« PreviousContinue »
The Railway CONDUCTOR, PUBLISHED MONTHLY AND ENTERED AS SECOND Class MATTER AT THE Post.
OFPICB IN CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa.-- Subscription $1.00 per year.
W. N. Gates Advertising Agent, Garfield Building, Cleveland, O.
C. D. KELLOGG, Associate.
A WOMAN'S STATUE IN NATIONAL STATUARY HALL.
The first statue of a woman to be placed in Statuary Hall in the National Capital is that of Frances E. Willard. There are statues of many men, but of only one woman, and therein is food for thought. It might be inferred that because of this fact there was and is a lack of women who have given bounteously of their treasures of heart and mind to the uplifting of humanity. It is passing strange that in this great country of ours, where woman's work and influence for good exerts such a mighty influence in our affairs, that to the worth and truth and greatness of no other woman has been vouchsafed the recognition of such achievements by having the likeness of the earthly tabernacle of her soul chisseled out of as an enduring substance as earth possesses and placed in the Nation's Statuary Hall. Surely it would improve the hall and dignify the collection to have in it the statues of the noblest American women, along with the country's most famous men. Probably much, yea, very much, of the greatness of the men whose statues adorn the Hall was directly attributable to the serene soul of some woman who guided and directed their footsteps and made possible the achievements which influenced their
countrymen to thus commemorate their
The addition of women's statues to the collection will give it comprehensiveness, gentleness, and a greater spirit of representativeness.
It will then more fully represent the sublime influences and the splendid faculties that have been and are to be the glory of American achievement and the exalted character of our national life. What more fitting than that the Nation should wish to symbolize in imperishable marble the great work done by its famous women in fields where their influence must ever be primarily greater and
farreaching than men. Surely if ever an American woman deserved the tribute to her memory that the United States Congress recently paid her, it is Frances E. Willard. She made the Woman's Christian Temperance Union a household word throughout the length and breadth of our land-indeed, it seems somewhat selfish for any one country to claim her, because her sympathies were so large, so comprehensive, that they went out to all mankind. Her great lifefight was against the drink evil; she lectured and preached and worked and schemed to weld all and every element
opposed to the liquor evil into a great powerful whole. She placed her faith on no one scheme for fighting the evil, but marshalled them all into batallions and columns and companies and squads so as to get the most out of every influence that militated against the spread of the mighty enemy.
The breadth of her mind was shown in her universality of thought, in that she had no pet hobbies or theories which excluded from her vision the possible virtue and help of other methods. Possibly she made some mistakes: she was human. But her mistakes were insignificant compared with her wonderful achievements and the remarkable effect of her teachings and encouragement upon all her followers. For nearly a quarter of a century Miss Willard was in the front rank of the temperance workers of the United States, and she quickened the temperance cause wherever she spoke, and the enthusiasm she inspired remained an active force and lived on.
Her influence remains today, and will continue as long as women work against evil and seek the betterment of mankind. She had a genius for organization seldom equalled by either men or women, and her influence is still felt in the assembled forces of the women of America, in the great fight she led against the liquor evil.
The Washington Star, in speaking of Miss Willard's life and influence, says: “With all her public work, Miss Willard remained a lovable woman, and her devoted admirers and friends were legion. It was an honor to know her, a privilege to hear her speak. It is no wonder that with such a leader the ranks of the W. C. T. U. should be filled with women of all social positions, vieing with each other to make most of opportunities for the cause of temperance; nor that men should pause in their business to lend a hand earnestly and devotedly to aid the fight against the drink evil.”
The organization which Miss Willard made so strong remains today and will continue to remain one of the most useful factors in the world for the correction of evil influences. It ramifies in myriad directions. It is based upon home itself, and in the home it works its best ends.
Let us hope that other statues of other great, good and lovable women will adorn this Hall, so that the collection may represent every phase, feature and condition of our national life-represent those who have risen to eminence from lowly beginnings by sheer force of inherent strength and greatness as well as those who began the battle of life under more favorable circumstances.
JUST CRITICISM IS WELCOMED.
We do not believe that any of the labor organizations will object to fair impartial criticism of either their actions or their intentions and motives. The great trouble has been and still is, to get the fair kind, and to have peoplethe public-believe in our public representations. Public opinion urged on by the press both secular and religious, of the country, has been taught by inference innuendo, omission and
publication that neither the leaders nor the followers of organized labor are sincere in their public declarations. Unfortunately the publications, representing
the different labor organizations are very little read and very little known to the general public. If they were better known and more generally read we flatter ourselves that public opinion would be much more enlightened and molded thereby. When a noted labor leader says that indescriminate boycotting is one of the curses of the labor movement which has “brought more
scorn than any other matter to the trade union cause," or another is cheered to the echo in a convention of his followers, when he says that, “The teamster who assaults another teamster because the lat
ter has no union button, and the financial magnate who violates the anti-trust law, ought to be made to keep the lockstep of fellow convicts,' or the warning of another labor leader when he says, “To the disciples of the labor movement I would say, if you are teaching strife, discord and hatred you are doing harm to the cause as well as to those who may follow your teachings;” or the fact that a whole lodge of organized labor refused last Labor Day, to march in a parade with the Western Federation of Miners, “as a protest against the encouragement of Socialism and disrespect for law," or the fact that the American Federation of Labor has for years voted down socialistic resolutions by practically unaminous jorities, or that 25,000 mill operatives in Fall River have just maintained a losing strike of six months, wholly free of violence, it does seem as if those who should believe in the truthfulness and sincerity of labor advocate and do not, are like unto those who “having eyes, see not, or having ears hear not.” It
may not be a waste of time or an ideal occupation for people so disposed to theorize upon ideal conditions to call up visions from the “vasty deep" -but in our present work, it is well to remember that conditions are not ideal, indeed far from it, and the laborers and labor leaders are perhaps more painfully aware of this than anybody else. What we object to in the criticism of organized labor is that which stamps the movement in toto as lawless.
We claim that violence over disputed points, in strikes, is a survival, not a growth. Men who have grown to manhood and middle age under an unvarying environment are not in fairness to be judged on the basis of one who has seen much of the world. Then too the violences which are almost a constant accompaniment of strikes should not all be charged to the laborers—in past we have always maintained that during the excitement consequent upon strikes, the thugs and puguglies of every stripe and condition, seize upon the commotion to ply their own peculiar graft, or lay, to
help eke out their precarious existence. Of course these human sharks are sharp and when a strike takes place that has the sympathy of a large portion of the public, they know that they can put on a much bolder front and carry favor, when as a matter of fact they care not a rap which side wins. Truly it would be idle to maintain that members of organized labor never have indulged in violence, but it is not fair to organized labor as above to say violence is sanctioned by it. We must consider that in this country there are tens of thousands of industries, great and small, and that the prevailing relations year in and year out are those of peace and not war, so that it is fair to conclude that in all probability thousands of differences are adjusted by conferences between employers and employes to every one that breaks out in open strike.
We must remember also that it has not been so very long ago when employers generallv refused to treat with representatives of organized labor. No question but in many instances these employers acted upon a real consciencious belief and understanding of their own inherent sights and prerogatives. Knowing the largely prevailing sentiment at this time of the tendency towards conferences and arbitration and mutual agreements, it surely shows what a long "rocky road
which the labor movement has stumbled in the last hundred years.
And a backward look gives us hope to go on. In this connection it is well to remember President Roosevelt's utterance in one of his messages quoting President Millen of the New York, New Haven & Hartford system when he frankly declared that “we can better serve each other, better understand the man as well as his business, when meeting face to face, enchanging views and realizing from personal contact serve but interest, that of our mutual prosperity.
President Tuttle of the Boston & Maine said he finds the representatives of organized labor “a hundred times more reasonable and fair and with a broader view of the whole situation."
Mr. August Belmont, representing the larger part of the transportation interests of New York City, declares that he is “glad to testify to the afficacy and efficiency of face to face conferences with honorable employes. I pronounce it a practical method of reaching a common understanding upon points in controversy. It is a pleasure to believe that organized labor is leanring more and more the lesson of its share of responsibility for a contract is equal to that of capital." Of
these quotations might be extended indefinitely but enough has been given to vince our critics that the hopes of organized labor are being realized. That education is being acquired by all three parties to the controversy—the ployer, the employe and the public. So that we feel the time is coming nearer all the while when such preachments as follows are not so terribly far in the future. “The prompt impartial
and complete enforcement of all laws for the protection of the right of every person to dispose of his power •to labor and to operate his business in the way approved by his own judgment, subject only to the police powers of the state, is vitally necessary for the protection of fundamental liberties.” And further this critic says: “Peaceable settlement of disputes between ployers and employes through
selfrespecting conferences, between the parties directly interested, either individually or through authorized and responsible representatives and on basis of mutual recognition of the lawful status of each, is essential to industrial stability and hence to the best welfare of the community." Of course the above contemplated ends are what
are working for, we think much headway · has been made and certainly we have abundant reason for thinking
THE SANCTITY OF LABOR CONTRACTS.
Time was when violation of contracts was a constant and grave charge against organized labor. Indeed, to men brought up in the ordinary routine of business methods, the idea of having nothing but honor as collateral security for enforcing or carrying out the provisions of a contract was so new and foreign and intangible that they failed to comprehend its force. We possibly ought not to wonder at such a feeling, for it had been born and bred in them. So that when labor leaders preached the inviolability of contracts the employers looked
with incredulity and shortly voiced and exerted a vigorous warfare. They did not fail to antagonize this contention of organized labor in every possible way and denounce the leaders as preaching something they knew could not be carried out in everyday business. Organized labor has, however, stood to its faith with works, and the recent Interborough Rapid Transit Company strike
has demonstrated the truthfulness of the contention of labor for contract inviolability in a striking, comprehensive and convincing way.
Grand Chief Stone of the Brotherhood of Locomotive engineers, with which organization the motormen have membership, stood firm and immovable against violation of their existing contract with the company.
Mr. Stone in the following gives members of his organization to understand plainly that they have been guilty of hasty, inconsiderate, and wrong action:
“The Brotherhood of Engineers have no differences between their organization and the Interborough Company at the present time that could not have been adjusted at the present time in a proper manner.
“The present strike now going on by men claiming to represent the Brotherhood of Engineers is in direct violation of our orders. It is not recognized, nor will it be supported by our organization.
The contract entered into in September, 1904, between the Interborough Company and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers we recognize to be as binding today as it was when signed, and loyal members of the Brotherhood of Engineers are instructed to at once report for duty to comply with the requirements of the agreement. Members refusing to do so will be expelled from membership in our organization. It has been reported to me that many of our members have been misled by statements that the grand officers have given consent to this strike. This is not correct. No request was made or granted, nor were the officers of the Brotherhood of Engineers consulted in the present situation. This is the first time in the history of the Brotherhood of Engineers that
members have repudiated their agreement with any railroad.
Labor organizations must keep their part of the agreement inviolate if they expect suc
Had our laws been complied with conditions as they now appear could not exist on the line of the Interborough Rapid Transit Company."
President Mahon of the Amalgamated Association, Street and Electric Railway Employés of America, also voiced his opposition to the strike because of the fact that it was without sanction of the laws of his organization and in violation of a contract with the Interborough Company.
His words are as follows: “The present strike of local Division No. 332, of the Amalgamated Association of Street and Electric Railway Employés, was undertaken without consulting the responsible officers of the
general organization, without their consent or approval.
"A copy of the demands to be presented to the Interborough Railway Company on Monday afternoon shown to me, and I strongly advised against their presentation, for, in addition to the demands for better conditions, the document contained the endorsement of the local division of engineers (motormen) which violated the agreement that organization had with the company.
“I had reason to believe there would have been little or no difficulty in obtaining from the company better conditions, but our organization is strongly committed to the maintenance of its own agreements with employers, and was in honor bound not to encourage the violation of an agreement which another organization had with the employer of its members.
“Under our laws our local unions have no right to strike in violation of any agreement they have with the employers, and surely then they can have no right to strike to support another organization to do an act which they themselves have no right to do.
“It seemed to me that without resorting to drastic measures I might yet give whatever assistance my experience and position offered to advise a way out of the difficult and questionable position in which our men and our local division were placed, to try and bring about an honorable adjustment in the establishment of better relations between the men, the organization, and the company."
GOD GIVE US MEN.
God, give us men! A time like this demands Strong minds, great hearts, true faith and ready
hands; Men whom the lust of office does not kill; Men whom the spoils of office can not buy; Men who possess opinions and a will; Men who have honor; men who will not lie; Men who can stand before a demagogue
And damn his treacherous flatteries without winking.
-Dr. F. G. Holland.