The mirror. (Stillwater, Minn.) 1894-1925, 1901-10-10
Paper Read Before the Chd,ttduQata Circle.


WAS very much interested in
paper read before this circle few
i weeks ago on the same subject
that 1 have chosen. I was
interested both because the labor
question is one of the problems of the
day and because of the mastery manner
in which the subject was handled.
With great shrewdness the author
began by playing the sympathy racket,
well knowing that after enlisting their
sympathies, the unthinking would be
less likely to see the fallacies of his
argument.
He ignores the fact that the use of
the brain is labor, he ignores the fact
that brain always has been, always will
be, and is entitled to be paid better
i. e., higher wages-than mere brute
strength, in other words, manual labor.
He also ignores the fact that it is the
employer that furnishes the brain and
that he is entitled to and should receive
compensation for the use of his capital
invested. Ignoring these facts, he
states that the laborer is the creator of
all wealth, when he must know that it
is the combination of brain and muscle
that creates wealth and that the proper
use of wealth creates more wealth.
The problem of what part of the
profits the labOrer-i. e., muscular
IabOr-should receive can never be
decided by any mere theories. 1t is
we'll known that the manufacturer sells
his products in competition with the
world-and this competition is always
very keen-to the jobber at the market
price. The jobber in turn sells to the
retailer and the retailer to the COLI
sumer. Both the jobber and the
retailer meet competition and both
must sell at the market price or less.
We all know this to be fact. We all
know that everything, every manufac-
tured article, every product of the farm,
every product of the E,ines, in short,
every article of commerce, must meet
competition and must sell at it's market
price.
Now, what the laborer has to sell is
his labor. In selling his labor he meets
this same competition and must sell it
at its market price; and the market
price of his labor, as of everything else,
tiuctuates in accordance with the law
Of nlu
difference in the price of labor in 1898,
when men could be had right here in
Minnesota for IS cents per day, and the
price of labor last fall when So per
day was the wage. No one needs to be
told that this difference was due wholly
to the demand for labor, the result of
their being two jobs for every man
instead of two men for every job. To
whatever causes this condition was due,
it most certainly was not due to any
strike.
Now, starting with labor as COM
modify to be sold, and throwing aside
all sentiment, it cannot be denied that
the laborer has the same right to sell
that labor or to refuse to sell 1T. e.,
strike, refuse to work-that he or any
one else has to sell anything; and he as
rule finds public sympathy with him
in his efforts to sell his labor to better
advantage providing always that he
has not already contracted to furnish
this labor at specified price for a
specified time. In the latter case he
should be held to his contract as firmly
as any other contractor. Right here
let me say that all honor should be
accorded those men of Chicago who
during the late strike refused to be