Chapter IV: "reformism" in the United States (2)

The political limitations of the situation are similar. Prof. Anton Menger says of Socialism as applied to municipalities, that "it is necessarily deferred to the time when the Socialist party will be strong enough to take into its hands the political power in the whole state or the larger part of it." It is obviously impossible to force the hands of an intelligent ruling majority merely by capturing one branch or one local division of the government. As such branches are captured they will be prevented from doing anything of importance, or forced to act only within the limits fixed by the ruling class.

This is especially true in the United States. We have elaborate forms and external symbols of local self-government, and it may really exist--as long as the municipalities are used for capitalistic purposes. When it is proposed to use local self-government for Socialist ends, however, it instantly disappears. Not only do the States interfere, with the national government ready behind them, but the centralized judiciary, state and national, is always at hand to intervene. _This is potential centralization, and for the purposes of preventing radical or Socialist measures the government of the United States is as centralized as that of any civilized nation on earth._

Moreover, the semblance of local power given by municipal victories brings a second difficulty to the Socialists--it means the election of administrators and judges. Now even under the system of potential centralization through the courts, _legislators_ are useful, for they cannot be forced to serve capitalism. But government must be carried on and mayors and judges are practically under the control of higher authorities--in the new commission plan of government, they even do the legislating. In the words of the _New York Daily Call_:--

"The Socialist Legislator finds his task a comparatively easy and
simple one. He proposes or supports every measure of advantage to
the working class in particular and to the great majority of the
people in general, barring such as are of a reactionary character.
But the Socialist executive and the Socialist judge find themselves
in no such simple situation. Their activities are circumscribed by
superior and hostile powers, and by written constitutions adopted
at the dictation of the capitalist class. How to harmonize their
activities with the just demands of the working class for the
immediate betterment of its conditions, as well as with the
Socialist program which has for its goal the ultimate overthrow of
the capitalist social order, and yet not come into such conflict
with the superior and hostile powers as would result in their own
removal from office--this question is bound to assume a gravity not
yet perhaps dreamed of by the majority of American Socialists.

"And yet even now, while our political power is still small, the
charge of opportunism, or the neglect of principle in pursuit of
some practical advantage, is continually being raised, sometimes
justly, sometimes unjustly."

The following from the _New York Evening Post_, illustrates both the political and the economic difficulty of enacting Socialistic or even radical measures in municipalities. It is taken from a special article on the situation in Schenectady, where a Socialist, Dr. George R. Lunn had just been elected mayor:--

"Schenectady is trying hard to take its dose of Socialism
philosophically. Its most staid and respectable citizens, who have
been staid and respectable Republicans and Democrats all their
life, console themselves with the thought that, after all, Old Dorp
is Old Dorp--Old Dorp being the affectionate way of referring to
Schenectady--and that her best citizens are still her best
citizens, and that Rev. George R. Lunn and all his Socialist crew
can't do a great amount of harm in two years to a city that
possesses such an ironclad charter as that with which Horace White,
when he was a Senator, endowed every city of the second class in
the Empire State. The conservative element in town back that
charter against all the reforms that the minister who is to be
mayor and his following of machinists, plumbers, coachmen, and
armature winders from the General Electric Works, who are going to
be common councillors and other things, can hope to introduce....

"The General Electric works--as everybody agrees--'made'
Schenectady. Census figures show it and statistics of one sort or
another show it. The concern employs more than 16,000 men and
women--as many persons as there are voters in the whole town. It
owns 275 acres of land, and of this about 60 acres are occupied
with shops and buildings. Its capital stock is valued at
$80,000,000. The General Electric, or as it is called up here, the
'G. E.,' has given work to thousands, has brought a lot of business
into town, has made real estate in hitherto deserted districts
valuable. On the tax assessors' books its property is assessed at
$4,500,000. It is safe to say that this is less than 25 per cent of
its true value.

"If Dr. Lunn should attempt to meddle with the 'G. E.'s'
assessment, Schenectady knows very well what would happen. The
General Electric Company would pack up and move away to some other
town that is pining for a nice big factory and does not care much
how small taxes it pays. That is the situation. Of course everybody
agrees that the company ought to be paying more, but when it comes
to a question of leaving well enough alone or losing the company
entirely, Schenectady says leave well enough alone, by all means.
The loss of the 'G. E.' works would be a disaster, from which the
Old Dorp would never recover. Why, even now the company has just
opened a brand new plant in Erie, Philadelphia, and if Schenectady
does not behave, what is to prevent the 'G. E.' from moving all its
belongings to Erie?

"Dr. Lunn has not had much to say regarding this phase of his
taxation reforms. The day after his election he issued a statement,
however, which showed that he did not intend to do anything
extremely radical:--

"'In the matter of taxation we have had something to say during the
campaign, but we Socialists are too good economists not to know
that the burdening of our local industries in the way of taxation
above that placed upon them in other cities would be foolhardy.
Under the present system, to which we are opposed, manufacturing
concerns have their rights, and any special burden placed upon them
by one community above that which is placed upon them in other
communities would inevitably and of necessity, from the standpoint
of economics, hinder their progress. We are not in favor of
hindering their progress. We stand for the greatest progress along
every line. We will not only encourage industries in every way
consistent with our principles, but will endeavor to bring new
industries to Schenectady, and furthermore, we will succeed in
doing it.'"[159]

The newly elected mayor is quoted by _Collier's Weekly_, as saying: "We are only trying to conduct the city's business in the same honest way we should run our own business." _Collier's_ says that the Socialists generally "make their impression by mere business honesty and efficiency," distinguishes this from what it calls the "harmful kind of Socialism," and concludes that, "watching the actual performances of those who choose to call themselves Socialists, we are thus far unable to be filled with terror."[160]

Nearly all the comment at the time of the Socialist municipal victories in the fall of 1911 pointed out, in similar terms, the contrast between the very restricted opportunities they offer for the revolutionary program of Socialism. The editorial in the _Saturday Evening Post_ is typical:--

"Theoretically Socialism is the most ambitious of political
programs, involving nothing short of a whole-nation-wide or
world-wide revolution; but, except a solitary Congressman and
seventeen members of State legislatures, Socialists so far have
been elected only to local offices, and those usually of an
_administrative_ rather than legislative nature--elected, that is,
not to bring in a brand-new, all-embracing revolutionary program,
but to work the lumbering old bourgeois machine in a little
honester, more intelligent, kindlier manner perhaps than some
Republican or Democrat would work it.

"Designing a new world is more fascinating than scrubbing off some
small particular dirt spot on the old one--but less practical." (My
italics.)[161]

Even where _revolutionary_ Socialists carry a municipality, as they did recently in Newcastle, Pennsylvania, the benefit to the labor movement is probably only temporary. There the Socialist administration dismissed the whole police force and filled their places with Socialists. The result will undoubtedly be that the State will either make the police irremovable, except by some complicated process, or will still further extend the functions of the State constabulary in times of strike. The moral effect of the victory in Newcastle, like that in Schenectady, after the bitter labor struggles of recent years, cannot be questioned, and this, together with temporary relief from petty persecution by local authorities, is doubtless worth all the efforts that have been put forth--provided the Socialists have not promised themselves and their supporters any larger or more lasting results.

It is in view of difficulties such as these, which exist to some degree in all countries, that in proportion as Socialists gain experience in municipal action, they subordinate it to other forms of activity. Only such "reformists" as are ready to abandon the last vestiges of their Socialism persist in emphasizing a form of action that has a constant tendency to compel all those involved to give more and more of their time and energy to serving capitalism. Among the first Socialist municipalities were those of Lille and Roubaix in France--which fell a number of years ago into the hands of Guesdists, the revolutionary or orthodox wing of the party. Rappoport reports their present position on this question as presented at the recent Congress at St. Quentin, 1911.

"Among the Guesdists there are no municipal theorists but a great many practical municipal men, former or present mayors: Delory (Lille), Paul Constans (Montucon), Compère-Morel, Hubert (Nîmes), only to mention those present at the Congress. _Through experience they have learned that what is called municipal Socialism, is good local government, but in no sense Socialism._ Free meals for school children, weekly subsidies for child-bearing women, etc., are useful to the working people; this is not Socialism, but 'collective philanthropy' according to Compère-Morel. Reforms are good, but the main thing is Socialism. The Guesdists are no adherents of the doctrine, 'all or nothing,' but they are also no admirers of the new doctrine of municipal Socialism."

There can be little doubt that a few years of experience in this country will persuade those American Socialists who are now concentrating so much of their attention on municipalities, to give more of their energies to State legislatures and to Congress. The present efforts will not be lost, as they can be easily turned into a new direction. And whatever political reaction may seem to take place, after certain illusions have been shattered, will be a seeming reaction only, and due to the desertion from the ranks of the supporters of the Socialist ticket of municipal reformers who never pretended to be Socialists, but who voted for that Party merely because no equally reliable non-Socialist reformers were in the field, or had so good a chance of election. Such separation of the sheep from the goats will be specially rapid when some variation of the so-called commission form of government will have been gradually introduced, particularly where it is accompanied by direct legislation and the recall. For then municipal Socialists will be deprived of all opportunity of claiming this, that, and the other reform as having some peculiar relation to Socialism. And this day is near at hand.

All municipal reforms that interest property owners and non-property owners alike will then be enacted with comparative ease and rapidity, while all political parties, and all prolonged political struggles, will center around the conflict between employers and employees. State and national governments will see to it that no municipality in the hands of the working class is allowed to retain any power that it could use to injure or weaken capitalism. And this specific limitation of the powers of municipalities that escape local capitalist control, will be so frequent and open that all the world will see that Socialists are going to achieve comparatively little by "capturing" local offices.

I have already mentioned in a general way the position of the Milwaukee Socialists in the Wisconsin legislature. Let me return now to their representative in Congress. Mr. Berger had differentiated himself from previous trade union Congressmen largely by proposing a series of radical _political_ reforms: the abolition of the Senate, of the President's veto, and of the power of the Supreme Court over the legislation of Congress, and a call for a national constitutional convention. Radical as they are, it is probable that these reforms are only a foreshadowing of the position rapidly being assumed by a large part of the collectivist but anti-Socialist "insurgents," and "progressives." Even Mr. Roosevelt and Justice Harlan, it will be recalled, protest in the strongest terms against the power of the Supreme Court over legislation, and the Wisconsin legislature, by no means under Socialist control, has initiated a call for a national constitutional convention.

In proposing his "old-age pension" bill, Mr. Berger appended a clause which asserted that the measure should not be subject to the interpretation of the Supreme Court, and showed that Congress had added a similar clause to its Reconstruction Act in 1868 and that it had later been recognized by the Supreme Court. Later the _Outlook_ suggested that this was a remedy less radical than the widely popular recall of judges, and remarked that it would only be to follow the constitution of most other countries.[162] Also Senator Owen, on the same day on which Mr. Berger introduced his bill, spoke for the recall of federal judges on the floor of the United States Senate. It is impossible, then, to make any important distinction between Mr. Berger's proposed _political_ reforms, sweeping as they are, and those of other radicals of the day.

The attitude of many of the "Insurgents" and "Progressives" of the West, is also about all that mere trade unionists could ask for. A large majority of this element in both parties favors the repeal of the Sherman law as applied to labor union boycotts, and Senator La Follette and others stand even for the right of government employees to organize labor unions. The adoption of the recall of judges, owing largely to non-Socialist efforts in Oregon, California, and Arizona, will make anti-union injunctions in strikes and boycotts improbable in the courts of those States, and the widely accepted proposal for the direct election of the federal judiciary would have a similar effect in the federal courts. It may be many years before these measures become general or effective, but there can be no question that they are demanded by a large, sincere, and well-organized body of opinion outside of the Socialist Party. The Wisconsin legislature and most other progressive bodies have so far failed to limit injunctions. But this has been done in the constitution of Oklahoma, and I have suggested reasons for believing that this prohibition may soon be favored by "Progressives" generally.

In the first Socialist speech ever made in Congress, Mr. Berger laid bare his economic philosophy and program. The subject was the reduction of the tariff on wool and its manufactures, and Mr. Berger defined his position on the tariff as well as still larger issues. He declared himself practically a free trader, though of course he did not consider free trade as a panacea, and his speech, according to the Socialist as well as other reports, was received with a storm of applause--especially, of course, from free-trade Democrats.

He pointed out that the manufacturer, having thoroughly mastered the home market, had found that tariff wars were shutting him out from the foreign markets he now needs. He might have added, as evidenced by the nature of the proposed reciprocity treaty with Canada, that many manufacturers are more interested in cheap raw material and cheap food for their workers (cheap food making low wages possible, as in free-trade Great Britain) than they are in a high tariff, and this even in some instances where they have a certain need for protection for the finished product and where no great export trade is in view.

Mr. Berger forgot England when he said that the tariff falls on the poor man's head, for England has shown that the abolition of the tariff does not benefit the poor man in the slightest degree. Poverty is far more widespread there than here. He pointed to the fact that the importation of goods into the United States was restricted, while that of labor was not. He forgot that where both are restricted, as in Australia, the workers are no better off than here.

The arguments employed in Mr. Berger's speech, in so far as they referred to the tariff, were for the most part not to be distinguished from those used by the Democrats in behalf of important capitalistic elements of the population, and hence the welcome with which they were received by the Democratic Congress and press. The Socialist matter in the speech relating only indirectly to the tariff was, of course, less favorably commented upon.

Mr. Berger's second speech before Congress was also significant. It was in support of governmental old-age pensions, a very radical departure for the United States and difficult of enactment because of our federal system--but already, as Mr. Berger said, in force in Great Britain, France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. Since the legislatures in all these countries are controlled by opponents of Socialism, it is evident that such measures have been adopted from other than Socialist motives. In fact they have no necessary relation to Socialism at all, but, on the contrary, have been widely enacted for capitalistic reasons without regard to the demands or power of the workers.

Mr. Berger is reported to have said a few days after this speech: "The idea will in five years have been incorporated into law. Both of the old parties within that time will have incorporated the theory into their platforms. Both the old parties to-day are approaching Socialistic ideas, and appropriating our ideas to save themselves from the coming overthrow."[163] The idea of governmental old-age pensions, on the contrary, has always been popular in certain anti-Socialist circles and is entirely in accord with any intelligent system of purely capitalistic collectivism. Its common adoption by progressive capitalists would seem to indicate that they consider it as being either directly or indirectly conducive to their own interests. It is unnecessary to assume that they adopt it from fear of Socialism. Few if any capitalists consider the overthrow of capitalism as imminent, or feel that Socialism is likely for many years to furnish them with a really acute political problem. A combination of Republicans and Democrats, for example, with a full vote, would easily overwhelm Mr. Berger, the sole Socialist Congressman in his own Congressional district. If present political successes continue, it will still take years for Socialism to send a score of representatives to Congress, and when it does do so, they will be as impotent as ever to overthrow the capitalist order.

For any independent representative without political power or responsibility to propose radical reforms in advance of the larger parties is a very simple matter. Statesmen with actual power cannot afford to take up such reforms until the time is _politically_ ripe for their practical consideration. When such a measure is passed, for the individual or group that first proposed it to claim the credit for the change would be absurd. These reforms, when conditions have suitably evolved, become the order of the day, and are urged by all or nearly all the forces of the time. The radical British old-age pension bill, it will be remembered, was passed almost unanimously, although in the Parliament that passed it there were only about 40 Socialist or semi-Socialist representatives out of a total of 670 members.

What, then, could be more fatuous than such a view as the following, expressed recently by a well-known Socialist:--

"Do you not think that the whole country should be apprised that this (Berger's Old-age Pension bill) is a Socialist measure, introduced by a Socialist Representative, and backed by the Socialist Party--before the Republicans and Democrats realize the advisability of stealing our thunder. In England the working-class political movement is stagnant because the Liberal Party has out-generaled the Socialists by voluntarily enacting great social reforms."[164]

In his anxiety to prepare a bill that capitalist legislators would indorse and pass in the near future, Mr. Berger aroused great criticism within the Party. The _New York Volkszeitung_ pointed out that in limiting the benefit of the law to those who had been naturalized citizens of the United States for sixteen years, he was requiring a residence of twenty-one years in this country, a provision which involved an excessively heavy discrimination against a very large proportion of our foreign-born workers. Mr. Berger's project, moreover, demanded that those convicted of felonies should also be excluded. Socialists, as is well known, have always asserted that the larger part of crimes and criminals were due to injustices of the existing social order, for which the "criminals" were in no sense to blame. Mr. Berger's secretary, Mr. W. J. Ghent, vigorously defended this clause, on the typical "State Socialist" ground that the future Society would deal _more severely_ with criminals than the present one.

Mr. Berger's bill was objected to by New York Socialists on the ground that the old parties could be expected to give a more liberal bill in the near future, and that it would then be difficult to explain the narrower Socialist position. Mr. Ghent answered that nowhere had such a liberal measure been enacted. To this the _Volkszeitung_ remarked that there is a tremendous difference between a bill that owes its origin to a capitalist government and one that comes from a Socialist representative of the working class: "The former sets up a minimum while the latter must demand the maximum." Finally, the _New York Local_ of the Socialist Party resolved: "That we request the National Executive Committee to resolve that Comrade Berger shall, before introducing any bill, submit it to secure its approval by the National Executive Committee."

Mr. Berger's maiden speech also summed up excellently the general policy of Socialist "reformism."

"When the white man is sick or when he dies," he said, "the employer usually loses nothing." Mr. Berger does not understand that, in modern countries, _employers as a class_ are seeing that the _laborers as a class_ are, after all, their chief asset: and are therefore organizing to care for them through governmental action, as working animals, even more systematically and infinitely more scientifically than slaves were ever cared for. He is exhausting his efforts to persuade, or perhaps he would say to compel, the government to the very action that the interests of its capitalist masters most strongly demand.

Curiously enough, Mr. Berger expressed the "reformist," the revolutionary, and the State capitalist principle in this same speech, without being in the least troubled with the contradictions. He spoke of industrial crises, irregular employment and unemployment as if they were permanent features of capitalism:--

"These new inventions, machines, improvements, and labor devices,
displace human labor and steadily increase the army of unemployed,
who, starved and frantic, are ever ready to take the places of
those who have work, thereby still further depressing the labor
market."

The collectivist capitalists have already set themselves aggressively to work to abolish unemployment, to make employment regular, to connect the worker that needs a job with the job that needs a worker, and to put an end to industrial crises, and with every promise of success.

Immediately afterward, Mr. Berger made a correct statement of the Socialist position:--

"The average of wages, the certainty of employment, the social
privileges, and the independence of the wage-earning and
agricultural population, _when compared with the increase of wealth
and social production_, are steadily and rapidly decreasing."

The Socialist indictment is not that unemployment, irregularity of employment, or any other social evil is increasing absolutely, or that it is beyond the reach of capitalist reform; but that _the share of the constantly increasing total of wealth and prosperity that goes to the laborers is constantly growing less_.

A few minutes later in the same speech, Mr. Berger indorsed pure "State Socialism." Legislation, he said, that does not tend to _an increased measure of control on the part of society as a whole_ is not in line with the trend of economic evolution and cannot last. This formulates capitalistic collectivism with absolute distinctness. What it demands is not a new order, but more order. What it opposes is not so much the rule of capitalists, as the disorder of capitalism--which capitalists themselves are effectively remedying. It is not only our present government that is capitalistic but our present society, also. Increased control over industry, over legislation and government, on the part of the present society _as a whole_, would be but a step toward the achievement of _State capitalism_. The purpose of Socialism is to overcome and eliminate the power of capitalism whether in society or in government, and not to establish it more firmly. Increased control by society as a whole, far from being a Socialist principle, is not necessarily even radical or progressive. In fact _the most far-seeing conservatives_ to-day demand it, for "_control by society as a whole_" means, for the present, _control by society_ as it is.

Finally, in reply to questions asked on the floor of Congress after this same speech, Mr. Berger said: "Any interference by the government with the rights of private property is Socialistic in tendency," that is, that every step in collectivism is a step in Socialism. Yet this demand for the restriction of the rights of private property by a conservative government is the identical principle advocated by progressives who will have nothing to do with Socialism. (See Part I, Chapter III.)

Mr. Berger and the large minority of Socialist Party members that vote with him in Party Congresses and referendums may be said to represent a combination of trade unionism of the conservative kind, and "State Socialism," together with opportunistic methods more or less in contradiction with the usual tactics of the international movement. These methods and the indiscriminate support of conservative unionism have been repeatedly rejected by the Socialists in this country. But very many Socialists who repudiate all compromise and will have nothing of Australian or British Labor Party tactics in the United States are in entire accord with Mr. Berger on "State Socialist" reform. It is thus a modified form of "State Socialism" and not Laborism that now confronts the organization and creates its greatest problem.

Mr. Charles Edward Russell, for example, says that "we are not striving for ourselves alone, but for our children," that "our aim is not merely for one country, but for all the world," that "we stand here immutably resolved against the whole of capitalism."[165] And Mr. Russell will hear nothing either of compromise or of a Labor Party. But when we come to examine the only question of practical moment, how his ideal is to be applied, we are astounded to read that, "every time a government acquires a railroad, it practices Socialism."[166]

Mr. Russell points out that "almost all the railroads in the world, outside of the United States, are now owned by government," yet in his latest book, "Business," he refers to Prussia, Japan, Mexico [under Diaz], and other countries as having boldly purchased railways and coal mines when they desired them _for the common good_.[167] Mr. Russell here seems to overlook the fact that the history of Russia, Japan, Mexico, and Prussia has shown that there is an intermediate stage between our status and government "for the Common Good," a stage during which the capitalist class, having gained a more firm control over government than ever, intrusts it (with the opposition of but a few of the largest capitalists) with some of the most important business functions.

Yet Mr. Russell himself admits, by implication, that government by Business "properly informed and broadly enlightened" might continue for a considerable period, and therefore directs his shafts largely against Business Government "as at present conducted," and he realizes fully that the most needed _reforms_, even when they directly benefit the workingmen, are equally or still more to the benefit of Business:--

"In the first place, if the masses of people become too much
impoverished, the national stamina is destroyed, which would be
exceedingly bad for Business in case Business should plunge us into
war. In the second place, since poverty produces a steady decline
in physical and mental capacity, if it goes too far, there is a
lack of hands to do the work of Business and a lack of healthy
stomachs to consume some of its most important products.

"For these reasons, a Government for Profits, like ours, incurs
certain deadly perils, _unless it be properly informed and broadly
enlightened_.

"Something of the truth of this has already been perceived by the
astute gentlemen that steer the fortunes of the Standard Oil
Company, a concern that in many respects may be considered the
foremost present type of Business in Government. One of the rules
of the Standard Oil Company is to pay good wages to its employees,
and to see that they are comfortable and contented. As a result of
this policy the Standard Oil Company is seldom bothered with
strikes, and most of its workers have no connection with labor
unions, do not listen to muck-rakers and other vile breeders of
social discontent, and are quite satisfied with their little round
of duties and their secure prospects in life....

"Unless Business recognizes quite fully the wisdom of similar
arrangements for its employees, Business Government (_as at present
conducted_) will in the end fall of its own weight."[168] (My
italics.)

Surely nobody has given more convincing arguments than Mr. Russell himself why Business Government should go in for government ownership and measures to increase the efficiency of labor. Surely no further reasons should be needed to prove that when a government purchases a railroad to-day, it does not practice Socialism. Yet the reverse is sustained by a growing number of members of the Socialist Party (though not by a growing proportion of the Party), which indicates that the Socialism of Bebel, Liebknecht, Kautsky, Guesde, Lafargue, and the International Socialist Congresses is at present by no means as firmly rooted in this country as it is on the Continent of Europe.

FOOTNOTES:

[144] _Journal of Political Economy_, October, 1911.

[145] In her "American Socialism of the Present Day" (p. 252) Miss Hughan _denies that there are many varieties of American Socialism_, and says that the assertion that there are is justified only the many shades of _tactical policy_ to be found in the Party, "founded usually on corresponding gradations of emphasis upon the idea of catastrophe."

I do not contend that there are _many_ varieties of Socialism within the Party either here or in other countries, but I have pointed out that there are _several_ and that _their differences are profound, if not irreconcilable_. It is precisely because they are founded on differences in tactics, _i.e. on real instead of theoretical_ grounds that they are of such importance, for as long as present conditions continue, they are likely to lead farther and farther apart, while new conditions may only serve to bring new differences.

[146] Eugene V. Debs in the _International Socialist Review_ (Chicago), Jan. 1, 1911.

[147] The _Social-Democratic Herald_ (Milwaukee), Oct. 12, 1901.

[148] The _Social-Democratic Herald_, Feb. 22, 1902.

[149] The _Social-Democratic Herald_, May 28, 1904.

[150] _Press Despatch_, Aug. 26, 1911.

[151] _New York Journal_, April 22, 1910.

[152] _Social-Democratic Herald_, Vol. XII, No. 12.

[153] _Social-Democratic Herald_, Vol. XII, No. 12.

[154] _Social-Democratic Herald_, Vol. XII, March 24, 1906.

[155] The following account is taken from the Garment Workers' Bulletin:--

"Recently the hod carriers in San Francisco presented a petition to their employers for increased pay and pressed for its consideration. This gave the members of the National Association of Manufacturers the opportunity they longed for to open war in San Francisco, and they promptly availed themselves of it. The petition was refused, of course, and two large lime manufacturers in the city took a hand. The contractors resolved on heroic measures, and work was stopped on some sixty buildings to 'bring labor to its senses.' Then Mayor McCarthy came into the controversy. He called his board of public workers together and remarked: 'I see all the contractors are tying up work because of the hod carriers' request. Better notify these fellows to at once clear all streets of building material before these structures and to move away those elevated walks and everything else from the streets.' The board so ordered. Then Mr. McCarthy said: 'Notice that those lime fellows are taking quite an interest in starting trouble. Guess we had better notify them that their temporary permits for railroad spurs to their plants are no longer in force.' And due notice went forth. The result was that the trouble with the hod carriers was settled in a week, and the contemplated industrial war in the city was indefinitely postponed...."

[156] The _Bridgeport Socialist_, Oct. 29, 1911.

[157] The _New York Times_, Oct. 20, 1911.

[158] _New Yorker Volkszeitung_, Dec. 9, 1911.

[159] _New York Evening Post_, Nov. 13, 1911.

[160] _Collier's Weekly_, Dec. 9, 1911.

[161] _Saturday Evening Post_, Nov. 18, 1911.

[162] The _Outlook_, Aug. 26, 1911.

[163] The _New York Call_, Aug. 14, 1911.

[164] W. R. Shier in the _New York Call_, Aug. 16, 1911.

[165] Speech at Carnegie Hall, New York, Oct. 15, 1910.

[166] _Hampton's Magazine_, January, 1911.

[167] "Business," p. 290.

[168] "Business," p. 114.