The Indianapolis journal., 1903-10-17

The Journal has sometimes found occa-
sion to commend Mr.. John Mitchelrs fair
ness and level headedness, but it must ex-
press it's strong disapproval Of the spirit of
his address before the National Civic Fed
Grafton conference at Chicago. The object
Of the federation is to establish better re-
lations between employers and employees
and to end strife. Mr.. Mitchell spoke
the "open shop" He opposed this idea and
maintained the right of union men not only
to refuse to work with nonunion men, but
to use compulsory means to exclude them
from union shops. He declared that strike
breakers, that Is, nonunion men who take
the places of union men who have struck,
are ''but little removed from the criminal
class" implying that the taking up by any
person of a job that a union man has laid
down is but little removed from a crime.
To quote his language:
To refuse to work with nonunion men is
to no greater and to no less extent compul-
sion than for life insurance company to
refuse certain classes of people or for any
association whatsoever to set conditions
under which 1t will have dealings with GER
tain persons. The compulsion exerted by
unions. whether toward nonunionists or
employers, must be judged upon it's merits
and must not be decried merely because of
its compulsion.
The majority of nonunionists are not
malicious; only at the worst stupid and
apathetc However. there is one group Of
nonunionists. the professional strike break
ers but little removed from the criminal
In conclusion, believe that trade unions
have a perfect legal and moral right to ex-
clude nonunionists, but that this right shall
ho wit ~ Fa nd ly
after persuasion has been tried and failed.
This shows that while Mr.. Mitchell is
level headed and fair minded on many
points he is utterly wrong regarding the
legal rights of labor unions and the indi-
vidual right of nonunion men to work. His
assumption that membership in the union
confers any special right to work or to pre-
! vent nonunion men from working is so rad
| ically wrong as to show a complete misap-
prehension of the basic question. No per-
| sen denies or questions the right of union
men to refuse to work or associate with
| nonun.on men. Every person is free to
choose his own associates. Believers In one
religious faith may refuse to work or as
sociate with those of another, if they
4
work If they wish to because nonunion
men are employed. but there their rights
cease. They have no right to use force,
/ violence or compulsion of any kind to pre-
| vent employers from hiring nonunion men
| or to prevent the latter from working. Mr.
Mitchelrs contention for the right of union
men TO refuse TO work with nonunion men
| is Illogical and insincere because. as already
stated. no person denies that right. What
| he cannot defend and dares not try to de-
fend is the use OF force and violence by
union men to prevent nonunion men from
| being employed. This contention is utter
| ly opposed 10 the finding OF the anthracite
coal commission which Mr.. Mitchell ac-
cepted Following is an extract from the
report of the commissions:
The union must not undertake to assume
! or TO interfere With the management OF
the business of the employer. 1t should
| strive to make membership In II so valua-
BILE as to attract all who are eligible, but
| Il must not lose sight OF the fact that those
| who may think differently have. certain
rights guaranteed them by our free govern.
| ment. - 1t should be remembered