action of the executive council and the reasons therefor: "The application was discussed at length and it developed that the new body will necessarily be a rival of the existing organizations of steam railway employes, and that if encouraged it would beyond question bring about antagonism between them. as well as with other unions allied with

In

the American Federation of Labor. fact, the new organization appears to be simply another edition of the American Railway Union, which had such a disastrous ending. The application for a charter was therefore denied."

This action will be endorsed and appreciated by the membership of the old brotherhoods.

A Plan to End

Judge Tuley's address before the Illinois Bar Association has in it considerable food for reflection. As president of that association and the most widely known jurist in the west his liberal interpretations of the law and his free enunciations of advanced opinions on political social questions, have given him an enviable position in the legal world. The subject of his remarks before the association was a plan for securing arbitration - requiring corporations to submit to arbitration all industrial disputes with their employes, where the employes wish it, under penalty of forfeiture of charters in case of refusal. He regards corporations as creatures of the state which grants it a charter, but whether corporations now in existence can be required to do this is a question which is open for argument. Judge Tuley says they may well be required to go at least half way in arbitration for the benefit of the community. As for the laboring man and the unions the judge believes that they will always be ready to do their share in arbitration, but in case they ever do not, he makes the suggestion that they be compelled to incorporate, and so become themselves amenable to the law.

Judge Tuley stated the industrial question in these words: "Shall the great contending forces of labor and capital, acting under no law, waging a battle which endangers not only the public interest, the public welfare, aye, the very existence of our free public institutions as many believe, shall they be

Labor Wars.

placed under public control, under the restraint of public law upon the principle that the public good is the supreme law of the land? Shall they be required to settle their disputes by some other method than by strikes and lockouts?"

He answered the proposition thus: "That all corporations in cases of industrial disputes shall submit the same to the state board of arbitration, the other party consenting thereto, or to such other arbitration as shall be or shall have been agreed upon between the parties under the penalty of the forfeitures of their charters for refusing to do so."

Judge Tuley believes that the social problem of strikes and lockouts will be solved when corporations are required to arbitrate, and unions are required to incorporate. We see no vital objection in requiring labor organizations to incorporate themselves under the laws of the state in which they exist. If such act, of incorporation, secures for these unions greater recognition or is instrumental in paving the way to a fuller and freer confidence in each other in business relations, it is exactly what we are trying to secure by another route. Incorporation in itself as applied to many of our labor bodies would secure nothing to the state if judgment were granted, and like any other incorporated concern its liabilities could not attach to its individual members to satisfy a judgment rendered. We are inclined to doubt if it is possible to do away with labor wars by legislation. There are some

matters which must settle themselves as men become more intelligent and more regardful to the rights of others. Labor and capital each have rights which may be deemed a principle that they will not willingly have any legislation take away from them, but through education and experience will find a common ground upon which they can live in peace.

Judge Tuley fully appreciates the evil influences of the strike for he says, "A strike or lockout is industrial war and war is hell, here as elsewhere. In the absence of the principles of justice governing the strong the only remedy seems to me to be that the weak shall by combination become strong enough to challenge the respect of the strong. The spirit of the brotherhood of humanity exists among the millions of affiliated laborers as it never before existed in the history of the human race, and in many of the conflicts between labor and capital the laborers have shown a greater heroism, greater sacrifices and greater devotion to a principle than was ever manifested by an army from the days of Thermopylae to the present hour. They have evolved among them a twelfth commandment, "Thou shalt not take thy brother's job,' which to many workmen is the greatest of all commandments.

"In my opinion labor will never refuse to arbitrate. Labor knows that there can never be a contest between man and man without an underlying equity which can be the basis of agreement.

If a party refuses to arbitrate, legislation must be brought to bear so as to induce it to. If labor will not arbitrate it could be compelled to incorporate. In fact, in England labor unions are now held to be de facto corporations, even when not de jure corporations."

We must express our appreciation for the words of commendation expressed by Judge Tuley for our loyalty and devotion to each other's interests as laborers. The twelfth commandment he speaks of as being greatest of all as compared with the others has, after all, one of the noblest principles within it' that the mind can conceive. If the first ten commandments were conceived with a view to protecting our moral rights and the right to enjoy life and its possessions, should not the means by which these things are acquired be considered a key stone to the whole superstructure? That means is every man's job and when we take it away from him by accepting service at a lesser rate than he received or under conditions which made it impossible for him to live respectably, we commit a worse crime and contribute to a graver state of affairs than if we stole his earthly possessions. Labor is making some mistakes but on the whole we believe that it is working out a state of affairs that will soon be the means of solving all industrial disputes. Just what this method will be remains to be seen, but the evolution of social conditions will bring it about just so surely as night follows day.

The Order of Railway Conductors, The Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and The Botherhood of Railroad Trainmen, working together, have made a contract with the Canadian Northern. The organizations had been in conference for some time endeavoring to secure recognition and a schedule, but were refused by the President and General Superintendent.

Mr. D. D. Mann,

Vice-President of the company, reached Winnipeg July 13th, and assumed charge of the operation of the road. The organizations, in the meantime, had appealed to their Grand Officers for assistance, and Brothers Garrettson, Wilson and Lee responded to their call. Mr. Mann met the officers and their committees and signed up a schedule for each branch of the service, and also promised to do

the same for the telegraphers. The schedule is the same as that of the Canadian Pacific in general, and as far as local conditions can be made to apply.

The United Brotherhood of Railroad Employes, about July 1st, inaugurated a strike of freight handlers, section men, and later on, the machinists employed on this system, who had been on strike, joined with them. The yard men employed at Winnipeg, twelve in number, struck in sympathy. Five of these, among them the U. B. R. E. chairman, are members of the Brotherhood, who struck in violation of the laws of the organization and will pay the penalty. When the schedule was made this yard was omitted because there was a strike on in the yard and the Brotherhood would not make a schedule under the conditions existing. Had this schedule been made before the strike in the yards occurred, the question would have been a different one and the Brotherhood would have protected the contract, as far as it was able.

After the U. B. R. E. had started the strike in the other branches of the service, a demand was made for schedules for the train and engine service, although the committees of the railroad organizations were in session working for a schedule, but no attention was given the demand. None of the men in train and engine service were out on strike. The U. B. R. E. leaders saw an opportunity and made an attempt to get a schedule under exactly the same conditions as the American Railway Union brought about their strike on the Great Northern in 1893. In that instance the committees of the Conductors and Trainmen had gone home to vote on a proposition to strike, with a pretty certain result in sight. The A. R. U. stepped in, declared a strike; the members of the established organizations did the fighting, and the other organizations secured the results. This attempt in Canada failed for the reason that the U. B. R. E. had few members in the train and engine service to call out and could not impose upon the others. Winnipeg yard, led by traitors to this organization, who

broke their obligation to the Brotherhood to serve the U. B. R. E., struck, and that is all there was of the strike in the train, engine and yard service.

The U. B. R. E. has appealed to the trades organizations of Canada for sympathy, naturally they have to, for the other railway organizations recognize the enmity of this organization pirate in the same manner they would the enmity of an unfriendly corporation. There is no friendship, no sympathy for it, for it is recognized as the agent of disruption and disintegration and nothing less than an attempt to destroy what has been done by the older organizations.

The officers have gone into Canada and lied deliberately to bolster up their organization. They have intimated that they have secured the schedules for train and engine service on the Southern Pacific lines, and the statements are false, for these schedules are made with the older organizations. They have paraded the fact that they destroyed the Southern Pacific relief plan and they lied out of the whole cloth when they said so. At the time the Southern Pacific relief plan was placed before the men there was no U. B. R. E., and the old organizations, the insurance fraternities and the people of the coast all united against it, and it was killed by their influence. The U. B. R. E. had nothing whatever to do with it, it had not even been started, yet it has gone into Canada preaching its successes and leading the railway emyloyes into trouble.

In the United States the U. B. R. E. movement has fizzled down to the unorganized trades, for the men in the train and engine service understand that this movement is simply another American Railway Union, with its loud sounding pretenses, its traitors, who have violated their obligations to other organizations, its destroyers of unionism, its place hunters and impractical schemers, that may cause a little flurry of excitement for a time, destroy what has been done in some instances and leave wreck and ruin in its train.

As far as the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen is concerned, there will be no

false sentiment in dealing with it. Wherever it shows itself interfering with the work of this organization, right there it will meet the opposition of the Brotherhood in a way that will not be conducive to its organization peace of mind. The Journal dislikes to be compelled to take this position, because quarrels between labor organizations seldom do much good. But this has been forced upon us and there will be no mistaken feeling of delicacy in meeting the question wherever it arises. It was organized by discontents, office

hunters and enemies to the labor organizations that have accomplished the greatest work that labor organization has to its credit. We will oppose every action on their part that threatens ourorganization. There will be no pandering to sickly sentiment that calls for"glad hands" and brotherly feeling, but the traitors who violate the rights and laws of the Brotherhood and expect that appeals made in the name of unionism will be heard, until they have wrought their purpose, will be turned down hard.-Railroad Trainmen's Journal.

This subject has received much attention from many and varied sources. The extremist on one side has been heard to say that the power to issue injunction for any cause or in any case should be ruthlessly and unceremoniously stripped from the judiciary. The extremist on the other side tells us that the convenient, ever ready injunction, issued on ex parte statements, is all that stands between order and chaos, liberty and anarchy.

These extreme ideas are neither of them right. Extreme ideas seldom are right. Extremists are not safe leaders to follow.

Until the millenium shall have arrived and all men are living by the precept contained in the Golden Rule, government among men will be necessary in order to preserve human rights, peace and order; law must be enacted, and, having been enacted, methods for properly enforcing it must be devised and provided. Differences of opinion will exist. A tribunal must be established where such differences can be weighed in the scales of justice and from which a decision in final determination of the subject can emanate.

The injunction is an extreme or extra-. ordinary measure of law, the use of which must, of necessity, be left largely to the judgment or inclination of the

judge to whom application for same is made. The presumption is that it will be used with good judgment, temperately and in a purely judicial way. If all judges were possessed of a purely judicial and impartial disposition and all their actions were governed thereby there would, perhaps, have been no complaint against the injunction as used in connection with labor troubles or industrial dispute. Unfortunately all who are appointed to preside over the courts do not have, or do not retain, that desired disposition. The result is that in some instances judges have misused or abused the power vested in them by issuing injunctions which actually invaded the constitutional rights and liberties of citizens.

The latest instance of this kind is the issuance of an injunction by Judge John Jay Jackson of the United States District Court at Parkersburg, W. Va., restraining certain officers of the miners' union and other persons from interfering with the miners in certain mines or holding meetings or creating demonstrations near the mines or near the residences of the miners employed there. The persons enjoined were attempting to organize or unionize the miners in question.

Unionism is a religion with some and in this land of free speech has just as

much right to hold meetings at which to preach unionism as any other person has to hold meetings for political, religious or social purposes. No meeting of any importance can be held unless people attend voluntarily and people have a right to assemble in a peaceable way for any lawful purpose. If any person at such meeting violates law or invades the property rights of others the law furnishes the remedy and the punishment.

Some of the organizers of the miners' union were arrested and brought before Judge Jackson charged with contempt of court through violation of his injunction, and six of them were sentenced by him to terms in jail ranging from sixty to ninety days.

In sentencing the accused Judge Jackson denounced them as agitators, vampires, walking delegates, busy bodies, etc., etc. The language of his decision, as reported in the daily papers, is extreme, unbecoming and anything but judicial. The animus which he felt is shown in every line and emphasized in many paragraphs. He declared that he recognized the right of working people to form unions and to quit work if not bound to it by contract and followed the declaration up with these words:

I do not recognize the right of laborers to conspire together to compel employes who are not dissatisfied to lay down their picks merely to gratify a professional set of agitators, organizers and walking delegates, who roam all over the country as agents for some combination; who are vampires that live and fatten on the honest labor of coal miners, and who are busy bodies, creating dissatisfaction among a class of people who are quiet and do not want to be disturbed.

While I recognize the right of all laborers to combine for the purpose of protecting all their lawful rights, I do not recognize the right of laborers to conspire together to compel employes, who are not dissatisfied with their work in the mines, to lay down their picks and to quit their work without a just or proper reason therefor, merely to gratify a professional set of agitators, organizers and walking delegates, who roam all over the country as agents for some combination, who are vampires that live and fatten on the honest labor of the coal miners of the country, and who are busy bodies, creating dissatisfaction among a class of people who are quiet, well dispositioned, and who do not want to be disturbed by the unceasing agitation of this class of people.

In the case we have under consideration these defendants are known as professional agitators, organizers, and walking delegates. They have nothing in common with the people who are employed in the mines of the Clarksburg Fuel Company.

The strong arm of the court of equity is invoked in this case not to suppress the right of free speech but to restrain and inhibit these defendants, whose only purpose is to bring about strikes by trying to coerce people who are not dissatisfied with the terms of their employment, which results in inflicting injury and damage to their employers as well as the employes.

The right of a citizen to labor for wages that he is satisfied with is a right protected by law, and is entitled to the same protection as free speech, and should be better protected than the abuse of free speech, in which the organizers and agitators indulge in trying to produce strikes.

We have heard bitter denunciation and blatant talk fall from the lips of some mistaken enthusiast who posed as a labor leader, but we have waited until now to hear language from the judge on the bench which clearly out-herods Herod.

Judge Jackson seizes the opportunity to give his definition of an injunction as follows:

What is an injunction? Is it the exercise of an arbitrary power by the courts of the country or is it a power that has been recognized from an early date as one of the branches of adminis trative justice? I answer this question by affirming that the ordinary use of the writ of injunction is to prevent wrongs and injuries to persons and their property, or to reinstate the right of persons to their property when they have been deprived of it. It is the most efficient if not the only remedy to stay irreparable injury and to punish those who disobey the order of a court granting the writ.

He then proceeds to defend its use and those who have used it by saying:

It is a mistaken idea to suppose that the courts of this country abuse this writ. In my long experience on the bench I cannot recall a single occasion when any court, either federal or state, ever abused it in what is known as strike questions. It is true that our courts have been criticized severely by persons who are inimical to the use of it and have denounced the courts for governing by injunction. But this criticism is so obviously unjust to the courts that it is unnecessary to enter into a defense of them.

Did Judge Jackson ever read of the injunction issued by Judge Jenkins in the Northern Pacific receivership vs. its employes, which was set aside by the