The labor world. [volume] (Duluth, Minn.) 1896-current, 1904-01-23
TRADE UNIONS Must ]! | I.
DEFEND THEIR FAITH
UNION MANDATE FROM HIGH
SOURCE REFERS TO POLITICS.
Unions Must Not Enter Politics. Able
Article on Pure and Simple Trade
Unionism. What Will Be the Reply?
Drive at Hearst. His Motive In Ad-
vising Political Action is Questioned.

That trade-unions should not take
part in politics is a declaration upon
which the great majority of the exper-
fenced trade-unionists are agreed. Only
the inexperienced and the blind dissent
from that proposition.
Now comes the dictum, There is
nothing more harmful, more unjust, to
the working class than the statement:
Labor unions should keep out of poll
TICS :"
Now comes the mandate, Labor un-
ions MUST enter politics.
Considering their source in the pres
ent instance, both dictum and mandate
command attention and demand action.
That attention will be given and action
taken in certain sources is foregone
conclusion, which makes it imperative
upon the trade-unionists Of the country
that they make themselves heard in
their own defense.
In word, the trade-unionists must
re-assert the declaration that trade-un-
ions should not take part in politics.
or they must retract that declaration.
Ordinarily, silence would mean con-
tempt. In the present case, silence
would mean submission. Submission,
whether under conviction or under
force, will mean a ten-years' setback
of many individual trade-unions.
The statement that labor unions
should be in politics and stay in poll
TICS" also the order that labor MUST
enter politics." appeared in the editorial
columns of the New York journal and
San Francisco Examiner (and most
likely in those of all the papers owned
by Mr.. Hearst), Of recent dates.
This publication is significant of var
ious motives, at least one Of which is
too obvious to call for mention here.
That motive which we deem of greatest
Importance to trade-uniOnists, and
which we deduce, not from any hypo-
thesis of personal ambition, but from
the known law of human nature, is one
of establishing an authority in trade
union affairs superior to any internal
authority in the trade-union itself.
Mr.. Hearst's action is natural; his
motives are not entirely censurable, but
his commands are dangerous and must
not be obeyed, if trade-unionism is to
survive the Impotence or the ambition,
as the case may be, of it's friends in
the press and public, life.
Regarding the premises laid down by
the Hearst papers, we take much for
granted. The desira bility of Govern
ment favorable to the interests of la
Dor; the need, in order to secure such
a Government, of electing Labor or
Democratic-Labor men to office; that,
to elect such men, the workingmen
must unite for political purposes; that
such a Government would accomplish
much that is impossible to the trade
unions, or possible only by great labor
and sacrifice-all this, and more, we adj
NIT for arguments sake.
Still, wa adhere to our conviction
that the: trade-unions should not take
part in s: 4.
We take1o1 carr III In Il
piled authority to tell the trade.-u unions
what they must do: That authority is
assumed upon the strength of Mr..
! Hearst's services to- trade-unionism.
Those services are valuable; we ap-
preciate them and would reward them