Imágenes de páginas

has such notable sponsors as Mr. Mitten, of the Philadelphia Street Railway Company, and Mr. Atterbury, of the Pennsylvania Railroad. In the scheme which prevails in American industry at present the employers and the workmen inevitably look exclusively after their own interests and are more or less suspicious of each other. On the other hand, if capitalists and workers were so organized that the welfare of the combination depended upon the good will and industry of both laborers and capitalists, the tendency of the industry would be continually to bring the men together.

If the executive branch of the Government will courageously suppress violence and protect the right of every individual to work when and where he pleases under the regulations of the general law; if the legislative branch of the Government will see to it that regulatory law applies to individuals and groups with an even hand and without fear or favor; and if American industrial leaders, both capitalistic and laborite, will constantly preach and practice the doctrine of co-operation in industry, we shall secure, not only more comfort, but more justice.



OME questions which divide parties involve moral choice. Some involve choice between political principles. Some are merely questions of expediency. It is because the tariff question has been one involving virtually no moral or political issues, but only an issue of expediency, that it has never become a fundamental issue in American politics and has never been settled. Such feeling as it has aroused in the minds of the voters has been occasioned by resentment at its burdens or by the desire for its benefits. So far as its benefits or burdens have been inequitably distributed, the tariff question has raised a question of justice which involves a moral choice. In so far as one tariff law has tended in the direction of free trade by extending the free list and lowering the general scale of duties or another law has tended in the direction of a Chinese wall by reducing the free list and by raising the general scale of duties, there has been injected into the question some suggestion of political principle. For the most part however, the tariff has been discussed and decided upon from time to time in accordance with what has seemed to those in authority to be for the time being the best practical adjustment of conflicting interests.

As we pointed out last week, this task of carrying out a policy of expediency is pregnant with political disaster for the

party in power. It almost invariably causes dissatisfaction to every interest that is looking for a benefit from the tariff, for it is bound to bestow on each interest less than is demanded. At the same time, each benefit received by a specific interest is as well a burden to the consumer. One party may choose to try to lessen the burden of the consumer and risk the wrath of those who expect to be beneficiaries, while the other party may choose to meet the expectation of the different interests and risk the remonstrances of the burdened consumer. The difference between the parties on the tariff issue is almost wholly a difference in the nature of their constituencies and not a difference of principle. Each party in turn passes a tariff law to please its own constituency and is duly punished. It is natural that the parties have become tired of this procedure and have sought some way of avoiding the ill consequences of tariff legislation.

There has therefore grown up in recent years an agitation for what is termed a "scientific tariff." If Congress can only escape political responsibility for the tariffs it enacts by persuading the people that the effect of the tariff is due, not to any policy on the part of the politicians, but to "science," it will be relieved of a great load, and the several members of Congress will find their political pathways freed from many pit


There have been several devices proposed for formulating such a scientific tariff.

One of these devices is to adopt a measuring rod according to which the various schedules can be fitted into the tariff structure. Such a measuring rod has been proposed by both Republicans and Democrats in the phrase "the difference between cost of production here and abroad."

Another device, closely connected with this, is that of a tariff commission. Such a commission, in fact, has been created and has served as a fact-finding body.

At the request of
The Outlook

J. ST. LOE STRACHEY Editor of the London "Spectator has sent an estimate of NORTHCLIFFE which will be printed

next week

Those party leaders who have believed in establishing a tariff that would meet the difference in cost of production naturally have turned to the tariff commission to get information as to what the cost of production is here and what it is abroad. Some publicists and students of politics would empower the tariff commission to fix tariffs much as the Inter-State Commerce Commission is empowered to fix railway rates.

The latest proposal, which has been adopted by the Senate, has been to put the task upon the President of the United States.

There are special reasons for this latest proposal. In the first place, Congress does not represent the whole country; it represents only the sum of all its parts. In tariff matters this is a vital distinction. Each Congressman or Senator must look at the tariff question from the point of view of his constituency. As a consequence, there is no one in Congress whose duty it is (except as he may make it his conscientious duty as an American citizen and patriotic public servant) to look at the tariff from the point of view of the Nation as a whole. In our Government it is only the President of the United States and those under his authority that can be expected to do this. It is therefore only the President or some man or body of men responsible to him that can so administer the tariff as to destroy it as a local issue, and it is only by the destruction of it as a local issue that the tariff can cease to be the hobgoblin of political parties.

In particular a reason for placing this responsibility upon the President exists in the present international situation. Tariffs calculated upon the cost of products abroad would be very uncertain owing to the instability of exchange. The attempt by the House of Representatives to avoid this by calculating tariffs according to valuation in the American market has encountered strong and reasonable opposition. If the tariff is really to be stable, paradoxical as it may sound, it must, under present circumstances, be made flexible. It must be made adjustable to the changing factors in international trade. To provide such flexibility is beyond the power of Con gress; for that legislative body cannot be all the time in session amending schedules. It can secure this exibility only by intrusting the determination of tariff rates, within certain fixed limits to some administrative authority; and the natural authority to turn to is the President. Of course the Presiden would not personally determine those rates. He would act upon the informa tion and advice of the tariff commission and of his other counselors; but the au


thority and responsibility would be the President's.

The people of the United States are not, and are not likely to be, in favor of free trade. They are not in favor of a Chinese wall tariff. They want a tariff that will provide revenue and protection. It is idle to denounce particular tariff measures for particular sins, since any substitute tariff is going to be also denounced for its particular sins. Such criticism of the tariff in detail furnishes no guidance for public opinion. Even less illuminating is general denunciation of a measure as a tariff of abomination -as the present tariff bill has been called. Either Congress, employing its own committees for investigation and drafting measures, must provide such regulation and adjustment as expediency for the time being indicates, leaving the tariff as the troubler of politics, or else it must intrust this adjustment and regulation to an administrative body under the authority of the Chief Execu tive. Is there any other alternative?



HOSE who fear that the deaths of Michael Collins and Arthur Griffith may prove fatal to the cause of the Irish Free State do less than justice to the strength of that cause. Yet it is true that the progress already made would never have been achieved but for the courage and insistence of these two men; for they stood so high in the regard of all Irish patriots that their word carried weight. When Collins and Griffith said that the London treaty paved the way to self-government, Irishmen believed them. So the strength of the Dominion plan grew and the dream of absolute independence faded away.

"Ninety per cent of the people of Ireland are for the Free State," says exGovernor Glynn, of New York, "and the threats of fanatics and slaying by gunmen cannot alter this fact." And Archbishop Mannix cabled from Australia that the death of Collins emphasizes the need of an arbitrament of reason. Moreover, the discussion as to fit successors to the dead leaders has brought out the fact that there had been formed under them a group of serious and well-equipped men who are working steadily at practical problems of government and organization. Mr. W. T. Cosgrave, who now temporarily heads the civil side of the Provisional Government, is such a man. There is quiet resolution in his reply to a despatch from Winston Churchill, of the British Ministry, who had declared that his Government had full confidence that the treaty plan would be faithfully



and resolutely maintained. Mr. Cosgrave said:

President Griffith and General Collins had selected and attracted to whole-hearted co-operation with them a number of colleagues, some of whom you have met. The Government so formed has stood, as you know, with unswerving consistency to the programme of carrying into full effect, in accordance with the declared will of the Irish people, the treaty which was entered into between our plenipotentiaries and recommended by President Griffith and General Collins as offering the fairest hopes to our much-tried people. We, their colleagues, have the same faith and stand by the same policy, and, though overwhelmed with sorrow, take up the same task with the same determination and confidence.

It has been a weakness of Irishmen that, while they have been able to die for a cause, they have rarely shown ability to govern. Now, under the moderate and reasonable terms of the Free State, they have the finest opportunity conceivable to develop that capacity. If the draft of a Constitution now being drawn up by the Free State leaders and the British Government follows liberally the lines of the London treaty and makes it clear that the Free State in all essentials will be as self-governing as is the Dominion of Canada, it will be indorsed by the bulk of the people of Southern Ireland, and the most promising political era of Ireland will begin.

The hope of the insurgent forces now infesting the Free State is not to defeat its army, but to make the condition of Ireland so bad that Great Britain must intervene and the old order of resistance and general turmoil be resumed. Their "war" has resolved itself into a series of local skirmishes and attacks from am

bush such as that which resulted in Collins's death. In fact, although this killing has been called a cowardly assassination, it was as near to a military engagement as most of the insurgents' so-called battles. Collins with other officers in uniform was inspecting military positions near Cork when the ambush was sprung by a superior force, and a brisk fight ensued in which Collins played his part bravely. The whole affair was typical of the guerrilla fighting now carried on by De Valera's desperate followers.

No other man's death, not even Griffifth's, has affected the common people of Ireland so deeply as that of Collins. His was a romantic and adventurous personality; he was intrepid, resourceful, and devoted to his country. Other men might be suspected of treachery or self-interest; no one has dared to call Collins a traitor, and no one is surprised when the Prime Minister of the Government which had once put a price on his head speaks of him as "a leader of great energy and devotion and a man of remarkable personal charm."

When one remembers that the population of Ireland is somewhat less than that of New York City, it certainly induces the feeling that Ireland has had too much turbulence for its size; the world is decidedly tired of reading of rancorous partisan fighting, sectarian hatred, and the warfare of assassination. The majority of the people want quiet and-as an Irishman might say-are willing to fight to the death for it. The opportunity for peace and prosperity was never better than now if only the workers of the people can prevail against the intolerance of the comparatively few "bitter-enders."




HE strike of the coal miners began on April 1; the strike of the railway shop men on July 1. In the first case, therefore, five months have been spent in argument, debate, and attempts at an agreement; in the second case two months have elapsed. As August ends in neither case does there seem to be immediate prospect of complete or satisfactory settlement. From week to week and month to month we have had proposals, counter-proposals, public remonstrances, Governmental urging, and yet the public, which, after all, is the party most deeply involved in the injury, has been fed upon hopes only. As Don Marquis, in his "Sun Dial," remarks of the anthracite strike: "Every paper we pick up we see that the miners and operators are still hoping for peace. We hope that hope will warm a house next winter."

The cost of this summer of labor troubles to the workmen, to the railway and mine owners, and to business at large has mounted into hundreds of millions of dollars. So far as business and the household are concerned, the prospective loss in the coming fall and winter will continue indirectly even if the strikes are now settled promptly. Probably one reason why the public have until recently been somewhat apathetic about the conditions is that they have not been directly injured seriously as much at this time of year as they would be in the full tide of railway business and when a supply of coal is absolutely necessary for business as well as for the home. Lately, however, the people and the Government have realized that action is needed, but are still debating as to what must be done. It is a good time to recall what Mr. Roosevelt said to the leaders of mine strikers and operators in 1902: "The evil possibilities are so far-reaching, so appalling, that it seems to me that you are not only justified in sinking, but required to sink for the time being, any tenacity as to your respective claims in the matter at issue between you. The situation imperatively requires that you meet upon the common plane of the necessities of the public."


The railway strike resulted from a decision of the United States Railroad Labor Board by which a wage reduction was ordered, while, on the other hand, the practice of sending repair and construction work into shops not owned by the railways was disapproved. It is odd, at this distance of time, to note how


completely these two issues have gone
out of the discussion, which now turns
almost solely on the question of senior-
ity. The reason is that public and press
were so strong in their declaration that
the proper course of the railway men
was not a strike but a request for a new
hearing that the unions soon showed
willingness to resubmit the question of
wages to the Railroad Labor Board.


Their claim was that the wage cut was not fairly arranged; that the total reduction of wages (put at about $110,000,000) was excessive in comparison with the cost of living, and that particularly the minimum wages for classes of shop work and maintenance work were below the needs of American workmen-some of the maintenance-ofway men under the schedule arranged would receive less than twelve dollars for a normal week's wages. The labor members of the Railroad Labor Board declared that the majority report was made "with no consideration of human needs."

Whether the decision was fair or unfair, it was the outcome of the work of a Governmental board authorized to deal with the questions which had been submitted to it. The Railroad Labor Board, established under the Esch-Cummins Transportation Law of 1920, has nine members, three each representing the railways, the workers, and the public.

The recognition of the fact that the shopmen were on the wrong track in striking rather than attempting to reopen the case and the apparent probability that peace would be reached at an early date held the maintenance-of-way men from carrying out a strike which the vote of the local unions had authorized.

The fact that the strike affected only one large class of railway workers, the shopmen, has made the strike a peculiar one, in that the general service of the roads has continued. It has not been perfect by any means, but freight has been carried and passengers have been taken care of. This is one more reason why public exasperation has not led to an early settlement.

The claim that was made by some local railway unions, that their members were in danger because of bad equip ment and that others were endangered by the presence of guards in the railway yards, has never been sustained. Its object was to force the great railway brotherhoods into the fight. There never has been evidence of any serious danger or annoyance to the union men from these sources.

One result of this agitation, however, aroused the country to indignation and denunciation. President Harding, in referring in his recent address before Congress on the labor question to this matter, declared that the desertions of transcontinental trains in the desert regions of the Southwest "have revealed the cruelty and contempt for law on the part of some railway employees who have conspired to paralyze transportation."

The single proposal made by the President in his recommendation to Congress which applied to the railway situation was that of asking that Congress should give power to the Railroad Labor Board to enforce its decisions. In view of the power exercised by the InterState Commerce Commission and the recent decision of the Supreme Court which makes unions responsible for failure of their members to obey the law, it is hoped that relief from future railway disputes between the men and the executives may be found in such legislation.

For the last month the conflict in the railway strike.has waged almost solely over the question of seniority. The decision of the Board did not touch upon this point. But the railways at once gave the strikers warning that they were in danger of losing their seniority privileges, and thereupon the unions refused to consider any settlement which did not secure to old workers those privileges. The pensions and retiring payments by the roads to old employees were not involved, with a few possible unimportant exceptions. The seniority rights relate to the men's relative standing in the distribution of desirable and profitable positions.

Logically, the railways are clearly right in holding that when the men deserted their work they were bound to take the consequences of their acts. The roads also clearly have a duty to those employees who have retained their positions during the strike and to those newcomers who have proved efficient and loyal.

President Harding at first tried to induce the railways to restore seniority rights unimpaired to returning strikers, but without success. He then withdrew that effort and urged both sides to submit the matter to the decision of the Railroad Labor Board. An interesting résumé of public and official opinion on this question of seniority will be found in the issue of The Outlook for August 16, in which, in reply to the request of The Outlook for an expression as to public sentiment, a number of Governors

of States and editors of influential journals in various centers discuss the points involved. The Outlook itself com mented: "The strikers felt that the wrongs they were suffering were SO great that the only remedy was war. When a man makes war, he must take the consequences of his act."

As the discussion continued, it became evident that the solution sought must be something which would take into account both the strong feeling of the strikers that their experience and skill should count in the grading of men for promotion and also the just feeling of the railways that the non-strikers and new men should be protected. It certainly does not seem beyond the power of common sense and tolerance to come to an agreement on this point.

But effort after effort has been made, and up to the time of this writing in vain. The leaders of the brotherhoods took a hand in this effort to reach a compromise settlement, but on August 24 the proposal made by them was rejected almost unanimously by a conference of railway executives. The brotherhoods peace plan would allow the Railroad Labor Board to adjust the relative standing of employees when a dispute arises and to provide that all strikers should be "reinstated in the position of the class they originally held," except those guilty of violence. The executives point out that the phrase just quoted, in their opinion, would imply acknowledgment by the railways that the men returning to work should be senior to those who remained and to the new employees, and that the Labor Board would be bound by the meaning of the quoted phrase. The result was that the railway executives unanimously rejected the proposals of the brotherhoods, and the dispute near the end of August is to all appearances no nearer settlement than before.


As with the railway strike, so with the dual strike of the United Mine Workers in both bituminous and anthracite fields the difficulty in reaching a settle ment seems more and more not to be so much on the question of wages, the nominal cause, as in fixing the method of deciding that and other questions now and in the future. It is because the disputants in the soft-coal field have partly yielded on the latter point that district or local agreements have been signed and that soft coal is being mined in increasing quantities.

In brief, the miners want National agreements, the operators district agreements; the miners want contracts renewed from time to time after bargaining between unions and operators; the operators want to provide a method of arbitration in which outsiders should take part.

When the unions struck five months ago (technically speaking, the anthracite men did not strike, but stopped work during conferences), the issue was

[blocks in formation]

steady conditions of work. To many miners 150 days was a year's work. The public agrees that over-production and over-manning has produced a bad industrial state in the soft-coal field.

Conferences, suggestions, pleas from the President, have not yet brought settlement into view in the anthracite field. Meanwhile anthracite is not being mined, cold weather is near; the condition of things is alarming.

The Cleveland agreement, which has helped the bituminous situation, allowed operators to open their mines on the wage scale of April 1 and to make contracts up to next April 1. The United Mine Workers in this field abandoned their contention for National collective bargaining. Only 60,000,000 out of 400,000,000 tonnage was actually covered by the agreement, but the movement has spread. It provides for resumption of work at the old wage scale of March 31 last, with the check-off of union dues and the appointment of an advisory factfinding commission at a joint conference in October to report on a new contract to another joint conference in January. 1923, which will endeavor to settle finally the basis for agreement for April 1, 1923.

Well-informed judges of coal conditions believe that the soft-coal dispute has been broken. They attribute the spread of the Cleveland agreement idea

to the eagerness of operators to sell coa! at high prices instead of letting the nonunion coal producers get the top of the market. They believe that the mine workers were influenced in this settlement by the hope that it would lead to unionizing coal districts now non-union.

The worst feature in the history of the strike in the soft-coal district has been the planned and cold-blooded slaughter of strike breakers at the mines in Herrin, Illinois, regarded callously by the people of the place, and as yet unpunished. President Harding, in his address before Congress, spoke of this as "a butchery of human beings wrought in madness."

The anthracite situation has baffled all attempts of settlement up to near the end of August. Both sides seem indifferent to the issue of humanity. One caustic critic avers that the men are interested in high wages, the operators in high prices, that both will probably get what they want and "Mr. Peter Public will pay."

The latest failure to agree was the breaking off of a conference between miners and operators at Philadelphia on August 23. The operators proposed to use the present Anthracite Conciliation Commission as a body with arbitrarv powers to determine the wage scale, with provision for three outside umpires to decide in the event of deadlock. This was rejected by the miners in pursuance of their fixed policy of rejecting any outsiders as arbitrators, as that would commit them against the ultimate use of the strike as an economic weapon. Even "recommendatory arbitration" was refused flatly.

The settlement in the bituminous field was helped by the fact that the nonunion bituminous coal mines were in operation and the owners and miners were profiting by the high prices due to the strike in the unionized mines. The continuance of the strike in the anthracite field, on the other hand, is made possible by the fact that the whole anthracite field is organized, and that practically all men whom the law allows to mine the coal are members of the union, so that there are no men who can legally take the strikers' places.

Congress is moving quickly on some at least of President Harding's coal measures. The House on August 23 passed a "fact-finding bill" in accordance with the President's wishes, including the exclusion of miners or operators from the proposed commission, all of whose members should stand for the general public interest. It then took up a bill that, if passed, will give the Government power to buy, sell, and regulate the sale and distribution of coal. Already Secretary Hoover, the Inter-State Commerce Commission, and the Government authorities generally, have taken measures to control (so far as the laws allow) the priority of coal shipments and its fair distribution, and to prevent profiteering in the desperate emergency that will be on us in a few weeks. Home


owners have been advised to arrange to use bituminous coal for fuel when possible. A Federal Distributer, Mr. H. B. Spencer, has been appointed.

There has been a growing and now urgent call from the public for the establishment of a permanent National Coal Commission to take up the work of any "fact-finding" commission and to provide such regulation of the industry as will prevent such strikes and disputes as those still going on. The Outlook has long advocated such a step. Bills by such men as Senators Calder, Frelinghuysen, and Borah and ex-Senator Kenyon have been introduced and "shelved."

The coal business is the people's business. The joint telegram from five State Governors to the President suggesting that the Government might find it necessary to seize and operate both mines and railways is a sign of the times. Twenty years ago President Roosevelt planned. but did not threaten, to do that very thing if the coal quarrelers did not listen to reason; he had a general se lected to command the troops and to operate the mines like a receiver in bankrupt proceedings.

If we are to have normal economic conditions, there must be recognition of the fact that the people's interest in fuel

is basic and must not be ignored. Two months ago President Harding summoned fifty operators and miners to the White House. He said to them: "You should settle this matter in frank recognition of the mutuality of your interests. If you cannot do that, then the larger public interest must be asserted in the name of the people, for the common good is the first and highest concern." We italicize the last clause and commend it to the earnest attention of all disputants and wranglers. We repeat what we said a month ago. "Supreme over every other interest is the interest of all the people."



HE OUTLOOK asks: "Is the set tlement of the coal strike merely a temporary armistice, and will the battle break out again? If so, when? Have the unions in the coal and railway industries strengthened themselves or weakened themselves? Is the public more sympathetic now or less sympathetic than it was before the strikes with the trade-union idea in all industries? Are the trade unions as a body, as William Allen White says, a parcel of fools in this contest? Have the coal operators and railway managers shown a disposition to deal fairly with leaders and to compromise on reasonable terms? Has private ownership of great public utilities been strengthened or weakened by the contest? Has this contest tended toward or away from Government ownership and operation of public utilities? Has the policy of the Government under this Administration shown weakness or strength in our Governmental structure? What legislation, if any, does this situation call for from Congress and the States?"

In order to answer these questions, it has been necessary to interview the American people-a thing less difficult than might appear.

They speak through their 2,500 newspapers. All those papers come regularly to the editorial rooms of the "Literary Digest." There all reports and editorials bearing on the labor problem are brought to one desk. For a dozen years and more they have been examined by one man, Mr. William Carman Roberts-a brother, by the way, of Charles G. D. Roberts and a cousin of Bliss Carman. During the absence in Europe of Mr. W. S. Woods, Mr. Roberts is serving as editor-in-chief, though added responsibilities have not prevented him from continuing his patient, thorough, and wholly unprejudiced study of public opinion regarding the strikes. I have interviewed Roberts and, through Roberts, the 2,500 newspapers whicham I not right?-speak for the American people.

[blocks in formation]


Is the coal-strike settlement merely a temporary armistice? "The best informed observers," says Mr. Roberts, "expect the battle to break out again. At no distant date, either. Run your eye over this clipping from a trade paper, the 'Black Diamond.' Although that paper seemed to welcome the strike, as it was going to bring many miners to their senses,' we now read, "The public can look for a repetition of the strug gle next year. A temporary surrender to the miners' union was thought best to prevent our population from freezing next winter and to avoid industrial paralysis that was slowly but surely being felt in all parts of the country. He who fights and runs away lives to fight another day.'"


Have the unions gained or lost strength? "It is too early to judge of the effect on the railway unions," says Mr. Roberts, "but-in point of morale. at least the coal miners appear to have gained. Let me quote you a sen

[blocks in formation]


But what, meanwhile, of the sympathies of the public? Mr. Roberts answers: "Never in my whole experience have I known strikes to be so generally condemned. As a rule newspapers are inclined to side with the 'under dog.' This time, with the exception of the labor press, they have been almost unanimous in denouncing the strikers, as the strikes appeared selfishly inopportune, coming just when a return of prosperity was in sight. The railway strike especially invited censure. The railway unions, so the papers have been declaring, assumed that 'the sacred right to strike' was greater than the sacred right of the Government to act for the greatest good of all the people.' For instance, here is the Washington 'Post' telling us that 'in flouting the efforts of the Labor Board to avoid a strike the shopmen have flouted the Government of the United States for whom it speaks and the American people whom, as an agency of the Federal Government, it represents.' And here is the Philadelphia North American' declaring: 'A circumstance that has had a powerful influence in turning sentiment against the unions is that they fully recognized the jurisdiction of the Labor Board when it increased the railroads' pay-rolls to the extent of $600,000,000 a year, and repudiate its authority only when it reduces wages on the same principle on which it raised them.' The public still believes in unionism, still thinks trade unions necessary to keep the balance. Moreover, the public recognizes that in the recent struggle they have shown re

« AnteriorContinuar »