contains the following paragraph:

The campaign for the label by the printers' union is being waged along the line of acquainting the users of the better grade of printing with its purposes. The proprietors of the non-union offices, in many instances, admit that the campaign has taken some of their customers and the non-use of the label has been a losing venture.

From a trade union standpoint there is not suf ficient printed matter used by the business men of Philadelphia bearing the printers' union label. As the allied printing trades are interested in the suc cess of the printers' union label, it, more than other labels, can be made the agent for the betterment of a greater number of men directly involved. It can truly be said that the greater use of the printers' union label acts in a measure as an agency for the greater use of all union labels, as through printed matter we obtain much of our knowledge. In the International Typographical Union's fight for the eight-hour day it was demonstrated that different sections of the country required individual treatment, all leading to the same end. Foremost in that fight it is eminently fitting that the same union should be in the van when new and modern measures are to be used to gain a certain object. It seems eminently proper that a trade union composed of men whose living depends upon their mental energy should be able to intelligently encompass this idea of advertising to obtain better conditions for its members. Why should they not be foremost in this matter as they are in the van in others of vital import? To do one thing at a time and doing that well is the solution of other things beside advertising. The time is

ripe.

New schemes for obtaining publicity are hatched out daily, but unfortunately only a few possess merit; the others are worthless or impracticable. Advertising first, last and always is just business. If the business is just there is no question of lack of dividends.

PRESENT LABEL ADVERTISING.

The matter of the union label is closely identified with the evil of substitution, which at present is receiving much thought. This preying upon some one's prestige by offering "something just as good" has received a great deal of scoring in the past few years. To date the only method that has solved this problem has been the method used by the successful firms who have strengthened the personal relation between the dealer and themselves.

There has been lacking in the efforts of union label campaigns something tangible to connect the producers with the users. In fact, pretty nearly all the label advertising has followed a stereotyped style which gives the impression that it was left to the secretary, who regarded the extra duty as an imposition and who performs it in a perfunctory manner; or perhaps the advertising is placed in the hands of a committee, earnest enough, but whose lack of advertising knowledge is great.

The organization committee of Typographical Union No. 2 at the present day is placing in the daily papers advertising far above any that has been read since the label became a worth-while proposition. It proves a progressive spirit of the printers who feel the need of an application of their own ink. Their only advertising comrades of any moment are the garment workers, whose employment depends upon the timely changing of weights in clothing and who are aided by the tnosands of advertising clothiers; the hatters, who are consistent and aggressive advertisers, and the cigarmakers, voracious readers and clear thinkers, who thoroughly believe in the power of persistent use of space.

No trade has in itself the opportunity latent in the typographical union to become a force in the advertising of its label. The men who furnish clever ideas daily to the wideawake business man hibit a woful lack of ginger in pushing themselves to the front.

FAULTY IDEA USED.

ex

Before any article can be sold through advertising the demand must be created if it does not already exist. The people who should ultimately use the printers' union label are business men who have need of printed matter in the daily conduct of their business. Whether the placing of the order for printing is in the hands of the firm or given direct by a subaltern, it is purely a business proposition. Inferring that the printed matter a business house is now using without the union label is satisfactory, the price right, the printer one who carefully performs his work, what hope, what inducement can be given that will win that trade to our offices?

All advertising tends to reach a definite goal. Considerable money is put into sentiment in advertising union labels. Is there not something other than mawkish sentiment upon which to build our advertising? Do you buy your goods upon that platform? Debts of churches are lifted slowly and the days upon which mortgages are burned do not litter up church calendars with red type. Theaters, ball parks and saloons seem to clear indebtedness with Marathon strides. (C. W. P. states "there is a reason;" thanks, old man.)

Sentiment does count, however, in making trade. Count upon sentimentality in making purchases of articles for wedding or birthday gifts, Christmas or holiday presents or goods of a character that justifies good will and esteem. As a vehicle for moving the hard-headed man of business it stands the same isolated chance to win that a snowball stands in-but why specify?

The subject of the printers' union label to the man who wishes right price, careful, thoughtful, intelligent study of those fine essentials that make printing really productive can not take into ac count the uses to which the printers' profits are put-admirable though they be. To paraphrase: When money comes in at the door sentiment flies out the window.

LABEL'S COMMERCIAL REASONS.

Those people who are not interested in the trade union movement are responsible for a great mass

of orders for printed matter.

Why not go after them? They have what we want. How best to reach them is the problem that confronts the various unions. Again, there is the constant need to hold in line those users of the label who are our patrons. To spend good money to interest the man who hasn't used the union label yet, and then, after all this hard work to educate, convert and win him, to let him severely alone ever after is the policy of failure. Yet who is so likely to be posted on your commodity as the user? Get away from the idea that advertising is an expense. It is not an expense; it is as much a commodity as the label itself. Not that the label would be less likely to be used without advertising, but its use would be increased by the advertising.

The patrons of the union label of the printers could be recognized in some way, no matter how small the mark. Gracious recognition could be accorded to users of the printers' label. The International Typographical Union could mail a series of the views of the Home, a specially designed calendar or other appropriate form of commendation. The personal relation counts for much, especially as the other fellow is after the self-same thing.

The business man could be reached through offering him the services of practical printers free of cost in modeling his printed matter. In return for such help the order must be placed in a shop employing members of the union. More attractive work would be put into the hands of the customer, and the knowledge that we would be putting into practical effect the International Typographical Union's Course in Printing would result in a stiffening all along the line.

The charges for avoidable corrections (when corrections are charged) would be smaller; as in catalog and tabulated matter of intricate formation. Right there would be a saving to both customer and printer. And it would facilitate the progress of the job. A satisfied customer is said to be the best kind of advertisement. Friendships made by this method of interested co-operation is entirely different from the blunt, dictatorial "Demand the Label on Your Printing-That's All."

not object to being "gold-bricked" occasionally, but you can't make a practice of it and long remain unconfined. The public is a far better critic than is generally imagined.

Take this matter of the union labels. Outside of a few gimcrack novelties there has never been anything definite furnished the hunted prospect to get acquainted with the distant urgers of the va rious union labels. Had the blue stickers of the printers, with the vigorous use to which they have been put, one-half the get-together spirit, the present would have shown more results for the money spent. As this applies to Philadelphia, so does it

What reason

equally concern other large centers. is there to believe that a new and modern idea, such as the "sticker," in which is embodied an old principle, will not also fail us?

The boycott is undoubtedly an expensive and unwieldy instrument for good. How many times has it proven successful in comparison with its many and known instances of failure? Boycotting is advertising. Now in advertising it should ever be kept in mind that you are advertising to the user and not to your competitor. Boycotting gives too much publicity to the enemy and too little to the promoter. Its place is now given to individual boosting.

LABEL PROMOTION TIMELY.

The object of the label advertising should be to bring the customer and the unionists together in a helpful way. All advertising successes are founded upon persistence. Courage to adhere to a good plan is absolutely necessary. How's this plan:

First, the public insists upon the label being put upon their printing, or says that it must be done. in a union office.

Second, the printers insist upon having as workmen only those who are members of the International Typographical Union.

Third, the printers insist upon joining the International Typographical Union.

Fourth, the propositions come before the meeting; they are accepted only if qualified.

Such a beautifully simple plan. It is strange no one ever thought of it before!

But make no mistake, there is back of the whole proposition a lot of hard work and an enormous amount of money to successfully accomplish it. But it is worth it. Wouldn't it seem as if we were real flesh-and-blood people who are back of the printers' union label? FRANCIS M. RIEDEL. Philadelphia, Pa.

THE QUESTION OF PRIORITY.

The "kick" against the priority law now being made appears to be mainly that there are no situations to be given out because "regulars" will not "resign" to take chances of getting employment.

Were they ever in the habit of doing it?

One would think, reading the columns of THE JOURNAL, there were no more tourists in the trade. A good many pass through New Orleans. Perhaps they stop outside the city limits for two or three months, then return, going to the other side of town.

From the articles I judge the vast majority of those opposing the priority law are "regulars" who would like to change employment on account of dislike of working conditions or foreman in the chapel employed. Before the priority law, a "competent" being in such a fix, put on a "sub," canvassed the other chapels in town, had a "quiet talk" with the foremen as to his chances, decided which other chapel would most likely please him, how many weeks before he would become "regular," and if conditions looked "good," would "resign," showing up for subbing in the office decided upon. In a few weeks the foreman would get

into an argument with one of the "less competents," the end of which was his "resignation," or dismissal, and all the other subs, some perhaps who had been working in the office from six months to two years, would see "Mr. Most Competent" get the sit."

Am I wrong? If so, how much?

Now Mr. Regular can not do so, and the law of priority keeps him from "resigning." It certainly is hard on him.

Mr. Regular has the same right to quit he always had, but he has not now, nor should he have, the right to ride over those equally as competent, but perhaps not as "swift." It is not competency but swiftness, for foremen are never forced to employ any one if he be shown incompetent.

If in New York the newspapers are less liberal than before, it is one of the tricks of some employers to get employes, especially unions, to fight among themselves, and such a move should be accepted by union men, and not fight to abolish a law because before its enactment some members were given a few dollars above the scale which could have been taken off at any time, and was.

The close vote last May is really more favorable than indicated. The way the question was submitted was misleading to those who did not take the trouble to read it thoroughly, and I know several in New Orleans who voted contrary to the way they thought. What per cent that amounted to is hard to tell.

The priority law works well in New Orleans, and there are few who do not favor it.

ANOTHER WORD ON PRIORITY.

In reference to the pamphlet recently circulated in New York, "A Word About the Priority Law," it will do no harm to have another word. It is fair to presume that the opponents of the law in question wish to abrogate it. At least I presume so, as I have never heard any one of them express a desire to modify it. On the presumption that it is "unjust, impolitic and fallacious" and should be taken off the statute books-let's for the sake of argument take it off.

Here we are, now, working without the obnoxious priority law. The foreman has now the right to hire whom he pleases. He has also the right to discharge or "lay off" to reduce his force-and other reasons-but one is sufficient.

Mr. A is perhaps working on the Herald and has had "heaps of abuse and insults thrown at him" until he finally determines to "quit"-that is, he determines to get another job. He goes a-hunting, and likely as not he lands. Then he "quits" the Herald and perhaps the next day goes to work on the World. Nobody is laid off to give him that job on the World-not yet, but soon. The inevitable "reduction of the force" comes along. Does Mr. A go? No, Mr. B goes-to hunt some one else's job.

And so the merry competition for jobs goes onuntil, finally-well, what's the use; you know what will happen-the survival of the fittest. The

old man in the business will naturally be displaced. The man whom the union now says is competent (24,000 in seven and one-half hours) will not be considered competent by the average forcmanwhy, for the reason he can get more because of the inauguration of the competition and a natural incentive to "deliver the goods" and get a "sit" as quickly as possible. And these "get-sit-quick" artists will develop in more ways than ability, too.

This is not exaggerated, I think, as any one who has worked under these conditions knows. Will it be easier to get a job by abolishing priority?

It might be for some of those who are making noisy opposition to the law, but for the rank and file-let's see: The man who works on the job does not own it. If he did we would all have jobs. The proprietor owns the job, therefore controls it, and limits the number as his business demands. Now, with a limited number of jobs-not enough to go around-I fail to see how we can legislate ourselves into a job without legislating some one else out.

Did you ever see the bread line? I did-oncewhen a tragedy occurred. At least it was a tragedy from the viewpoint of those immediately concerned. strenuous contention was taking place

as to priority in line. The argument got so serious that finally a "cop" "fanned" them both down the street. The moral is obvious. The man who had priority certainly was not the one who started the trouble. The man who tried to get his place got all that was coming to him-but rather in a different manner than expected. The principle of priority is based on justice-theoretically unassailable -and if intelligently and honestly administered will harm no one and will benefit the craft in general. I can not imagine any one claiming to be unjustly treated when he is simply required to take what is coming to him in his turn.

I imagine I see Frank C. Wells standing in line to obtain a ticket to some very desirable entertainment. He has been there for some time, when some big "guy" pushes in ahead of him. I imagine Mr. Wells would say something like this: "Hey, you; get back in line!" The answer might be: "Well, I don't have to, see!" And, failing to be physically competent to put the man out, I see Mr. Wells appealing to the management for relief.

Mr. Wells says it is because we dictate to the employers whom they shall employ. Then the union is impolitic, because it has always dictated to the employers whom they shall employ-union menwho are competent. That is all the priority law ever did.

Its ostensible purpose is not to obtain situations. "speedily for competent substitutes." Its real purpose is the equitable distribution of the situations available. The priority law never attempted to create, obtain or get them speedily for any one. It's simply a matter of the proper distribution of them.

Lest we forget-remember:

That the union is more competent to judge as to competency than the average foreman.

That if the foreman is permitted to hire indis

criminately, he at once becomes the sole judge of competency.

That quitting one job with another in your pocket must displace some one who, in turn, will be looking for some one else's job.

That the foreman's ideas of competency naturally is more liable to be 5,000 per hour than less.. That with no protection as to priority the slow or average man would logically be finally displaced. That it does not deprive the situation holder of his independence. On the contrary, it adds to his independence, inasmuch as the foreman must give valid reason for discharge; and it gives the sub the independence of knowing he will get a "sit" when it comes his turn, regardless of whether the foreman likes him or not.

That to abolish priority the 4,000-an-hour man may never get a job-with priority he knows he will.

That there is no logic expressed by those who say priority is unjust when they admit they are not willing to take their turn with other union

men.

That there is nothing to keep a man from quitting. But it does stop the fad of quitting with another job in his pocket.

That nobody ever heard of a man being heaped with insult by the foreman of a union office without ample redress before the bar of the union.

New York, N. Y. MORRIS W. LONGFELLOW.

A REVIEW OF THE INSURANCE QUESTION. Many articles have appeared in THE JOURNAL since the Boston convention, relative to the life insurance feature, and all of them, I presume, have been written solely for the best interest of the craft; but like all great economic questions up for discussion, I find that the membership, or at least those who have taken the pains to write on the subject of insurance, are unanimous as to the feasibility of the proposition. I shall not attempt to assume the role of a critic, but, judging from some of the articles that have appeared from time to time, I am led to believe that some of my contemporaries must be "stockholders" in some of the "old young-line" companies, or "agents" for other "young old-line" companies. But as most of the correspondents' views are merely "private opinions," not backed up by statistics, I shall deal in this article only with those who have delved deep enough into the question to help solve it to the best interests of the craft.

The fact that we can adopt this feature and insure the membership at about one-half the price charged by old-line companies without medical examination is clearly proven by the figures presented by J. W. Bramwood, Charles H. Whittemore, James M. Lynch and the writer. That one man or a set of men, for that matter, are opposed to "compulsory insurance," and that another set are of the opinion that such a policy, without medical examination, would "bankrupt any insurance corporation or society on earth," as one of the correspondents puts it, is not borne out by the facts when applied to union industrial insurance.

On the other hand, the union has a "compulsory" law that "works like a charm," on a small scale. Why not enlarge it? That our union will not come in competition with old-line companies for insurance makes it possible for our order to in sure each member for a given sum, say $1,000, for an assessment of $1 monthly, and this without medical examination. Old-line companies have to pay for their business year after year. About 60 per cent of the policies written annually are forfeited. The agents get from 50 to 100 per cent of the first premium for writing the new business. Therefore, the cost is about doublewhat we would have to pay on an average. Το get around the medical examination, I suggested a policy of paying death losses according to length of membership: $350 if a member dies between the first and fifth year, $750 between fifth and tenth year; $1,000 after tenth year. This means that in time every member would have to pass through these periods, and if deaths should occur within said time they would be paid accordingly. We do not only insure a member, but we give him his living besides, we stand by him shoulder to shoulder in life and in blessed benevolence in death. Can any man or member of our union object or afford to stand in the way of such glorious possibilities as this insurance proposition presents, simply because "he's opposed to compulsory in surance?" Too many members of our noble order have passed through the "valley of the shadow" with the wolf left at their loved ones' doors for our great organization to let such a condition continue, when a mere pittance would give them the relief that is now denied them by the enlargement of a law that is already in force.

In referring to the insurance feature, President James M. Lynch says:

It has long been the opinion of your president that the International Typographical Union is great enough, experienced enough, and in the possession of the necessary machinery to establish and successfully carry on out-of-work benefits, a pension system, and last and greatest of the three, an insurance system. The present burial fund feature has demonstrated that an organization, such as we have, can supply insurance at a very much less cost than insurance can now be had by our membership in purely insurance ventures. If we can succeed in ultimately establishing this insurance feature, coupled with the pension and out-of-work funds, we will have made membership in the International Typographical Union so valuable that in case of industrial disturbances the member who might otherwise be weak will hesitate, for purely selfish reasons, foreign entirely to any idea of ob ligation to his fellow men, before he will violate his union obligation. This suggestion as to an insurance feature is entirely feasible, and not only is it possible, but it is believed that the time is near at hand when it will be imperatively neces

sary.

And yet we have our doubting Thomases who believe that such a feature would mean death to our organization. But listen to this from our secretary-treasurer, J. W. Bramwood:

In 1907 the number of death benefits paid was 561, while 538 were paid during the fiscal year ending May 31, 1908-a decrease of 23. The excess of receipts over expenditures on account of benefits was $716.40. The death rate for the year was 1.23 per cent of the average membership, or a little more than 12 per 1,000. The average

death rate since the establishment of the fund (1892) has been 1.27 per cent-about 13 per 1,000.

Basing my opinion upon our experience with the burial fund, I believe the International Union can pay $1,000 on the death of a member in good standing, who has been such for one year or more, by collecting $12 per member per year for an insurance or burial fund, and operating the fund as is the present burial fund. Our present laws do not require a physical examination or membership for any certain time to render a member eligible to the burial fund. # We are now collecting 72 cents per member monthly-90 cents per year-for the burial fund, and are paying a burial benefit of $75 on the death of a member in good standing. That the International Union can successfully put into effect and operate life insurance, or a burial benefit that would practically be insurance, is not doubted. The question is, Are we ready for it, and is the membership willing to pay for this additional benefit?

*

The article of Mr. Whittemore, which appeared in the November JOURNAL, is full of facts and figures, corroborative of the statements made by Messrs. Lynch and Bramwood in this connection, and I hope that our future correspondents will confine their articles to the feasibility of the insurance feature rather than a diatribe by innuendo against this proposition that, once started, will, in my humble opinion, prove a bulwark for our organization and a boon to its membership. Chicago, Ill. T. F. PILCHER.

WON'T, OR WONT.

Taking it for granted that Mr. Hickey is not averse to criticism of his article on "The Emasculated Negative," in the November JOURNAL, I will take a fling at it. However, as he introduces two propositions which have no relation the one to the other, I will have to go at it backward, so to speak. What connection is there between the elision of the apostrophe in "won't" and the throwing on the junk heap of so good a word as "wont"? Surely not for the reason that, his view adopted, we would have two more words spelled alike, but with dissimilar meanings. If he will cast his eagle eye over any of the numerous vocabularies he will find divers and sundry examples of this. While writers of English, so far as my limited reading goes, have universally written it "won't," there is authority good enough and in plenty for the shorter "wont." Dr. Samuel Johnson's dictionary (1767) prints it so; Samuel Kirkham, in his "Lectures on Grammar" (1829), styles it a "vulgarism" and omits the apostrophe, and Nuttall's Standard Pronouncing Dictionary (London, 188-) also uses the shortened form. So here is another illustration of the adage, "There is nothing new under the sun."

Mr. Hickey says that "wont" is pronounced "wunt" (I presume he means with the "u" short). So it is; but it is also pronounced two or three other ways, according to locality, the Standard dictionary, in its "Disputed Pronunciations," giving three variations. The Standard also gives two sounds to "won't"-long "o" and short "u."

Mr. H. then says that the word is a substitute for "will not;" that there is no such word as "woll" used in connection with "not." I will not say that he is in error in this; will only remark that the Standard gives "woll not" as the words for which "won't" is a contraction. Webster also,

I think, makes the same "bust." A word does not cease to be a word simply because it has become obsolete gone into disuse; it is liable to be brought back and be as virile as ever.

If there has been any undue confusion between printer and reader over the particular apostrophe .complained of by Mr. Hickey, it has entirely escaped my notice and I am getting close on to the half-century mark in work on newspapers.

To proceed: I fail to see in the fact that the government printing office has adopted the president's spelling of certain words, in a list which he at one time "ordered" should be used in entirety, any reason why THE JOURNAL editor should take steps to give himself, THE JOURNAL'S correspondents, printers, proofreaders and readers a lot of unavailing and unnecessary annoyance. I think it is still fresh in the minds of most men how very like 29 cents' worth of "bolony"-with the fillin' out-appeared the "stuffed club" of his highness after congress sat down good and hard on his "speln ruffum."

I used the word "unavailing." Some eight or ten years ago the International Educational Convention held its quadrennial convention in this city. Among other matters, there was brought before the body the report of the committee on spelling reform, which had been working as hard as nails, aided by a fund of several thousand dollars. The report showed, as a result of its labors, that it had secured the adoption, by "a few technical publications and college annuals," of the reformed spelling of six words. When, afterward, a resolution to continue the committee-and the appropri ation-was up for discussion, a member of the convention facetiously showed that, at the reported rate of progress, the committee would, at the end of 250,000 years, have gotten its entire work ratified by the publications specified-provided no new school of reformers butted in and so rendered its labors nil. If such a body of educators, who, naturally, should have the "age" in such matters, can accomplish so little, what can we printers, who at best can but "follow copy"-having no say in its preparation-do in the way of aiding the rotation of the wheels of progress, or retrogression (as one views it)? Huh? E. GUTHRIE. Atlanta, Ga.

PRIORITY IN NO. 6.

Another attempt will be made at the next meeting of the International Typographical Union to have the priority law abolished, according to a four-page screed with which this city has just been deluged. Permit me to lay before the membership outside of New York some facts which may help them in deciding the matter when it comes up for action:

Up to within the last two years there existed in this town a finer assortment of "drags," "yanks" and "pulls" than anywhere else in the country. So numerous and so strong were the men with pulls that the priority law was a dead letter. When some two years ago drags became so plentiful that they began to run afoul of each other a chance was afforded to enforce the law. Since