The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-09-01
HE IS EXPECTED TO ANSWER
CONDENSATION OF THE REsOLU.
TIONs RECENTLY ADOPTED.
One of the Questions Is Intended to
Ascertain Whether Mr.. Parry Would
Favor n s.Perfect- Union.

organized labor and certain assertions made
against il by ID. NJ. Parry were presented
for the consideration of the body, with the
suggestion that they be adopted and sent
to Mr.. Parry, requesting that he answer
them. The resolutions were unanimously
adopted, but there some discussion as
TO the manner In which some of the ques-
tons were stated. Consequently a motion
prevailed that the resolutions be turned
over to the legislative committee of the
Central Labor Union for revision and con-
sideration. after which they were to be
sent to Mr.. Parry. The committee has met
several times and yesterday prepared a
letter embodying the original questions in
a briefer form, which will be presented to
Mr.. Parry to-day. The letter follows:
From the fact that in your answer to
the Labor day committee declining 20 meet
Samuel Gompers to discuss trade-union
questions you made certain assertions that
reflect on the movement, and have fire.
quently made other public statements of
the same nature, the secretary of the Cen
trail Labor Union has been instructed to
present the following questions to you, as
president of the National Association Of
Manufacturers and request that they be
answered plainly and without equvocation:
Il. You have repeatedly asserted that
you are not opposed to the trade union in
itself so long as It confines itself to legi-
innate purposes. If this is true. what. in
your opinion. are the legitimate purposes of
trade union? Should the union have any
thing TO say about the wages Of its MEM
bers, the hours to be worked, the condi-
tions under which the work is done?
A PERFECT UNION"
''2. Granted that what you say of
the vicious tendencies of the union is cor
rect and also granted that what you say
of the good effects Of the union rightly con-
Quoted is true, would you, and the manu-
facturers who believe with you, permit the
formation of perfect union in your estab-
lishments?
SO. You say that you believe workmen
should have the unrestricted right to find
employment wherever they please at what
ever wages they please; in other words
would you believe in absolute unrestricted
competition in the industrial world. that
employment should be subject only to the
natural law? Do you and your business
associates apply this rule to your own
business? Do you and the association you
represent believe in conducting your enter
priSes in harmony with natural laws? Do
you believe in unrestricted free trade or
are you protectionist believing in an arti-
fetal restriction of trade? II you are
protectionist how do you harmonic the ap-
plication of the natural law in employing
laborers and in the ignoring of this law in
4. Do you or do you not believe that
any of our laws and institutions foster and
establish special privileges which tend 10
restrict the opportunity TO labor; in short,
is the natural order interfered with by
human institutions. If this is true, would
not trade unions be justified as defensive
measure against the encrOachments on the
natural right to work?
''5. You say you believe that every
American youth should be permitted to
learn trade. How many youths employed
- of he
association you represent. have been in
dentured? How many of them, after work.
ing for you any number of years, could go
forth and put their knowledge and skill
to good account? is ii not a fact that
trade unions are now practically the only
institutions which have a prescribed and
regulated apprentice period? Does this not
promote education, skill and self-reliance?
80 Is 1t not fact that wages are higher
in communities where union conditions
prevail than where the union does not ex-
list? Is this not a benefit to the community :?
Do you believe that wages would be as
high in this country were 1t not for the
union? If so, how do you account for the
fact that wages are higher in union than
nonunion establishments?
-. Do you believe that il is unwise to
place the welfare of the many in the
hands of the few, either industrially or
politically? Would not the destruction of
the union increase the power of the few
(the employers) and curta the independ-
ence and welfare of the many?
IS. Do you believe, under present indus
trial conditions. that where the question of
wages other matters are left entirely
to the individual laborer and the employer
that the laborer would be on an equal
footing with the employer and could main
tain himself against encroachments or un-
fair proposals? Is 1t not fair business
proposition to settle wage questions COL
lectively through accredited representa-
tives, insuring cheerful acquiescence with a
sense of fair dealing? Does IL not pay to
have contented loyal workmen?
80. IL one employer pays low wages is
It not a fact that employers in the same
similar low wages to meet competition un-
less some artificial means are employed TO
30. Would the working people now be-
longing to unions be any better off IL your
ideas were to prevail?
SUPPRESSION BY Law
III. If the trade union Is a menace to our
institutions should it not be suppressed by
law? II Ii cannot be suppressed by law. is
it not apparent that II is not against the
spirit of our institutions? If it is within
the province of the lawmaking power to
suppress the union, is 1t not also within
the province Of the law to interfere with
the private operation OF every factory in
the country?
'12. You complain of the boycott Have
you, and those who believe with you, not
for years boycotted the union? If you say
that men who believe in the union cannot
work for you. have not union men the
same right. morally and legally 10 saw
that they will do what they can to curtaiI
your business? Is il not fact that long
before any attention had ever been given
you yours by the trade unions YOU had
started out on your mission of attacking
the union movement? Is X not a fact that
before you were placed on the unfair list
you had gone over the country denouncing
the men at the head of the movement call
ing them murderers, thieves and grafters
making these assertions without discrmina-
ton? In this have you not borne false wit
ness against members of the union? Have
you not done everything you possibly could
TO disrupt the trade union movement, to
make Ii odious in the eyes of the public
TO cast suspicion on its leaders? Have you
not taken statements made by disgruntled
individuals and published them as the
truth, when you must have known that
they were false? Is il not hypocritical for
you 10 assert that you are not opposed TO
the union, while at the same time you
are lending your aid TO every move that has
for it's object the overthrow OF the move
ment? In short, Is IL not fact that YOU
have invited this controversy?
''l3. Do you believe there is any neces-
sity for factory laws child-labor laws?
III not do you believe employers can be
depended upon TO provide healthful and
safe surroundings for workmen and refuse
TO employ children of tender age? II YOU
believe in these laws. do you not know that
such laws we have of this character
were enacted through the influence of or
ganized labor?
IA. In your opposition 20 the union are
you actuated solely by spirit of patriot