as it were, breathing-space, yet it takes no note of the general causes that determine the conditions of labor, and strives for the elevation of only a small part of the great body by means that can not help the rest. Aiming at the restriction of competition —the limitation of the right to labor-its methods are like those of the army, which even in a righteous cause are subversive of liberty and liable to abuse, while its weapon, the strike, is destructive in its nature, both to combatants and non-combatants. To apply the principle of trades-unions to all industry, as some dream of doing, would be to enthrall men in a caste system. Union methods are superficial in proposing forcibly to restrain overwork while utterly ignoring its cause, and the sting of poverty that forces human beings to it.

And the methods by which these restraints must be enforced, multiply officials, interfere with personal liberty, tend to corruption, and are liable to abuse. Labor-associations can do nothing to raise wages but by force. It may be force applied passively, or force applied actively, or force held in reserve, but it must be force. They must coerce or hold the power to coerce employers; they must coerce those among their own members disposed to straggle; they must do their best to get into their hands the whole field of labor they seek to occupy, and to force other workingmen either to join them or to starve. Those who tell you of trades-unions bent on raising wages by moral suasion alone are like people who tell tigers that live on oranges. Labor-associations of the nature of trade-guilds or unions are necessarily selfish; by the law of their being they must fight, regardless of who is hurt; they ignore and must ignore the teaching of Christ, that

you

of

we should do unto others as we would have them do to us, which a true political economy shows is the only way to the full emancipation of the masses. They must do their best to starve workmen who do not join them; they must by all means in their power force back the "Scab," as a soldier in battle must shoot down his mother's son if in the opposing ranks: a fellow creature seeking work— a fellow creature, in all probability, more pressed and starved than those who bitterly denounce him, and often with the hungry, pleading faces of wife and child behind him. And in so far as they succeed, what is it that tradesguilds and unions do but to impose more restrictions on natural rights; to create "trusts" in labor; to add to privileged classes other somewhat privileged classes; to press the weaker to the wall?

I speak without prejudice against trades-unions, of which for years I was an active member. I state the simple, undeniable truth when I say their principle is selfish and incapable of large and permanent benefits, and their methods violate natural rights and work hardship and injustice. Intelligent trades-unionists know it, and the less intelligent vaguely feel it.

So let this fact be stated: The Union does not stand for labor-it only stands for such a portion of it as consents to be owned and dictated to by itself. For the multitude of young men and young women who wish to gain an education through the skilled use of hands, it cares nothing. It knows nothing about educating the brain by use of the

hand. The "pay-envelope" is all it knows or cares about.

Also, it cares nothing for production or the net result of labor. All it thinks of is more wages and shorter hours.

The despotism of Unionism, if it could have its way, would reach past human belief. It seeks to paralyze human freedom and stop progress. The building of railroads and the growth of cities is nothing to it. The pursuit of another's happiness is its chief concern. ¶ It seeks to chain my pen, and say whom I shall speak well of, and whom not. It tries to name my friends, and if it could separate me from those I respect and admire, it would make their names anathema.

It steps into my household and tells me how my boy shall be educated and how not. It examines my magazines and warns me to buy only of those advertisers who patronize magazines bearing the "Label."

And then when I protest, it says, “Oh, we do not want to hurt anybody-if you employ only Union labor and use the Label, nothing will happen to you."

Is n't this disunionism? ¶ Is n't it despotism? ¶ And all despotism is bad; but the worst is that which works with the machinery of freedom.

The man with the big stick, who flashes a dark lantern in your face, and assures you that if you give him your watch, no harm shall happen to you, is not a robber. Oh, certainly not!

The endeavor of Unionism is to make the job last, not to get it done. It assumes that the supply of work is limited and, if there are too many apprentices, the workingman will soon be on half-time.

Any man with this buzzing bee in his bonnet is already a failure. Superior men see no end to work, and all great men make work for thousands. They set armies to work and build cities where before were only prairiedog towns.

The safety of this country demands that we shall resist coercion and intimidation, whether offered by a Church Trust or a Labor Trust.

The Unions have, as we have said, done

much good in the past-to them we owe factory-inspection, child-labor laws and the shorter working-day. But because a thing is good in small doses is no proof that we can stand an unlimited quantity of it.

Commercial excommunication now is no worse than church excommunication. When the Church cuts you off, you can go to God direct. You simply eliminate the middleman. When organized-labor leaders seek to starve you out, you make your appeal to the people and wax fat. Who represents the folks that actually work in this country, anyway? On your life, it is not the Walking Delegate! When the Labor Leader reaches out his long pole from Washington, New York or Boston, and endeavors to lambaste a man in Battle Creek, Indianapolis or Saint Louis, he only wakes the party up an soon has a fight on hand. That a laborer shall not sell his labor where and when he desires; that an employer shall employ only certain people; that my boy shall not be educated; that an advertiser shall not patronize certain periodicals-all this is