The daily Nome industrial worker., 1917-01-01
IN HOT WATER.

The inadequate AQamSOn Dill seems to be in hot water in that it iIiiy satisfies nobody except those politi clans who possess the peculiar del'l sion that economic questions can all of them be settled by legislative fiat.
 The desire of the politicians to defer action until the illimitable wis dom of Supreme Court shall have passed upon it's validity does not seem to be approved of by the broth erhoods who see in such a survey of the Adamson Law, merely a round about if conventional way of undo ing what Congress has done to settle the eight hour dispute.
 While many may not often agree with Secretary Morrison of the Am erican Federation of Labor, he un- doubtedly is correct when he said that Labor had better settle its de- mands by the economic action than through legislation. That the dis putes that are settled by a strike reach finality in that settlement is not correct. But when labor &C., complishes it's end even by that means, labor is not subjected to the judicial whims that now and then astonish, delight or madden, accord. ing to the economic status of the critic of that judicial action. Strikes are not always successful. In the majority of causes however there have resulted some gains from such direct action, and those gains are not subject to overthrow by the courts.
 Moreover, it is self evident fact that labor to obtain control will be doing it in a very circumlocutory
 way if labor is to do it by political action.
 The experience of labor on labor le- gislation has been more or less of a joke. There never has been one single law passed in favor of labor which had not to be torn from the bosom of congress literally.
 Recently a very great authority on labor legislation, John B. Andrews, said: "The phosphorus match bill
 made no progress until it was pub licly disclosed in a presidential year that it had been refererd to a "se- cret subcommittee for indefinite postponement.
 The new federal compensation bill made no progress although twice favorably reported until approaching campaign conventions and national election gave vitality to a comatose platform pledge of 1912. Other striking illustrations could be given. Are we to be forced to the conclu- sion that the way to get good labor legislation passed by Congress is to drive congressman into political corner and by publicity kick 'em ir the political stomach?"
 Unquestionably that is the case. And when that good" labor legisla- ton is an accomplished fact just as often as not there arises some Solo, mon in ermine who is pleased to de- eide that it is against the constitu- tion.
 On the other hand the facts of the case for economic action are simple and easily applied. Men have power only through what they own. With out any ownership the individual is powerless. But when they have pos session of something that the other fellows need, and from which they can exclude the other fellow, they hold certain amount of power. The workingman owns just one thing: his labor power. To that extent he has some economical control. Press ure of circumstances may compen him to sell it to another and thus exchange it for definite something. Capital must buy that labor from the individual that owns it, and in relation to capital labor would be absolutely powerless did labor not own it's labor power. Now the indi- vidual extent of that ownership is small. And hence the individual ex- tent of that power which comes from that ownership is small. But when these individual rights over labor power are consolidated into a big Union, there is no end to that power. It is as prime an industrial necessity under capitalism as credit