men are all enrolled and drilled to supervision far beyond what the ordinary American citizen would like or allow, it will not be possible to control the conditions of his production beyond a narrow limit. All vouchers for any such proceeding are, therefore, on their face suspicious, and require extensive and accumulated proof of their truth. The union label, as such, is but a poor and easily eluded guarantee, calculated to deceive only those who wish to be deceived.

war to extend and Then its efficiency

But the union label used as a weapon of enforce the boycott is quite another matter. becomes at once aggressive and visible. The trade unions adopt it and agree to boycott all shops selling goods without the label attached. They then appoint committees to go about and examine the goods of various retailers in every city. They inform the retailer that certain makes of his goods are without the label, and that his name will be listed and notices of his dereliction sent to all their unions if he persists in selling them. He is, of course, alarmed at such a prospect, as he well knows its meaning to be that a large body of customers will be warned against buying at his shop. He wishes to keep goods salable to all, and he rushes off, therefore, to buy goods having the label attached. The makers of unlabelled goods are then left in the lurch, and thus are boycotted into asking the unions for permission to use the label. The unions reply that the label will be sold to all shops which employ only union men to do their work. The union then prescribes the rate of wages, the number of hours of work, and as many other details as it sees fit, and at last graciously consents that the firm may use the label. The result is all very well for the union and their members. The retailers have been forced into offering only union-made goods to the public, thereby ensuring that only union men shall be employed to make goods.

But how about the other nine-tenths of workmen who, according to Mr. John Graham Brooks,* are not union men? They are to be shut out from work and thrown out of employment by the union label. Shops that employ them are estopped from selling the goods they produce, because the label is only permitted to union-filled shops. Manufacturers must, therefore,

*Mr. Brooks stated, without contradiction, that in this country only one workman in fourteen was a union man, which also is confirmed by Mr. Samuel Gompers. VOL. CLXV.-NO. 491.

28

refuse work to all but union men, must employ the union men at whatever cost, must raise the prices of goods on their customers to meet the additional expense, and thereby cut off from buying all poorer classes of customers who can no longer afford the goods at enhanced values. Doubtless, this effective slashing to right and left will ensure, with a vengeance, "favorable conditions to the makers of goods"-the cost being only that ninetenths of workmen are prevented from getting work at all and are thereby impoverished, while perhaps five-tenths of consumers are prevented from using goods by increased prices.

Talk about the rich being made richer and the poor poorer. You have it here in all its naked clearness, except that this effect is produced not by the dreadful capitalist, but by so-called fellow-workmen. They grind the faces of the poor, on both sides, to a very sharp edge. One-tenth seek to confiscate to themselves, by the assistance of the public, the whole living of the other nine-tenths, on the ground that then they will be able to do their work under favorable conditions. Some such result would not be surprising, seeing that it is an ill wind that blows nobody good.

If the object of this boycott of the workmen were to coerce them into joining the unions, it would be intelligible, though still unfair, as all have an equal right to liberty and a living. The unions, indeed, would thrive and grow rich and powerful, but at the expense of unwilling members. In any case, individual liberty is threatened; the right of men to make free contracts with each other is barred.

That the main intention of the union label is to serve as a weapon to enforce the boycott is made evident by the circulars and letters of one of the strongest trade unions, "The United Hatters of North America." They say:

"In May, 1894, we issued a circular calling attention to eleven non-union or scab* concerns at Danbury, Connecticut, and requested organized labor to assist our unions to bring this unfair (i. e., non-union) and wealthy combination to terms. . . . We would most earnestly appeal to you to help us in our fight against these employers of scab or non-union labor, and ask as a special favor that you appoint committees to visit the retail hat dealers in your locality, and inform them that they are not obliged to purchase hats from people who handle goods of foul or non-union shops, or in other words are not entitled to use the union label."

* In trade union language everything is "scab" when it is not altogether union. Every free and independent workman, every shop which employs men indifferently, whether they are union or non-union, is scab. To the trade unionist the most of the world is scab,

Many firms are boycotted by name in this circular, and no claim is made that they did not pay good wages, nor that their hats were made under improper conditions, nor that they were oppressive to their workmen. The sole and only alleged ground of their proscription is that they employed scab or non-union labor —that is, some of the nine-tenths of laborers who did not belong to the unions.

Again, in like vein, their circular says: "Members of labor organizations should urge retailers in their localities to insert in their orders that all hats, both soft and stiff, must have the union label in them, or they will be returned." Since the union label means only that the hats are made by union men, no hats though made under all proper conditions by non-union men could get the label in any case. It is clear, therefore, that the union, rather than "proper conditions" of manufacture, was the object of supreme attention. Having a like motive, the secretary of the Beer Drivers' Union warns a hat dealer, who buys hats where he chooses, that "so long as you patronize a scab hat firm we cannot stand by you, because we as union must stand by unions." To the same purport we read the letter of a Denver firm, saying that they are able "to guarantee every hat sold, and that they are of union make," and claiming patronage on that account. Other letters sent out guarantee that a certain hat company "is now a union concern, employing union men, and consequently entitled to use the union label of the United Hatters of North America." Envelopes of this organization also carry the exhortation: "Ask for hat with union label. Do not wear the product of non-union labor."

Further testimony as to the boycotting intention of the union label is found in the by-laws of the United Hatters of North America, printed in January, 1896, which say :

"Local associations must affiliate with central labor unions, trade assemblies, or other centrak labor organizations.

"(Sec. 2.) One-half of the per capita tax or monthly dues levied by said central bodies shall be paid by the National Association."

Still another witness is an official contribution of money by the United Hatters of North America to the Central Labor Union of Brooklyn to assist the Central Labor Union of New York in boycotting a certain firm which employed scabs.

We have also the printed address of the president of the

United Hatters, and remarks in print of their secretary, who complained of the action of a Danbury society that "it placed the national body in a peculiar position, for they would have to boycott firms who would run union factories if the union would let them." In other words, the label supporters would do all in their power to drive out of business those who had not previously adopted the label, whether willing at present to do so or not.

The same is true of other unions. Some are not so powerful yet as the hatters, but their aims are the same. The Garment Makers Union, the Typographical Union, the Bakers, Shoemakers, Ironmakers, and many others are pushing the compulsory use of the union label by the same methods for the same purpose. They each and all aim to control manufacturers through retailers to the end that none but union-made goods shall be sold. They intend thereby to prevent any men from getting work in their trades excepting union men, and meanwhile they make no provisions for such an enlargement of the unions as should include all good artisans in any trade. In fact, they scarcely contemplate any increase beyond such as would simply replace the losses of unions by death, not in any way endeavoring to keep up with the natural expansion of the community. That their action is perpetually crowding to the wall a large majority of workmen, the most helpless of their class, they do not heed, so long as their own class does the crowding. If it were the action of capitalists they would decry it as a great crime, but, being their own, they commend it to the public with enthusiasm. So much difference does it make whose bull has gored the ox!

For ourselves, we believe their methods to be injurious to themselves, to their fellow-workmen, and to the public. We believe them to be prolonging the poverty from which we all alike wish to escape. We believe them to be of the nature of a civil war between two portions of the great industrial army, and, like all wars, only destructive of humanity's interests.

Such objects and practises, of course, tend to so serious a restriction of trade that jobbers and retailers would welcome any release from the tyranny that embargoes their right to buy and sell whatever customers may wish to purchase. Consumers also are now limited in their choice of goods, since many excellent goods are not offered because they lack the union label. Free and independent shops, where formerly non-union men could

get a living, are now forced to become union shops and to employ union men only, whereby many excellent workmen are deprived of a livelihood in spite of the laws and of the rights belonging to men inalienably. Skilled, competent, and faithful employees must be discharged at the mere word of these self-made censors who are striving to improve the condition of the workmen (we have their word for it), in all they do.

And to show how the label works, we have only to note that it raises the price of goods so much in the production of certain goods that it can only be used on the better qualities whose buyers are able to pay more, and not at all on the lower qualities. where a rise of price would cut off consumption.

The finest and best goods are made to a considerable extent without the union label in free and independent shops, while the lowest-priced goods are rarely, if ever, made in union shops. By the best use of improved machinery and methods of economy in manufacture, the shops which employ both union and non-union men are able to cheapen the cost of production while maintaining a good earning capacity for a reasonable amount of labor on the part of their employees, and the surrounding conditions of their non-union shops are withal as good as the best.

In view of these facts it is idle for Miss Kelley to assert that "the union label is constructive and not destructive." It can only construct by destroying. Idle also is her remark that "it builds up the fair (i. e., union) employers' trade, instead of tearing down the unfair (i. e., non-union) employers' business as did the boycott," since the label works only by boycott. Idle also her allegation that "it will improve the condition of the nonunionist or scab, as trade unions have improved them otherwise." That is, by keeping them out of work, driving them from their homes, breaking up shops that employ them, and the like. Who was it that made the phrase "Improve them off the face of the earth" ?

What subterfuge also is it that leads Miss Kelley to say that "the trade union never urges its label upon an employer, nor does any employer apply to a union for the use of the label till he is confronted with a demand from a sufficient number of customers to make it worth his while to have it placed in the goods that he has for sale." Sancta simplicitas! His "customers are the retailers whose shops have been visited by committees of