Page images
PDF
EPUB

saw how they had been plundered, they saw the offense in all of its enormity, and from one end of the land to the other there was a civic awakening.

“Any special privilege is a graft. Monopoly, even law-protected privileges are grafts, and should be hateful to every fair-minded citizen. Unless the spirit of civic righteousness now abroad in the land dies out, and there is no likelihood of that, we will pass from the sordid age of commercial into the age of high ideals.

“A political party has no right to ask for support because it is that party, but because it stands for the right. If a political party cannot get votes on the ground of patriotism it has no right to ask for votes on the ground of partisanship. Under our form of government political parties are necessary, for it is through them they can come to agree

THE CHICAGO RATE CONVENTION (S).

If there is one characteristic of the American people which is more pronounced than another, it is the love of fair play-a square deal-sympathy for the under dog. It does not make any particular difference whether this trait is to be expressed over a dog fight, a convention to nominate a mayor of a city, a governor of a state, a president of the United States, or the call for a rate convention-if each one gets a square deal the voice of the convention is usually taken to be about right and the different factions come into harmony. The invitation or notice sent out requesting delegates to assemble in Chicago to talk over rate revision contained no intimation that when the delegates assembled they would be required to bind themselves by a cast-iron agreement to do or not to do a certain thing, but upon getting to the convention hall they were told they would have to sign

statement pledging themselves to favor the empowering of the Interstate Commerce Commission or some other federal body to fix railroad rates. A

ments on public questions and announce their principles and intentions, but political parties should be the servants of the people, not their masters.

"I have spoken of corruption, bribery and grafting, using the terms as they are commonly used, synonymously. While the effect on the public may be as injurious from grafting as from boodling, there is a distinction between them. The boodler sells his vote and prostitutes his trust for bribe money contrary to law, but the grafter is not always a boodler. When those on the inside of any great financial concern divert the trust funds for their profit, that is a graft against the law; when a class of men have special privileges whereby they can prey upon the rest of the people, that is a graft that may not be against the law, and may even be protected by the law."

large majority of the delegates objected to committing themselves without first having had a frank discussion of the questions involved. Now, that does not seem like an unreasonable feeling or demand—the ward politician sometimes shuts off opposition by declaring the question carried without hearing the negative side; but we submit that in a matter of so vital importance to the whole country, the proceeding was without justice, fairness or precedent. Indeed, this appears all the more glaring from the fact that the delegates who were shut out could by no stretch of the imagination be charged with being representatives of the railways; as a matter of fact, so far as we have seen, they were mostly representatives of business organizations. And further than this, there seems small doubt but what many of them held views on the question of rate regulation identical with those composing the Bacon convention, and still others held views with perhaps only shades of difference; so it seems that if a spirit of absolute fairness had pre

a

So on.

vailed there would not have arisen the split in the delegates and two conventions. For our own part, it appears to us that the result of the rate convention is an unfavorable impression in the minds of the general public toward the Bacon convention, the one which stands unqualifiedly for the President's idea of placing rate regulation in the hands of the Interstate Commerce Commission or some other federal body. While the other convention declared just as unqualifiedly against conferring upon any administrative agency “the power to prescribe rates” in any case whatever, they are just as positive in their resolutions against other abuses practiced by the railroads as any one could wish. “They demand the rigid enforcement of present laws—and the enactment of new ones if these be insufficient-against all forms of discrimination, however effected, and they recognize the evils connected with industrial and private lines, arbitrary manipulation of classifications, unequal distribution of equipment, and

They call for changes in procedure and machinery calculated to do away with delays that defeat justice, and thus by implication repudiate the ridiculous assertion of overzealous railway advocates that the resources of American jurisprudence have already been exhausted for the benefit of shippers and producers." In our opinion it is not right or fair to impute undue haste, selfishness, egotism, bias or worse, to the members of either convention. That large numbers of men, regardless of occupation, may honestly disbelieve it to be a feasible, practicable thing to put into the hands of the Interstate Commerce Commission or any other political body the power to make railway rates and enforce them, is practically giving utter

of a truism. Those who have watched the exercise of power with which the Interstate Commerce Commission is already clothed; those who know with what deliberation and unsatisfactoriness government work is done compared with the same work done by private parties; those who see the very life-blood of the tremendous arteries of commerce menaced by any commission

of political creation, have a right to voice their feelings and their fears on the subject; have a right, a duty, to warn their government of the disastrous and farreaching injury such an experiment would prove to this country.

As a general proposition we do not believe that railroad rates in this country are too high-in fact, we know they are lower than any other country in the world; but that there exist manifold instances of inequalities in rates there can be no doubt, and that there exists a general feeling throughout the country that some tribunal ought to have power to regulate and adjust these inequalities is also certain. Looking at it in that light, the friends of rate regulation regard it as a measure making for commercial morality, for a square deal in transportation and consequently in trade. Indeed, it may be regarded as inevitable that some sort of governmental regulation will ultimately have to be exercised over all large aggregations of capital. Nor does this savor in the slightest degree of Government ownership, because we are heartily in accord with President Roosevelt when he says that he does not believe in Government ownership of anything which can with propriety be left in private hands, and in particular he says he should most strenuously object to Government ownership of railroads. “But I believe with equal firmness," he says, “that it is out of the question for the Government not to exercise a supervisory and regulatory right over the railroads; for it is vital to the well-being of the public that they should be managed in a spirit of fairness and justice toward all the public. Actual experience has shown that it is not possible to leave the railroads uncontrolled. Such a system, or rather such a lack of system, is fertile in abuses of every kind, and puts a premium upon unscrupulous and ruthless cunning in railroad management; for there are some big shippers and some railroad managers who are always willing to take unfair advantage of their weaker competitors, and they thereby force other big shippers and big railroad men who would like to do decently into similar acts of wrong and injustice, under

ance

penalty of being left behind in the race judicial review proposed was such that for success. Government supervision is they would not have had the benefit of needed quite as much in the interest of equitable trial, even after conviction, the big shipper and of the railroad man for the courts would have been precluded who wants to do right as in the in from considering the reasonableness of terest of the small shipper and the con the rate complained of, and the rate orsumer.”

dered by the commission would have President Samuel Spencer,of the South been set aside only if it had been found ern Railway, interprets President Roose to be confiscatory. It is important, velt's speech at Raleigh as indicating therefore, if legislation is to be enacted that he is not disposed now to insist that that will insure to the roads a “square the power over rates which he favors deal," that the opportunity for a prompt should be exercised by the Interstate and effective review of the whole case by Commerce Commission, but by “an ad the courts should be provided for. ministrative body.” Again, in the Ral The general public has only a remote eigh speech, says Mr. Spencer, the idea of the far-reaching intricacies inpresident advocates that the adninis volved in railroad rates, and of the altrative body shall have power

after com

most infinite and tireless efforts that have plaint and hearing to fix only a “maxi been put forth in getting rates on as submum rate," not an absolute rate, unal stantial a foundation as they now are. terable thereafter by the carrier, as pro Prof. Hugo R. Meyer put the question vided for in the Esch-Townsend bill. of reasonableness of rates in the followThis apparently follows the opinion of ing brief and forceful words: “Amerithe Attorney General of May 5, in which can railway rates are the result of arbiit was held that Congress could consti tration and warfare; they have been tutionally empower a commission to fix heated and forged and welded and "maximum rates” which it regards as pounded and hammered into their presjust and reasonable. “The difference ent shape, and they are about as nearly between these two positions is vital," right as practical people can make them." says Mr. Spencer. “To fix absolute We do not contend even now that the rates, unalterable by the carrier, in many general public has become very much cases is to determine definitely and ar more acquainted with the science of bitrarily, by governmental tribunal, the rate-making than when the Esch-Townrelative advantages of competing cities send bill was up before the House, but or regions. To prescribe maximum we do think that as many of the public rates only leaves the carrier free to make who have had a mind to could have reductions, and may, and generally will, gained very much information on the result in adjustments which will bring subject, and they have been given to down whole tiers of rates, leaving the re understand in no uncertain way that lation of rates as they were and entailing there is a very large difference between enormous losses to the railways."

rate-making, and rate-regulation, and that The speech at Raleigh indicates also some of the confusion has been dispelled that the President favors giving to the which recognized little or no difference railroads more leeway than he formerly between rates, rebates, discriminations suggested, by not having the rate take and special favors. effect immediately, but in some reason It seems pretty well established, also, able time. A reasonable time for a rate that the railroads are not always remay mean time for a review of it by ju- sponsible for disorganized and unstable dicial, and not administrative, authority, rates. It has been very conclusively if the rights of property are found to be shown that the large shippers are the involved. The Esch-Townsend bill, greatest factor in disorganizing rates; passed by the House of Representatives, that the rates generally in force in the last winter, would not only have sub United States are lower than any other jected the roads to punishment before country in the world; that the price on judicial conviction, but the character of practically all the articles which enter

as

into the use of a majority of the people, is not affected by railroad rates to any appreciable degree-rates charged for railway transportation are so low that they cannot be considered in fixing re

tail prices. Even if the articles were carried free, the cost to the consumer would not be reduced, since the saving would be absorbed by the jobber and retailer.

PIRATE SHIPS SAIL UNDER FALSE COLORS.

The Industrial (?) Workers (?) of the World (?) threw off the thin mask recently, in the state convention of the Massachusetts branch of the American Federation of Labor. It's about time. Brother Goldstein put the poniard under the fifth rib and they had to come out in the open and face the music. It takes mighty little scratching on the hide of an Industrial Worker of the World to show socialism written alle over him. We have a whole lot of respect for a straight out avowed soialist but mighty little for these harpies who go about trying to hide their wolfish intentions under sheep's wool. The following Goldstein resolution peels the sheep's wool off all right, and it was adopted 71 to 28:

Whereas, the American Federation of Labor, now entering upon its 25th year of work, has by its principles and policy gained for itself a place of usefulness and of honor within the body politic.

“Whereas, trade union principles are those universally recognized as the basis of economic and civil society, namely, the right of private property in capital, the right of buying and selling potential labor, the right of free association, the right of personal protection under the law.

“Whereas, the primary object of the trade union is to maintain and to advance the standards of American living, to maintain and to advance the wageearner's position relative to the economic and political progress of our nation.

“Whereas, our experience—as an organization founded upon the general lines of trade autonomy-has demonstrated our tactics, high dues, collective bargaining, trade labels, trade agreements, adjustment of trade differences by

conciliation and arbitration, and as a last resort the boycott and strike, to be effective in the progressive attainment of the end we have in view; and also to be sound by having won for unionism a place of well deserved importance in American institutions.

“Whereas, the American Federation of Labor has for many years been harassed and is now under the assault of men holding to opposite principles, and employing contrary tactics, whose aim it is to convert unionists to socialism, that the economic power of our organization and the political power of our members may form an adjunct to socialist propaganda, and an accession to socialist party strength.

Whereas, the principles of socialism are intellectually unsound, impractical from an economic standpoint and demoralizing to the general well being of society.

Therefore, be it resolved, That we, the Massachusetts branch of the American Federation of Labor, in convention assembled at Pittsfield, October the 9th, 1905, do hereby denounce as detrimental to our progress, as destructive to our good fame, as disruptive of those personal and civic virtues, which it is our duty to cultivate, any attitude of sympathy toward socialist propaganda within our ranks,

Be it further resolved, That we recognize as the most despicable attack yet made upon the life of our national body, that organization launched in Chicago, July, 1905, known the Industrial Workers of the World; headed by men of international reputation, namely, Eugene V. Debs, late presidential candidate of the socialist party; Daniel De Leon, editor of the People, official organ of the socialist labor party; A. M. Simons, editor

as

of the International Socialist Review; exPriest Thomas J. Haggerty, Messrs. Haywood and Moyer, president and secretary respectively, of the Western Federation of Miners, and many other socialists of national reputation.

“Be it finally resolved, That we condemn in toto this organization, and that we resist by all lawful means its encroachment upon our rightful territory, the labor world of the United States."

So far as we have seen this is the first peep the Industrial Socialists of the World have made since their Chicago flim-flam

in July last, but we presume, now that the easterners had to come out in the open, that the bulky western contingent will shortly call a convention in which Moyer, Haywood et al will do some stunts and throw some conniption fits that will make that Massachusetts contingent of the I. S. of the W. feel like a four-year-old hanging bird's nest with all the twigs gone, we don't imagine they will invite friend Goldstein to address the convention either. We have a large amount of good advice always on tap for the worthy needy.

[ocr errors][merged small]

In the first part of this issue we have given quite a good deal of space to the subject of child labor. These articles are from widely different localities, and a perusual of them will give one a very close insight into the evil wherever it exists in this country.

Law after law has been enacted by the different states and the experiences of those entrusted with the execution of these laws show that practically identical difficulties have been encountered. Perhaps a very general feeling is abroad in the land that most of the fault has been with the employers of this kind of labor; the employers have as a general thing lived up to the letter of the law and the parents and guardians have more often done the evading If the parents and guardians make oath that a child is twelve of fourteen for instance when it is under ten, and a certificate is furnished the employer to that effect, there is of course a possibility or even a probability that the employer knows in his mind the truth has not been told, but probably in the large majority of cases he thinks nothing about it. Yes, but some one will say, this is the exception! If anybody will take the time to go into any large establishment where many children are employed they will very soon come to the conclusion that it is the rule rather than the exception.

The fact of the matter is there has

been all along a woeful lack of understanding on part of the law makers of the conditions and the needs and extent of a law which would reach them. Most states began by enacting laws and providing no way by which they could be put into operation. From these crude first laws many of the states now have laws which are entirely adequate to cope with the trouble so far as it relates to restrictions as to age-that is to say, restrictions as to employment of children under certain ages in certain occupations are probably ample, but the trouble back of that is a deeper one, for what humanity is there in saying what a child shall not do and leaving the question of what it shall do entirely alone? In many instances the working of the laws as they are now simply throws the child out of some occupation and onto the street-into enforced idleness. In all conscience it would seem now as if the laws against child labor should be reinforced by compulsory school laws, and until they are so reinforced no state will measure up to the full requirements of its duty and obligation to coming generations.

We are just in receipt of the annual report of the Commissioner of Labor for the state of Minnesota, from which we clip the following:

“What we need in this state is a better understanding of the intentions of the

« PreviousContinue »