The Indianapolis journal., 1903-09-02

MIR. ID. NJ. Parry will probably make his
own answer to the questions put TO him
by the Central Labor Union, bat the Journal
may be permitted to take some notes of
them Some of them are very much TO the
point. and, taken together. they show con-
siderable mastery of the labor question
from the union point of view. but they in
clude no others. This is human. John
Mitchell says in the preface TO his forth
workman, but against no one" OF course,
this means they for the union work
men, but when he says they are against
no one he puts it rather strong. They Ger
tainly are against nonunion workmen and
employers who do not adopt their rules and
comply with their demands. The case of
union labor would be stronger if it recog-
nized the equal rights of all workmen and
those of employers to manage their busi-
ness in their own way and to run union or
open shops as they please. Mr.. Mitchell
says again: Labor unions are for a class
because that class exists and has class in
terests, but the unions did not create and do
not perpetuate the class it's interests
The unions are for union workmen only,
and they certainly did create and do per-
petuate that class. The much larger class
OF nonunion workmen is entirely outside of
their sympathy. or field of effort, except in
trying to bring them within the union.
But the fundamental error of the ques-
tions put to Mr.. Parry is in assuming that
he and other employers, who concur In his
views, are opposed to labor unions as such,
and would destroy them entirely. The
Journal does not understand this to be the
case, and it is but fair to Mr.. Parry to
say that he has repeatedly denied it. The
opposition is not to organized labor. but to
some of its methods which employers think
interfere with their rights and those of
nonunion workmen- If these could be cut
out, including resort to violence to enforce
strikes and boycotts and opposition TO open
shops. there would still be left ample
| ground on which reasonable men of both
sides could meet. One of the questions to
Mr.. Parry reads:
| II the trade union is a menace to our
| institutions should il not be suppressed by
law? If IL cannot be suppressed by law, is
1t not apparent that il is not against the
| spirit of our institutions? If ii is within
| the province OF the lawmaking power to
| suppress the union. is ii not also within
| the province of the law to interfere with
the private operation of every factory III
| the country?
This shows surprising lack of informa-
ton as to the true issue and facts of the
| case. The courts have repeatedly asserted
| the right of labor to organize and to pro-
mote its interests by every legitimate
means. The menace to society and 10
| justice is not in organization, but in the
use of illegal means TO promote the ends OF
peatedly declared could not be tolerated
IF it is within the province of the law
making power TO suppress the union," says
| the question, 'is it not also within the
| province of the law to interfere with the
private operation of every factory In the
country?" 1t is not within the province OF
the lawmaking power to suppress the unior
! any more than it is to close factories, but
the law defines the individual rights of al
persons, whether employers or workmen
union men or nonunion men. and places
| their protection and maintenance abov,
that of any organization whatever.
These principles are so elemental ant
| automatic that it ought not to be necessary
to assert them, but as long as they con
tinue to be misunderstood it must be done
Eventually they will be recognized by al
classes. as they are now by the courts ant
| those vrbo Lpou he