Denver labor bulletin., 1915-12-18
tContinued From Page One. !

the matter will be treated by me in that
i same spirit, and | thank you, too, fol
sending me copy of the law and point.
ing out some OF the powers" vested in
the commission by the law. Very truly
yours, SAMUEL GOMPERS
President American Federation of Labor.
As already stated in the introduction
to this subject, l at once wrote to sev.
eral men in the labor movement. in Colo.
RADIO, who were in position to give, not
only the facts in the case, but the view
point of labor, the sublety of the trans
action workmen best feel and know.
l received replies from Edward Ander-
son, secretary OF Pueblo BARRIERS Union,
J. L. Brooks, secretary Pueblo Trades
and Labor Assembly; w. T. Hickey,
secretary treasurer of the Colorado State
Federation OF Labor, and several other
prominent and in luential men in the
movement in Colorado. They fully COW
cred every phase of the case, and gave
me all necessary information.
American Federation of Labor, San Fran
cisco, Cal, Nov. IL, 1915.
Mr.. Il. +. Mclaughlin, Commissioner, In
dustrial Commission of Colorado, Cap
itol Building Denver, Colo.
Dear Sir: AS | wrote you in my let
ter of Oct. 10, it was necessary for me to
obtain more comprehensive and definite
information before replying to your let
ter. Immediately l wrote to several
officials of the labor movement of Colo
RADIO who were in a position to have
firsthand information in regard to the
incident and its discussion. Some oil
this information reached me at Wash.
ington before leaving for this city for
the annual convention of the American
Federation OF Labor. and the rest re.
ceived since coming here. At the very
earliest opportunity, therefore, L am re-
plying to your letter in which you state
that L have done the Industrial Com
mission of Colorado an injustice and
have misinterpreted the actions OF the
commission.
The letters from the labor men of
Colorado confirm the information that
was first given me, and 1 am publish
ing your letter as well as the entire
correspondence in the case, for | think
it will serve the best interests oil all
concerned for all to have the best op
portunity to become acquainted with
the purposes, the policies and the ideals
of the men in the labor movement OF
Colorado, as well as that all may Judge
whether l did your commission an in
justice in my editorial in the October
issue of the American Federationist.
II is because We realize that we must
be in n position to direct those things
which consern us so intimately and Sc
vitality that We have consistently re
fused to delegate to outside author.
ties control over regulation OF working
conditions in private industry and ovei
the determination of those things that
vitality concern our welfare industrially,
as well as otherwise.
The trade union movement has al.
ways maintained that the fundamental
right that must be assured 10 al free
working men is the right to control
their labor power, their creative ability.
I his power is essentially personal, in
separable from mind and inseparabl.
from the brain and the muscles, ana
the living body of the workers. Control
over labor power means control over the
individual. 1t is for this reason that
workers of the trade union movement
refuse to delegate this control to any
outside authority, even temporarily, as
you express it in your letter. We main
tain, and rightfully maintain, that tn.
minute this power is vested in an out.
side authority, that moment freedom
ceases. Free workers can not be free
at one time and under the control of an
outside authority at another time. On
to use the well-known phrase, the work
ers can not exist part free aud part
slave.
1t seems to me that because YOU did
not grasp the meaning and the import
ance OF this fundamental principle you
fail to craps the spirit and the purpose
OF the trade union organizations and
hence you fail to see the significance
OF their protest against the course OF
the Industrial Commission in regard to
the Pueblo Barbers' union.
You say that the commission made
no ruling in regard TO the removal OF
the union card from the window of the
barber shop, but that both the BARRIERS
union and the proprietor OF the shop
appealed to the commission
You will note in the letter of the sec
retary of the BARRIERS union OF Pueblo
he makes the statement that the union
did not appeal to the commission but
merely gave the notification Of its in
tention to remove the card from the
window at the end OF 80 days. This
notification was given because it was
the understanding of the union that this
was legal rtqairement. According to
your Interpretation OF the incident, both
parties voluntarily entered into al
agreement on Aug "a that the union
card should not be removed prior to