Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1916-10-16

precedent, or to use the instruments
which were ready to his hand. /, al
though lacking the agencies of law for,
the application of the principle, never
theless applied it. and established ar
bitration in the settlement on their
merits of industrial disputes. Mr..
Wilson, with all the agencies of law
subject to his command, ignored them,
destroyed the principle of arbitration
in the settlement of industrial disputes
and put a premium on securing this
settlement by threat and duress.
President Wilson in his speeches OF
August goth and September 23d has
furnished his own condemnation out of
his own mouth. In them he explicitly
condemns exactly what he has done
and actually demands legislation which
will make impossible the repetition OF
such a proceeding. This is so ex-
traordinary an attitude that quote his
own words. He said he wished ito
provide" against "the recurrence of
such unhappy situations in the future"
by securing "the calm and fair arbitra-
ton of all industrial disputes in the
! days to come" This is an explicit as
sertion that arbitration Of all indus
action; and therefore that he had
adopted the wrong method of action
although in the case of the anthracite
coal strike he had an exact precedent
in point, by following which he would
have enforced the right method.
| President Wilson further says, This
| is assuredly the best way of vindicat-
ing a principle namely, having failed
-
| to make certain of its observance IN
! the present to make certain OF its ob-
servance in the future" On the con-
| trary, this is the very worst way of
indicating principle. Indeed, 1t is
| impossible to devise worse way OF
indicating a principle. than to finch
| ANONYMOUSLY from enforcing it in the
case at issue and at the same time to
seek to. cover the ignominy by vocifer-
Gus protestations about applying it in
the nebulous future. The same paper,
the New York Times, from which
quote the above sentences, contained
statements from the leaders of the
| Brotherhoods whom he was befriend-
| ing, in which they said that they
would never consent to the legislation
providing for future arbitration for
which President Wilson asked; and
| President Wilson kept weak and
nervous silence about this defiance. He
did not get the legislation which he de-
clared was essential to "vindicate the
principle" in the future. All that he
! accomplished was the violation of the
principle in the present, in the concrete
case at issue. The only law he secured
established the precedent of violation
| of the principle. All that he did was to
establish the most evil of all prece-
dents for a democracy, the precedent
of violating a principle under the
duress of threat and menace. 1t is q
precedent which will return to plague
us throughout all future time when
ever we have in the White House a
President who is timid in the face OF
threat of physical violence or who
subordinates duty to the hope of per-
sonal political profit.
President Wilson further said, while
trying to gloss over his timidity in the
present by assuming an attitude OF
frowning defiance as regards the nebu-
lous future, that the American people
must be made "a partner in the settle
ment of disputes that interrupt the life
of the nation" that it must "enforce
the partnership and see to it that nc
organization is stronger than that or
ganization to which we all belong, our
own Government" and that we the
people must say to any outside or
ganization that it must not interrupt
| the National life without consulting
u.s." These are fine words about the
| future They are intended to cover up
but as matter of fact, they furnish
| the strongest condemnation of Mr.
Wilson's deed in the present. In these
words Mr.. Wilson exactly describes
what he ought to have done with the
| Brotherhoods. and explicitly condemns
the action which he in fact took. II
the principles he laid down were good
for the future, they were good for the
present. Do it now. Mr.. Wilson! Dc
not use fine words about what some
body else ought to do in the future in
order to cover your own shameful
abandonment of duty in the present.
| Mr.. Wilson has adroitly maintained
that the question at issue was the
eight hour day. This is not all fact
| The question at issue was the question
of wages. The law does not say that
there shall be an eight hour day. 1t
says that eight hours shall "be made
the measure of days work for the
purpose of receiving compensation -
In other words. it was primarily an in
crease of wages and not diminution
of hours that was aimed at.
l believe in the eight hour day. 1t is
the ideal toward which we should tend.
But | believe that there must be COM
mon sense as well as common honesty
in achieving the ideal. Mr.. Wilson has
laid down the principle that there is
something sacred about the eight hour
day which makes it improper even to
discuss it. If this is so, if it is ap-
piled universally then Mr.. Wilson is
not to be excused for not applying it
Immediately where he has complete
power, and that is in his own house.
hold. If the principle of the eight
hour day is sacred and not to be
changed under any circumstances, then
the housemaid, who in Mr.. Wilson's
house, arises at seven must be let off
at three in the afternoon; and if Mr.
Wilson's butler is kept up after a state
dinner until ten, he must not come on
until two of the following afternoon,
and no hired man on a farm must get
Iup to milk the cows in the morning
unless he quits work before milking
time arrives that same evening. OF
course, the simple truth is that under
one set of conditions an eight hour law
NAV be too long or at least NAV renre-