The tenth annual convention of the Association of Manufacturers met in Atlanta, Georgia, on the 16th of May. We understand the meeting was very successful in every way from their standpoint. The great feature of their meeting-perhaps the principal idea of the meeting-was the address of its president, D. M. Parry, and it is of that address we want to speak. paying a pretty and merited compliment to the beautiful city of Atlanta, the masterful eloquence of the lamented Henry W. Grady and others, he launched forth upon the topic that has made his name a household word in the ranks of organized labor-1 name suggesting intolerance, egotism, narrowness, and obstinacy.

After

The perversity of the man is well shown in the following extract from what he had to say about socialism as applied to organized labor:

"Before proceeding to a brief consideration of the labor question, I wish to make a few statements respecting the tendency toward socialism which at this time is being strongly manifested in many ways. The socialistic party and organized labor composed of over two million employes arrayed in opposition to individualism continues, according to reports of its officials, to increase its membership. The growth of an avowedly socialistic party and of organized labor, with its present creed, is certainly a sinister fact to all loyal citizens who understand and appreciate the importance of individual liberty. But the existence of these organizations is indicative of a serious defection from the individualistic principle, by certain classes A notable speaker recently declared that the country had reached a stage in its history of 'public clamor against capital'. This may have been stating the situation too strongly, but there is no question that thousands of well-meaning citizens have become enamored of socialistic

remedies for real and imaginary evils in the state.

"One would naturally suppose that after a hundred years and more. of individualism the great body of the American people would know what it means, but that many of them do not realize or appreciate its full significance is shown by their belief that private ownership in capital may be limited or abolished without evil effect upon their free institutions or the material welfare

of the people. Private ownership of capital is in fact a necessary feature of individualism and of present day civilization. Unless the individual enjoys a title in fee-simple to his labor and the fruits of his labor, that is, unless he is able to reap the rewards of his abilities and energies, he is not a freeman, but a slave. Private ownership in property is thus seen to be a direct deduction from the principle of individual liberty. The effects of private management or ownership of capital on the advancement of civilization have been of the first importance. It has not only furnished a necessary spur for the development of the individual, but it has also resulted in the accumulation of capital and its maximum employment in the production of wealth, thereby serving as the principal lever for raising mankind to higher planes of material prosperity and civilization. To destroy private ownership is to establish socialism, and socialism means the deterioration of the individual, the dissipation of capital and the establishment of despotism.

"The agitation for the supplanting of private control over capital appears to disclose two distinct methods for the accomplishment of its object. One is that of confiscation-the passage of legislative enactments and the adoption of other means to reduce profits and to limit private management of capital. The other is that of acquiring government control through purchase from

the present individual owners. The first of these methods is the one more commonly advocated and is the more reprehensible and dangerous of the two. Both methods, however, are open to the general objections that can be urged against socialism.

"That form of socialistic endeavor which seeks government control of capital by purchase is better stated, perhaps, as an effort to obtain the public management of capital rather than its ownership. It is supposed, however, by its advocates that the debts incurred by the government would ultimately be paid by it through profit derived from its enterprises. At the present time efforts for this kind of socialism are limited to the acquirement by the government of public utilities.

"Attempts in the line of municipal ownership have for the most part resulted unfavorably to the claims made by its advocates. If the people of this country value their liberities they will go far before attempting to take the control of capital out of private hands even to a modern degree.

"I believe the sentiment favorable to socialistic measures involving the confication of profits and the limitation of private management of capital is the more widespread and dangerous. Without making special reference to the aim of the avowed socialists to bring about the millennium through undisguised confiscation, we have organized labor and its sympathizers supporting the idea that organizations of men may dictate to a large extent the management of enterprises which they do not own. Besides assuming to say how much wages the employer shall pay and how he shall manage his capital in other respects, the union also presumes to deny the right of the individual to the full control of his own labor, determining for him the rate of wages for which he shall work, the number of hours he shall employ himself and the maximum amount of daily output he shall produce. As eight-hour and anti-injunction legislation is designed to assist the unions in the accomplishment of these objects these measures fall under the classi

fiscation of socialistic attempts by confiscation. Still another illustration of this kind of socialistic propositions, and one which does not proceed from organized labor, is the pending national legislation to have the government fix railroad rates.

"Thousands of well-disposed men, who would not think of injuring the interests of their fellow-beings by their vote, have been led by these demagogues and false teachers into the belief that they are in some inscrutible manner being robbed by the rich, and they, therefore, are not to be morally censured for taking up with socialistic propositions.

"Since the socialistic tendency is to be attributed to ignorance rather than dishonesty on the part of many voters, the problem of protecting individualism resolves itself down to a problem of educating the voting masses.

This in the face of the well known fact, to him, and to all others who keep abreast of the times, of the practically unanimous rejection of all and every socialistic idea advocated by isolated 'members of the American Federation, in every one of its conventions in recent years. And in all other conventions of organized labor the subject is never even mentioned, so very, very few members there are who are at all affected by the socialistic absurdities. It will be seen by the above extract, also, how intimately and confusingly truth and error are intermingled, and no other conclusion seems to be possible but that. it is done so by deliberate and studied intention. While the practically unanimous sentiment of organized labor will readily coincide with his views on socialism, they also know that a linking of the two in mutual action or thought is a most unpardonable assumption. Not only does Mr. Parry know this, but he also knows that the increasing increment of education in our country tends surely and naturally away from the curse and blight of the socialistic perdition he would have us believe is soon to overtake us. Finally, he takes a grain of comfort to himself and voices it to the effect that "organized labor was less strenuous in the past year in

its socialistic endeavors than in the several years immediately preceding." Of course we do not take that as a sop thrown to us, but as a self-felicitation on the good accomplished by efforts of the Manufacturers' Association.

All credit for the defeat of the eighthour and anti-injunction bills by the last Congress is accorded to the influence of the members of the Manufacturers' Association, and further credit is given to it as follows:

"With strikes less numerous, the laws bettered, obeyed and enforced, and the power of labor lobbies considerably checked, the value of this association's activity on the labor question is emphatically demonstrated. The policy taken by the association in demanding a full recognition from organized labor of the individualistic principles of our government is the only policy which will establish and maintain industrial peace. Peace is utterly impossible so long as it is attempted to make the rights of employer and employe the subject of dickering and trials of strength.

"Every man is a self governing unit. He may worship as he pleases, he may vote as he pleases, he may entertain whatever opinion he pleases, he may eat and drink what he pleases, he may work where and how he pleases and for what he pleases, and he may dispose of his time and his property in any manner he pleases, but none of his acts shall be such as will limit or prevent others from exercising the same liberty which he himself enjoys.

argue

"Some socialists attempt to that when the government acts as a policeman it is abridging individual rights, and that if it can forbid murder, for example, it can with equal reason compel the individual to give up the product of his labor to the state and make them eat out of a common crib. But this is not good logic. Liberty does not mean license. Liberty means that each individual shall exercise his own rights, but shall not infringe on the rights of others. To permit him to prevent others from enjoying their liberties is to grant him license and not liberty.

To interdict the taking of life, for example, is not placing a limitation on individual liberty, but is in fact an assertion of the rights of all individuals to life."

Perhaps the statement made by Mr. Parry which is so far from the truth as to seem ridiculous, is as follows:

"The leaders of organized labor, with surprising unanimity, base their claims on an argument similar to that of the socialist. They say, for example, that since the government can limit individual independence by compelling children to go to school and factory owners to provide safety appliances to minimize the danger to life, it is also valid to compel a workman to belong to the union. It is for the general good, they argue, that children be forced to go to school and that safety appliances be required, and then they add that it is also for the general good that workmen be forced to belong to the union. The argument will not bear analysis. The government may require compulsory education, but it does this for the protection of the child's rights. Safety appliances may be required in order to protect the right to life. But to draw the conclusion from these acts of the government that it is also valid to compel the workmen to join organized labor on the ground that organized labor advances the general good of labor is not a valid argument. In fact such logic would do credit to the Russian autocracy. The reasoning of the labor leaders implies the gratuitous and unproved assertion that the individual workman is incapable of looking after his own affairs and should therefore be placed under their guardianship. The argument of these labor leaders is the argument of despotism. It is a denial of individual freedom. They boldly assert that no workman has a moral right to sell his labor where he pleases, but that he must first consult them and do as they command. Either there is individual freedom or there is not. If there is individual freedom it cannot be subject to the whims of labor leaders. It must not be taken away from any man, no matter how humble he be, at

the dictation of any organization, or even by government itself.”

Not content, however, with the abovequoted ravings, Mr. Parry conjures from the dark realms of his vivid and fertile imagination the following blood-curdling, cold-sweat-producing vision, and frees his mind of the horrible phantasmagoria of organized labor in the following venomous falsities, half-truths, and a mixture of truth with them, that we feel safe in saying are the chief dangers of the influence of this man, and those who follow him. It should ever be borne in mind when reading Mr. Parry's writings or listening to his talk, that half-truths are almost always worse than actual full-grown lies, and he is certainly a past-master in the art of mixing truth and falsehood.

"Now as to the claim that organized labor is necessary for the protection of labor's welfare. Standing for certain ideas and ends, organized labor might become of much benefit to labor. With its present objects and policies, however, there is no question but that it works immeasurably more harm to the best interests of labor than it accomplishes good. It preaches disrespect for law, inveighs against the militia and the courts, wages warfare on industry, denies industrial training to the youth, limits individual output and conspires in various ways to injure or punish those who will not obey its rule. all, it seeks to overthrow initiative, the one thing to which more than to any other is to be attributed our high material development. It is throughly saturated with the socialistic creed that the individual has no rights which man in a collective capacity need recog

nize.

But, above individual

It does not seem to appreciate that in this country the individual is the sovereign and that the government is his servant, not his master. Its whole system of beliefs and policies means but one thing, and that is the establishment of a power that shall be master over the individual. If the union aimed to be the servant of the workman and not

his master there would be a different story to tell.

Perhaps the day is gradually coming when organizad labor will realize the fatal errors it is making. Current events appear, in fact, to be forcing its reformation. Sooner or later it must

see that it cannot make headway against the individualistic character of our institutions. Let it abandon its closedshop warfare and recognize that the workman cannot be converted into an automaton to do its bidding.

'But so long as it persists in its present reunion policies it must be opposed. There is no other alternative for those who believe in the perpetuation of individualism. That unionism as at present conducted is a grave menace to the nation is apparent from a moment's consideration of its numerical and financial strength. The membership of the American Federation of Labor is at present 1,750,000. Organizations independent of that body increase the army of unionism to approximately the two-million mark. Millions of dollars annually go into the treasuries of the several thousand subordinate unions. Some of the organizations have large funds on deposit in banks, in several instances running over a million dollars. These figures prove that organized labor is a powerful institution, one that challenges our most serious consideration. So long as it stands for the waging of strikes, for the restriction of output, and for other limitations upon individual initiative; so long as it seeks to build up labor monopoly at the expense of all the rest of the people, and to establish the closed-shop despotism under which employers and employes must alike obey its rule, its growing power must excite grave apprehension. The workmen of the country must be shown that the creed of organized labor endangers their own freedom, and that if the policies of their organization were successful it would result disastrously not only to their independence but also to their material prosperity. In this land of individual initiative the common people are better fed,

better clothed, are less chained down by drudgery, experience more of the enjoyments of life, and are the most intelligent of any of the nations on earth. Wages are from two to five times the

rates in European countries. Why is this?"

One mighty good answer to the question is that the genus Parry has never before waged warfare on those wages.

We have been requested to reprint the bill printed in the January issue, and hereunder will be found not only the bill but the editorial comments made at that time. As suggested, it is possible all members of organized labor do not realize the vast amount of good help they can offer towards getting this bill passed, or the great importance of the measure. It seems as if much good could be accomplished by the members of the different organizations if they would simply deluge the Representatives from their districts and the Senators from their states with requests for its passage.

"A BILL-Relating to liability of common carriers by railroads in the District of Columbia and Territories and common carriers by railroads engaged in commerce between the States and between the States and foreign nations to their employes.

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That every common carrier by railroad engaged in trade or commerce in the District of Columbia, or in any Territory of the United States, or between the several States, or between any Territory and another, or between any Territory or Territories and any State or States, or the District of Columbia, or with foreign nations, or between the District of Columbia and any State or States or foreign nations, shall be liable to any of its employes, or, in the case of his death, to his heirs at law, for all damages which may result from the negligence or mismanagement of any of its officers, agents, or employes, or by reason of any defect or insufficiency in its cars,

engines, appliances, machinery, track, roadbed, ways, or work.

"Sec. 2. That in all actions hereafter brought against any such common carriers by railroad to recover damages for personal injuries to an employe, or where such injuries have resulted in his death, the fact that the employe may have been guilty of contributory negligence shall not bar a recovery where his contributory negligence was slight in comparison to that of the employer.

"Sec. 3. That no contract of employment, insurance, relief benefit, or indemnity for injury or death entered into by or on behalf of any employe, nor the acceptance of any such insurance, relief benefits, or indemnity by the person entitled thereto shall constitute any bar or defense to any action brought to recover damages for personal injuries to or death of such employe: Provided, however, That upon the trial of such action against any such common carrier by railroad the defendant may set off therein any sum it has contributed toward any such insurance, relief, benefit, or indemnity that may have been paid to the injured employe, or, in case of his death, to his heirs at law.

"Sec. 4. That nothing in this act shall be held to limit the duty of common carriers by railroads or impair the rights of their employes under the safety appliance Act of March second, eighteen hundred and ninety-three, as amended April first, eighteen hundred and ninetysix, and March second, nineteen hundred and three."

We call attention to the above bill in the hope that members and Divisions will use their influence with their Sena