Page images
PDF
EPUB

of production by the channel of lower pay. If a reduction in the wages of printers was necessary and justifiable, then it should have been sought all along the line, and not in isolated instances. Mr. Ridder had something to say "of conditions which operate to decrease the efficiency of that labor," and that the unions must work out this question of efficiency "with due regard for their obligations to their employers, or they will work their own undoing." In order to afford opportunity to our members to acquire increased efficiency, the International Typographical Union conducts, at large expense, a trade school that is acknowledged to be managed along correct lines. But it is not on record that the American Newspaper Publishers' Association has taken any great amount of interest in this trade school, although formally invited to do so. At the proper time and place our very good friend, the president of the American Newspaper Publishers' Association, may expect payment in coin of his own minting for the goods that he attempted to dispose of in a market that was vending other wares.

THE British appeal court has decided that trade unions have no right to levy dues or assessments upon their members for the support of labor members of parliament. This is a serious blow to the British labor party, when it is remembered that members of parliament receive no salaries. Fortunately, the English people have a way of forcing parliament to overrule a reactionary court decision, and this conclusion of the appeal court may eventually result in a law granting salaries to members of parliament.

IT IS the intention of Detroit Typographical Union to endeavor to have a law passed by the next Michigan legislature to compel all printing offices which use the linotype to install a system that will carry off the fumes of the metal. J. E. Pendergast, of No. 18, desires information on the subject, and should there be such a law on the statute books of any state, he would like a copy of the same. Address rooms 410-411 Buhl block, Detroit, Mich.

A Judicial Outrage.

The decision rendered by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, finding Messrs. Gompers, Mitchell and Morrison, officials of the American Federation of Labor, guilty of contempt of court in violating an injunction order, was not much of a surprise to those who have observed the trend of events in that respect. But the severity of the sentence imposed-one year in jail for Gompers, nine months for Mitchell, and six months for Morrison-was unexpected. The court's delay in disposing of the case augured ill to the interests of organized labor. It will be remembered that the federation officials petitioned the court to render its decision prior to the national election, but without avail, though months had elapsed since the trial of the case.

Nevertheless the decision is opportune. It comes at a moment when the injunction process is under review, and when earnest efforts are being put forth to remedy what is conceded by leading jurists and eminent statesmen to be a defect in our present judicial system. And it emphasizes the contention of organized labor and its friends, that in a government such as ours even the humblest citizen should not be convicted of crime and penalized, or deprived of liberty, or both, without a trial by a jury of his peers.

If alleged violation of a court's restraining order is to be considered from a criminal standpoint in the eyes of the law, is it not reasonable to ask that the following constitutional provision relative to trial by jury shall be observed: "The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury?”

The decision also accentuates the tendency on the part of some of our judges to make laws by issuing a mandate forbidding certain acts, and then punishing those who may, in the court's opinion, disobey any part of those orders. The legality of such mandates does not appear to receive any consideration at the hands of the issuing power-the parties interested must do as the court says, regardless of the legal aspect of the case, or they must suffer the penalty.

The Washington contempt case origi

nated in an injunction suit filed by "Buck's Stove" Van Cleave against the federation officials, to restrain the latter from publishing the name of the Buck's Stove and Range Company in the "We Don't Patronize" list appearing in the American Federationist. A sweeping temporary injunction was issued, which was later made permanent. The court not only decreed that the federation officials must discontinue printing the "We Don't Patronize" list, but in effect restrained them from mentioning "Buck's Stove" Van Cleave or his company in the Federationist, or discussing the matter in any manner. In short, this injunction prohibited the defendants from mentioning the unfair "Buck's stove" in a public address, or through the issuance of circulars to organized labor, and it was extremely doubtful whether it was safe for them to confer with others on the subject. The federation officials-though maintaining their right to keep their membership informed as to unfair products by means of the "We Don't Patronize" list-discontinued its publication in obedience to the court's order. In the firm belief, however, that certain portions of the court's mandate were in contravention of inherent and constitutional rights, and an abuse of the injunction power on the part of the court, the federation officials sought eminent legal advice on these points, and were governed by this advice in dealing with this phase of the subject. And it is for their action-or lack of action-in this respect that the Washington jurist finds them guilty of contempt of court, and hands them a Christmas gift in the form of a jail sen

tence.

What does the court say in support of its decision? A copy of the finding is not at hand, and THE JOURNAL is perforce obliged to depend upon the press dispatches. According to these reports, the decision is a mass of abuse and innuendo, directed not only against the federation officials, but against organized labor as a whole. Personal bias toward organized labor is plainly apparent, and unwarranted assumption, misrepresentation, distortion of facts and palpable error permeate the decision. The judge assumes to be fully posted as to the

aims and objects of organized labor, and asserts that coercion is used by labor officials to prevent members of organized labor from buying non-union goods; he declares that the workers are ignorant and blindly follow orders issued by their officials; that they (the labor unionists) "have been betrayed, hoodwinked into the stand of an enemy of law and of social order;" that, though "announcing freedom to purchase what and where one will, they (the labor unionists) deny that right to him himself; proclaiming the right of all men to labor, they restrict it to the holders of a union card; declaring the right to enjoy full earning capacity, they limit his daily earnings to a stated sum."

The foregoing is only a sample of the assertions contained in the decision under review, but it is sufficient to demonstrate ignorance of labor conditions and prejudice against trade unions. The worst enemy of organized labor would fail if he attempted to go further than this tribunal has gone in attacking organized labor and its friends in a judicial decree. It savors of the fulminations of the sage of Battle Creek.

A reading of the published reports will also show that the court did not confine itself to a consideration of the evidence before it in determining the question of guilt. References are made to speeches of Mr. Gompers during the recent political campaign-addresses delivered months after the expiration of the time for the submission of evidence-in order to support the court's contention that Samuel Gompers is now and always has been a lawbreaker and a criminal. And statements contained in "Organized Labor," a work compiled some years ago by John Mitchell, are also referred to with the same object in view.

One portion of the decision is especially significant. In discussing the question of error on the part of the court in determining a cause, the judge holds that the order must nevertheless be obeyed, using this language on that point: "And I place the decision of the matter at bar distinctly on the proposition that were the order confessedly erroneous, yet it must have been obeyed."

In other words, according to this deci

sion, a court has the right to issue a confessedly erroneous and illegal order, and deprive law-abiding citizens of their property or liberty, or both, if they fail to obey such a confessedly illegal order. This is refreshing news. A large majority of the citizens of the United States have had the impression that laws that have been upheld by the courts, and especially criminal laws, were as binding upon the court itself as upon the common citizen, but it seems that they have been laboring under a delusion in this respect. This ruling may be intended as a notice that "The king (the court) can do no wrong," even though it issues an admittedly illegal order and administers punishment for violation of that order. This theory, so far as kings are concerned, was exploded many moons ago, and if matters have come to such a point that judges are above the law, and can set aside the law at will, and found their decisions upon personal bias and prejudice, then there is need of a radical change in legal procedure.

Speaking of free speech and the freedom of the press, the judge asserts that the constitution "nowhere conferred the right to speak, to print or to publish. It guarantees only that in so far as the federal government is concerned its congress shall not abridge it." In this connection comparisons are made that indicate a begging of the question and an attempt to befog the issue. Every one knows that libel and slander are punishable under the law, and that the law provides a specific method of procedure in such cases. But no slander or libel was charged in the case under review. It was a question of violation of an injunction, where the defendants emphatically disclaimed the performance of any illegal act, and challenged the legality of the mandate directed against them. It would appear from the record, however, that the court persistently evaded the issues presented, and rebuked defendants' counsel for having the audacity to raise such issues, and then proceeded to bolster up his decision by delivering a tirade against the defendants and the union labor movement.

Pause and listen to what the court says in pronouncing sentence upon the federa

tion officials: "It would seem not inappropriate for such a penalty as will serve to deter others from following after such outlawed examples; will serve physically to impose obedience, even though late; will serve to vindicate the orderly power of judicial tribunals, and establish over this litigation the supremacy of law."

We are taught to have respect for and confidence in the courts. But courts, like individuals, are only entitled to respect and confidence when they prove worthy of such respect and confidence. We may obey a court's mandate, illegal though it be, and yet have the utmost contempt for the judge who issued it. A court which disregards the law, and gloats over it, as in this case, is certainly not entitled to the respect and confidence of any one, much less of those whom it goes out of the way to wilfully malign. We have been taught to expect dignity on the part of the court, but no dignity is manifested in the decision under review. If the judge in question has not a deeper and clearer knowledge of the laws of his country than he has of the aims and objects of organized labor, as demonstrated by his decision, then his fund of information of this character is limited. Decisions of this nature, couched in unwarranted and vituperative language, and demonstrating absolute ignorance of organized labor's purposes, tend to create a feeling of contempt for the judiciary.

Messrs. Gompers, Mitchell and Morrison are not in jail, notwithstanding the desire of this judicial light to send them there. They are out on bail, and the case will be appealed to the United States Circuit Court, and from there to the supreme court of the country, if found necessary.

And even if the courts should send all the labor officials in America to jail, such action would not decrease the unpopularity of Buck's stoves and ranges, or any other scab product, with labor unionists and their sympathizers, nor prevent their keeping each other informed on such subjects.

At the time of the decision, Walter Wellman, the well-known newspaper correspondent, wrote the following:

Throughout the reading of this powerful philip

pic against labor leaders and methods the defendants sat silent, motionless. When Judge Wright had finished he asked the defendants if they had anything to say why sentence should not be pronounced upon them. A painful pause followed. For fully a minute none spoke. Then Samuel Gompers rose, almost timidly, took a step forward, and in a low tone began to speak. It was apparent he was making a valiant, a studied effort to retain his self-control, to speak without excitement, with moderation. He realized the importance of the moment. On his left John Mitchell, his face colorless, looked up at the chief with eager gaze. Morrison, on his right, was manifestly much agitated. As Gompers began speaking the courtroom was strangely still. For a time the leader of the greatest labor organization in the world expressed himself in a calm way without gesture or raising his voice. Warming to his subject, he delivered that which must be regarded by friend and foe alike as a remarkable address under most extraordinary circumstances.

President Gompers' address was as follows: "I am not conscious at any time during my life of having violated any law of the country or of the state in which I live. I would not consciously violate a law now or at any time during my full life. It is not possible that, under the circumstances which I am before your honor this morning, and after listening to the opinion which you have rendered, to say that which I have in mind; but, sir, I may be permitted to say this: That freedom of speech and freedom of the press has not been granted to the people to say the things which please; but the right to say the things that displease, even though they do a wrong. There is much that I would like to say, but I can not do it now."

At this point Mr. Gompers said he had said all he cared to, but, after a short pause, said he would like to make a few more remarks. "I may say," he added, "that this is a struggle of the working people of our country, and it is a struggle of the working people for right.

"The labor movement does not undertake to presume to be a higher tribunal than either the courts or the other branches of the government of our country. It is a struggle of the ages-a struggle of the men of labor to throw off some of the burdens which have been heaped upon them; to abolish some of the wrongs and to secure some of the rights too long denied. If men must suffer because they dare speak for the masses of the men of our country; if men must suffer because they have been raised to meet the sordid greed-even to grind the children in the dust to gain dollars-they must bear the consequences.

"But," continued Mr. Gompers, "if I can not discuss grave problems-great issues in which the people all over our country are interested; if a speech made by me during a political campaign, after the close of this case; if the speeches in furtherance of a great principle or a great right are to be held as against me, I shall not only have to, but am willing to bear the consequences. I would not have you believe me a man of a defiant character

in disposition or in conduct. But in the pursuit of honest conviction and in the furtherance of the common interests of my fellow man, I shall not only have to, but be willing to submit to whatever your honor may impose."

Then John Mitchell stepped forward. All he had to say was that he heartily endorsed every word that Gompers had spoken. Morrison folfowed Mitchell's lead, saying Gompers had expressed his opinions entirely.

Mr. Gompers, when asked after the adjournment of court if the sentence was a surprise to him, replied:

"A surprise; indeed it was.

"But all I can think of to say at present has already been said. When I spoke to the judge I expressed all that I could, properly, at this time.

"I wish, though, that I had said something about the extracts from the political speeches which he quoted in his opinion. They were speeches made after the evidence in the trial was taken, and were not in any way brought into the evidence."

Raymond Robins on Labor.

An address by Raymond Robins at Rochester, N. Y., early last month, was declared by the press of that city to have been the best given there in years. Mr. Robins was once a workingman himself, but is now the possessor of great wealth, because of success in the Klondike gold fields. He has studied economic and social conditions from all points of view, and comes out as the champion of organized labor, spending his money in social settlement work in Chicago, seeking to bring about better conditions for the working men and women. Taking for his subject, "Organized Labor and Social Progress," Mr. Robins declared that the two great demands of organized labor were set forth as higher wages and shorter hours, and he scored what he termed the "scab labor employing group" which was "skinning labor at the bottom and the consumer at the top," illustrating how it was being done and showing the effect of low and high wages on any community.

On the question of a shorter workday, the speaker said it was a demand that could be easily vindicated, as had been shown by the investigations made by a royal commission in Great Britain. "We are producing manhood and womanhood, as well as dividends," declared Mr. Robins, "but we won't produce dividends if manhood and womanhood fail." The British investigations proved that the eight-hour man produces more

wealth per hour, if he covers a long period of time, than the ten or twelve-hour man, and that a large proportion of wasted material and broken machinery comes after the eight hours' work. Some of the things emphasized as having been accomplished by organized labor were the providing of sick and death benefits, homes for superannuated workers, the campaign against tuberculosis, a demand for better sanitary conditions in factories, etc. A querulous listener wished to know of the speaker the value of a trade union in panic times, and he was told: "It won't get you a job, because it can't make work. It can't do the impossible, but it will give you out-of-work benefits and protection."

A New Idea in Journalism.

Beginning with the first Sunday in December, Frank A. Munsey, proprietor of four daily newspapers-the Boston Journal, Philadelphia Times, Baltimore News and Washington Times-besides a group of magazines, changed the Sunday morning issue of the Washington Times to a Sunday evening edition. The Times, during the five years that Mr. Munsey has owned it, has been published on week-day afternoons and Sunday mornings. One week later he began issuing Sunday afternoon editions of the Philadelphia Times and the Baltimore News. Mr. Munsey said in an interview:

I believe in doing things. Washington has four Sunday newspapers and the Sunday newspapers of New York, Philadelphia and Baltimore are also dumped in upon it. When these are finished with, the reading public will turn to my afternoon paper. All news which is ten hours old is finished with in this country today.

Religious news will naturally occupy a fair-sized part of the paper. The church services and sermons and news from other cities and continents come trickling in all Sunday morning and early afternoon. The Sunday edition, like the week editions, will have no supplements, not even a special article. It will be a regular one-cent paper, from sixteen to twenty-four pages, containing the news of the world during the last twenty-four hours. The size of the average Sunday paper is appalling and objectionable.

The expense of this special news gathering serv ice and telegraphic service, however, will be shared by our other two evening papers if the Sunday evening issue of the Washington Times proves to be the success that a pretty careful analysis of the problem suggests it should be. And a success of this kind can not remain bottled up-can not remain alone

with my own newspapers. It will be caught up all too soon by other evening papers which, in the very nature of the case, will seek our special news service. The cost, therefore, in the initial stages of this enterprise is not a thing to deter us from putting in force an idea that looks good to us.

Church news and church happenings-sermons from the pulpit and the general religious uplift as it manifests itself in various ways should, in the nature of the case, furnish to a Sunday afternoon newspaper as valuable a class of news-more valuable it may well be-than that of the weekday marts of the trade.

As concerns the distribution of our Sunday afternoon paper, it will, we believe, be much more satisfactory than it has been. The Sunday afternoon issue will not come out until so late in the day that the boys and men distributing it will have practically the whole day to themselves-ample time for going to church and Sunday-school and for such recreation as they would naturally take if free from newspaper connection.

With this new plan in force-a straight sevenday newspaper-our men will work regular hours and will get their time off on regular days. Our force, as a whole, in all departments, hail with delight the cutting out of that all-day and all-night Saturday "trick," and welcome with keen interest the new Sunday issue in the place of the old.

A Uniform Union Label.

Benjamin Wood, vice-president of the firm of S. N. Wood & Co., New York city, has designed and is agitating the adoption of a uniform union label. The new label is patterned after that of the allied printing trades, and it is the intention of Mr. Wood to have it used either as a label, pin or button. He thinks that the governing power of the label should be vested in the hands of the American Federation of Labor, on the same principle as the postage stamp is in the control of the United States government at Washington, and distributed from that point to all sub-stations. At present there are seventy-two different labels issued by the crafts affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. It is recognized that under present conditions each craft having a label expends a large sum annually for advertising, in the endeavor to make their label known, and the public is confronted with many and diversified emblems. With a general label, in the opinion of Mr. Wood, the design would appear as clear in the minds of the purchasing public as any other well-known commercial trademark.

« PreviousContinue »