Montana labor news., 1936-04-02
Freedom Of Expression
For Central Bodies De-
Tended by |. 7. U. Pres.


of speech and expression for state and
central labor bodies in considering or
g%anization policies are defended by
Pres. Charles P. Howard Of the Inter
national Typographical Union, in a
statement dealing with the recent letter
OF Pres. William Green OF the A. F. of
L. to all such bodies. Towards state
ment follows in full:
Under date of February 10, 1886,
President William Green of the Amer
lean Federation of Labor addressed a
communication to all organizers, sec
r~etaries of state declarations, central
bodies and local federal unions advising
against giving allegiance, assistance or
support to the Committee for Indus
trial Organization The communica-
ton quotes the action of the executive
council at its meeting in Miami, Flor
ida, which called upon the Committee
for Industrial Organization to dissolve
and cease to function.
Attempt to Intimidate
This purpose OF President Green's
letter is apparent. It constitutes an
attempt to intimidate state and central
bodies and prevent the delegates com
posing these organizations from ex-
pressing their views upon a vital ques-
ton which affects all organized labor.
The yelled threat is made that a
penalty will be imposed upon any and
all who express an opinion that the
millions of u~norganized workers should
be organized under charters issued by
the A. F. Of L. and upon the only
basis they are willing to accept.
1T is implied that the executive
council Of the A. F. of L. is the final
arbiter of the destiny Of the American
labor movement and any who do not
bow to its imperious will have COM
mitted the cardinal sin of insubordina-
ton.
we refuse to accord to the execu-
tive council any such dictatorial au-
thority, individuals and subordinate
bodies have the right to express them
selves as to organization policies which
they believe should be adopted. Any
attempt to penalize such expressions
will be resisted by those who hold it
to be the duty Of the A. F. of L. to or
ganize the unorganized.
Actions of the executive council are
subject to review by conventions.
we are of the opinion a majority of
the delegates representing national and
international unions believe in free
speech and freedom of expression in
state and central bodies. Certainly the
direct representatives of the rank and
file which supports the A. F. OF l..
have the right to consider the organ
ization policies to be followed.
Position Called Illogical
Both craft and industrial unions
hold charters issued by the A. F. of L.
Recent conventions have directed that
charters be granted in specified indus
tries for organization upon an indus
trial bass. The position of the execu-
tive council that the Committee for
Industrial Organization is engaged in
an activity that violates the constitu-
ton or is contrary to the conventions
action is entirely without logic.
1T is just as legal and ethical to pro-
mote organization upon an industrial
basis as it is to promote organization
upon a craft basis.
In calling upon the Committee for
7 o.
tivities and then naming a committee
to confer upon a plan for %organiza-
ton the executive council convicts it.
self of having ~prejudged the merits of
the educational work that has been ac-
complished.
1T is wholly %unbecoming that a
policy OF suppression and repression
should be adopted in dealing with such
IN important question"