THE LABOR QUESTION AND THE SOCIAL PROBLEM 773
No self-respecting and enlightened unionist will claim the right to assault, molest, or intimidate the employer or the non-union laborer. The leaders of organized labor cannot always control the ignorant and reckless, but there is no reason for doubting their sincerity when they declare, as Mr. John Mitchell did at the time of the coal strike, that the worst enemy of unionism is he who, as member or sympathizer, resorts to violence and disturbs the peace. Employers point out, with justice, that the leaders do not sufficiently discourage the use of violence by their follow- ers. How many violent strikers or aggressive pickets have been expelled in disgrace for their misconduct ? Be this as it may, theoretically there is complete unanimity as to the immorality and inexpediency of violence and intimidation as a feature of indus- trial disputes.
Here, unfortunately, agreement begins and ends. Beyond this point there is confusion. Many practices which union labor vigorously defends and boldly threatens to continue are bitterly denounced by the employers and the majority of newspapers as vicious, odious, un-American, and invasive. The reference is to picketing (watching and besetting), boycotting, threats of boy- cotting, sympathetic strikes, and refusal to work with non-union men (opposition to the "open shop"). If organized labor con- sented to eschew these practices, the hostility toward it would quickly disappear; but neither admonitions, sermons, damage suits, nor judicial decisions will induce labor to surrender these weapons. It earnestly denies that the use of them involves invasion, destruction of the free market, and when you call its attention to judicial utterances condemnatory of the practices, either the judges are accused of prejudice and bias, or else other judicial opinions are cited in which the opposite doctrines are expounded and applied.
The fact is, the labor leaders have adopted radically individu- alist views. A singular change has come over the spirit of their position. They are still charged with socialistic proclivities, and it is true that some of their legislative proposals are utterly incompatible with the individualistic creed. But read the speeches and editorials of Messrs. Gompers, Mitchell, Kidd, etaL,
