CHAPTER XIII

SOCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL JUSTICE

By the time I became President I had grown to feel with deep intensity

of conviction that governmental agencies must find their justification

largely in the way in which they are used for the practical betterment

of living and working conditions among the mass of the people. I felt

that the fight was really for the abolition of privilege; and one of the

first stages in the battle was necessarily to fight for the rights of

the workingman. For this reason I felt most strongly that all that the

government could do in the interest of labor should be done. The Federal

Government can rarely act with the directness that the State governments

act. It can, however, do a good deal. My purpose was to make the

National Government itself a model employer of labor, the effort being

to make the per diem employee just as much as the Cabinet officer regard

himself as one of the partners employed in the service of the public,

proud of his work, eager to do it in the best possible manner, and

confident of just treatment. Our aim was also to secure good laws

wherever the National Government had power, notably in the Territories,

in the District of Columbia, and in connection with inter-State

commerce. I found the eight-hour law a mere farce, the departments

rarely enforcing it with any degree of efficiency. This I remedied

by executive action. Unfortunately, thoroughly efficient government

servants often proved to be the prime offenders so far as the

enforcement of the eight-hour law was concerned, because in their zeal

to get good work done for the Government they became harsh taskmasters,

and declined to consider the needs of their fellow-employees who served

under them. The more I had studied the subject the more strongly I had

become convinced that an eight-hour day under the conditions of labor

in the United States was all that could, with wisdom and propriety, be

required either by the Government or by private employers; that more

than this meant, on the average, a decrease in the qualities that tell

for good citizenship. I finally solved the problem, as far as Government

employees were concerned, by calling in Charles P. Neill, the head

of the Labor Bureau; and acting on his advice, I speedily made the

eight-hour law really effective. Any man who shirked his work, who

dawdled and idled, received no mercy; slackness is even worse than

harshness; for exactly as in battle mercy to the coward is cruelty to

the brave man, so in civil life slackness towards the vicious and idle

is harshness towards the honest and hardworking.

We passed a good law protecting the lives and health of miners in the

Territories, and other laws providing for the supervision of employment

agencies in the District of Columbia, and protecting the health

of motormen and conductors on street railways in the District. We

practically started the Bureau of Mines. We provided for safeguarding

factory employees in the District against accidents, and for the

restriction of child labor therein. We passed a workmen's compensation

law for the protection of Government employees; a law which did not

go as far as I wished, but which was the best I could get, and which

committed the Government to the right policy. We provided for an

investigation of woman and child labor in the United States. We

incorporated the National Child Labor Committee. Where we had most

difficulty was with the railway companies engaged in inter-State

business. We passed an act improving safety appliances on railway trains

without much opposition, but we had more trouble with acts regulating

the hours of labor of railway employees and making those railways which

were engaged in inter-State commerce liable for injuries to or the death

of their employees while on duty. One important step in connection with

these latter laws was taken by Attorney-General Moody when, on behalf of

the Government, he intervened in the case of a wronged employee. It

is unjust that a law which has been declared public policy by the

representatives of the people should be submitted to the possibility of

nullification because the Government leaves the enforcement of it to the

private initiative of poor people who have just suffered some crushing

accident. It should be the business of the Government to enforce laws of

this kind, and to appear in court to argue for their constitutionality

and proper enforcement. Thanks to Moody, the Government assumed this

position. The first employers' liability law affecting inter-State

railroads was declared unconstitutional. We got through another, which

stood the test of the courts.

The principle to which we especially strove to give expression, through

these laws and through executive action, was that a right is valueless

unless reduced from the abstract to the concrete. This sounds like a

truism. So far from being such, the effort practically to apply it was

almost revolutionary, and gave rise to the bitterest denunciation of us

by all the big lawyers, and all the big newspaper editors, who, whether

sincerely or for hire, gave expression to the views of the privileged

classes. Ever since the Civil War very many of the decisions of the

courts, not as regards ordinary actions between man and man, but as

regards the application of great governmental policies for social

and industrial justice, had been in reality nothing but ingenious

justification of the theory that these policies were mere high-sounding

abstractions, and were not to be given practical effect. The tendency of

the courts had been, in the majority of cases, jealously to exert their

great power in protecting those who least needed protection and hardly

to use their power at all in the interest of those who most needed

protection. Our desire was to make the Federal Government efficient as

an instrument for protecting the rights of labor within its province,

and therefore to secure and enforce judicial decisions which would

permit us to make this desire effective. Not only some of the Federal

judges, but some of the State courts invoked the Constitution in a

spirit of the narrowest legalistic obstruction to prevent the Government

from acting in defense of labor on inter-State railways. In effect,

these judges took the view that while Congress had complete power as

regards the goods transported by the railways, and could protect wealthy

or well-to-do owners of these goods, yet that it had no power to protect

the lives of the men engaged in transporting the goods. Such judges

freely issued injunctions to prevent the obstruction of traffic in

the interest of the property owners, but declared unconstitutional

the action of the Government in seeking to safeguard the men, and the

families of the men, without whose labor the traffic could not take

place. It was an instance of the largely unconscious way in which the

courts had been twisted into the exaltation of property rights over

human rights, and the subordination of the welfare of the laborer when

compared with the profit of the man for whom he labored. By what I fear

my conservative friends regarded as frightfully aggressive missionary

work, which included some uncommonly plain speaking as to certain unjust

and anti-social judicial decisions, we succeeded in largely, but by no

means altogether, correcting this view, at least so far as the best and

most enlightened judges were concerned.

Very much the most important action I took as regards labor had nothing

to do with legislation, and represented executive action which was not

required by the Constitution. It illustrated as well as anything that

I did the theory which I have called the Jackson-Lincoln theory of the

Presidency; that is, that occasionally great national crises arise which

call for immediate and vigorous executive action, and that in such cases

it is the duty of the President to act upon the theory that he is the

steward of the people, and that the proper attitude for him to take is

that he is bound to assume that he has the legal right to do whatever

the needs of the people demand, unless the Constitution or the laws

explicitly forbid him to do it.

Early in the spring of 1902 a universal strike began in the anthracite

regions. The miners and the operators became deeply embittered, and the

strike went on throughout the summer and the early fall without any sign

of reaching an end, and with almost complete stoppage of mining. In many

cities, especially in the East, the heating apparatus is designed

for anthracite, so that the bituminous coal is only a very partial

substitute. Moreover, in many regions, even in farmhouses, many of the

provisions are for burning coal and not wood. In consequence, the coal

famine became a National menace as the winter approached. In most big

cities and many farming districts east of the Mississippi the shortage

of anthracite threatened calamity. In the populous industrial States,

from Ohio eastward, it was not merely calamity, but the direct disaster,

that was threatened. Ordinarily conservative men, men very sensitive as

to the rights of property under normal conditions, when faced by this

crisis felt, quite rightly, that there must be some radical action. The

Governor of Massachusetts and the Mayor of New York both notified me, as

the cold weather came on, that if the coal famine continued the misery

throughout the Northeast, and especially in the great cities, would

become appalling, and the consequent public disorder so great that

frightful consequences might follow. It is not too much to say that the

situation which confronted Pennsylvania, New York, and New England, and

to a less degree the States of the Middle West, in October, 1902, was

quite as serious as if they had been threatened by the invasion of a

hostile army of overwhelming force.

The big coal operators had banded together, and positively refused

to take any steps looking toward an accommodation. They knew that the

suffering among the miners was great; they were confident that if order

were kept, and nothing further done by the Government, they would win;

and they refused to consider that the public had any rights in the

matter. They were, for the most part, men of unquestionably good private

life, and they were merely taking the extreme individualistic view of

the rights of property and the freedom of individual action upheld in

the _laissez-faire_ political economics. The mines were in the State

of Pennsylvania. There was no duty whatever laid upon me by the

Constitution in the matter, and I had in theory the power to act

directly unless the Governor of Pennsylvania or the Legislature, if

it were in session, should notify me that Pennsylvania could not keep

order, and request me as commander-in-chief of the army of the United

States to intervene and keep order.

As long as I could avoid interfering I did so; but I directed the head

of the Labor Bureau, Carroll Wright, to make a thorough investigation

and lay the facts fully before me. As September passed without any sign

of weakening either among the employers or the striking workmen,

the situation became so grave that I felt I would have to try to do

something. The thing most feasible was to get both sides to agree to a

Commission of Arbitration, with a promise to accept its findings; the

miners to go to work as soon as the commission was appointed, at the old

rate of wages. To this proposition the miners, headed by John Mitchell,

agreed, stipulating only that I should have the power to name the

Commission. The operators, however, positively refused. They insisted

that all that was necessary to do was for the State to keep order, using

the militia as a police force; although both they and the miners asked

me to intervene under the Inter-State Commerce Law, each side requesting

that I proceed against the other, and both requests being impossible.

Finally, on October 3, the representatives of both the operators and the

miners met before me, in pursuance of my request. The representatives of

the miners included as their head and spokesman John Mitchell, who kept

his temper admirably and showed to much advantage. The representatives

of the operators, on the contrary, came down in a most insolent frame of

mind, refused to talk of arbitration or other accommodation of any kind,

and used language that was insulting to the miners and offensive to me.

They were curiously ignorant of the popular temper; and when they went

away from the interview they, with much pride, gave their own account of

it to the papers, exulting in the fact that they had "turned down" both

the miners and the President.

I refused to accept the rebuff, however, and continued the effort to get

an agreement between the operators and the miners. I was anxious to get

this agreement, because it would prevent the necessity of taking

the extremely drastic action I meditated, and which is hereinafter

described.

Fortunately, this time we were successful. Yet we were on the verge of

failure, because of self-willed obstinacy on the part of the operators.

This obstinacy was utterly silly from their own standpoint, and

well-nigh criminal from the standpoint of the people at large. The

miners proposed that I should name the Commission, and that if I put

on a representative of the employing class I should also put on a labor

union man. The operators positively declined to accept the suggestion.

They insisted upon my naming a Commission of only five men, and

specified the qualifications these men should have, carefully choosing

these qualifications so as to exclude those whom it had leaked out I was

thinking of appointing, including ex-President Cleveland. They made the

condition that I was to appoint one officer of the engineer corps of

the army or navy, one man with experience of mining, one "man of

prominence," "eminent as a sociologist," one Federal judge of the

Eastern district of Pennsylvania, and one mining engineer.

They positively refused to have me appoint any representative of labor,

or to put on an extra man. I was desirous of putting on the extra man,

because Mitchell and the other leaders of the miners had urged me

to appoint some high Catholic ecclesiastic. Most of the miners were

Catholics, and Mitchell and the leaders were very anxious to secure

peaceful acquiescence by the miners in any decision rendered, and they

felt that their hands would be strengthened if such an appointment

were made. They also, quite properly, insisted that there should be

one representative of labor on the commission, as all of the others

represented the propertied classes. The operators, however, absolutely

refused to acquiesce in the appointment of any representative of labor,

and also announced that they would refuse to accept a sixth man on the

Commission; although they spoke much less decidedly on this point. The

labor men left everything in my hands.

The final conferences with the representatives of the operators took

place in my rooms on the evening of October 15. Hour after hour went by

while I endeavored to make the operators through their representatives

see that the country would not tolerate their insisting upon such

conditions; but in vain. The two representatives of the operators were

Robert Bacon and George W. Perkins. They were entirely reasonable. But

the operators themselves were entirely unreasonable. They had worked

themselves into a frame of mind where they were prepared to sacrifice

everything and see civil war in the country rather than back down and

acquiesce in the appointment of a representative of labor. It looked as

if a deadlock were inevitable.

Then, suddenly, after about two hours' argument, it dawned on me that

they were not objecting to the thing, but to the name. I found that they

did not mind my appointing any man, whether he was a labor man or

not, so long as he was not appointed _as_ a labor man, or _as_ a

representative of labor; they did not object to my exercising any

latitude I chose in the appointments so long as they were made under the

headings they had given. I shall never forget the mixture of relief

and amusement I felt when I thoroughly grasped the fact that while they

would heroically submit to anarchy rather than have Tweedledum, yet if

I would call it Tweedledee they would accept it with rapture; it gave

me an illuminating glimpse into one corner of the mighty brains of these

"captains of industry." In order to carry the great and vital point and

secure agreement by both parties, all that was necessary for me to do

was to commit a technical and nominal absurdity with a solemn face. This

I gladly did. I announced at once that I accepted the terms laid down.

With this understanding, I appointed the labor man I had all along

had in view, Mr. E. E. Clark, the head of the Brotherhood of Railway

Conductors, calling him an "eminent sociologist"--a term which I doubt

whether he had ever previously heard. He was a first-class man, whom

I afterward put on the Inter-State Commerce Commission. I added to the

Arbitration Commission, on my own authority, a sixth member, in the

person of Bishop Spalding, a Catholic bishop, of Peoria, Ill., one of

the very best men to be found in the entire country. The man whom the

operators had expected me to appoint as the sociologist was Carroll

Wright--who really was an eminent sociologist. I put him on as recorder

of the Commission, and added him as a seventh member as soon as

the Commission got fairly started. In publishing the list of the

Commissioners, when I came to Clark's appointment, I added: "As a

sociologist--the President assuming that for the purposes of such a

Commission, the term sociologist means a man who has thought and studied

deeply on social questions and has practically applied his knowledge."

The relief of the whole country was so great that the sudden appearance

of the head of the Brotherhood of Railway Conductors as an "eminent

sociologist" merely furnished material for puzzled comment on the part

of the press. It was a most admirable Commission. It did a noteworthy

work, and its report is a monument in the history of the relations of

labor and capital in this country. The strike, by the way, brought me

into contact with more than one man who was afterward a valued friend

and fellow-worker. On the suggestion of Carroll Wright I appointed as

assistant recorders to the Commission Charles P. Neill, whom I afterward

made Labor Commissioner, to succeed Wright himself, and Mr. Edward

A. Moseley. Wilkes-Barre was the center of the strike; and the man in

Wilkes-Barre who helped me most was Father Curran; I grew to know

and trust and believe in him, and throughout my term in office, and

afterward, he was not only my stanch friend, but one of the men by whose

advice and counsel I profited most in matters affecting the welfare of

the miners and their families.

I was greatly relieved at the result, for more than one reason. Of

course, first and foremost, my concern was to avert a frightful calamity

to the United States. In the next place I was anxious to save the great

coal operators and all of the class of big propertied men, of which they

were members, from the dreadful punishment which their own folly would

have brought on them if I had not acted; and one of the exasperating

things was that they were so blinded that they could not see that I was

trying to save them from themselves and to avert, not only for their

sakes, but for the sake of the country, the excesses which would have

been indulged in at their expense if they had longer persisted in their

conduct.

The great Anthracite Strike of 1902 left an indelible impress upon

the people of the United States. It showed clearly to all wise and

far-seeing men that the labor problem in this country had entered upon

a new phase. Industry had grown. Great financial corporations, doing a

nation-wide and even a world-wide business, had taken the place of

the smaller concerns of an earlier time. The old familiar, intimate

relations between employer and employee were passing. A few generations

before, the boss had known every man in his shop; he called his men

Bill, Tom, Dick, John; he inquired after their wives and babies; he

swapped jokes and stories and perhaps a bit of tobacco with them. In the

small establishment there had been a friendly human relationship between

employer and employee.

There was no such relation between the great railway magnates, who

controlled the anthracite industry, and the one hundred and fifty

thousand men who worked in their mines, or the half million women and

children who were dependent upon these miners for their daily bread.

Very few of these mine workers had ever seen, for instance, the

president of the Reading Railroad. Had they seen him many of them could

not have spoken to him, for tens of thousands of the mine workers were

recent immigrants who did not understand the language which he spoke and

who spoke a language which he could not understand.

Again, a few generations ago an American workman could have saved money,

gone West and taken up a homestead. Now the free lands were gone. In

earlier days a man who began with pick and shovel might have come to own

a mine. That outlet too was now closed, as regards the immense majority,

and few, if any, of the one hundred and fifty thousand mine workers

could ever aspire to enter the small circle of men who held in their

grasp the great anthracite industry. The majority of the men who earned

wages in the coal industry, if they wished to progress at all, were

compelled to progress not by ceasing to be wage-earners, but by

improving the conditions under which all the wage-earners in all the

industries of the country lived and worked, as well of course, as

improving their own individual efficiency.

Another change which had come about as a result of the foregoing was a

crass inequality in the bargaining relation between the employer and

the individual employee standing alone. The great coal-mining and

coal-carrying companies, which employed their tens of thousands, could

easily dispense with the services of any particular miner. The miner, on

the other hand, however expert, could not dispense with the companies.

He needed a job; his wife and children would starve if he did not get

one. What the miner had to sell--his labor--was a perishable commodity;

the labor of to-day--if not sold to-day--was lost forever. Moreover,

his labor was not like most commodities--a mere thing; it was part of

a living, breathing human being. The workman saw, and all citizens who

gave earnest thought to the matter saw, that the labor problem was not

only an economic, but also a moral, a human problem. Individually the

miners were impotent when they sought to enter a wage-contract with the

great companies; they could make fair terms only by uniting into trade

unions to bargain collectively. The men were forced to cooperate to

secure not only their economic, but their simple human rights. They,

like other workmen, were compelled by the very conditions under which

they lived to unite in unions of their industry or trade, and these

unions were bound to grow in size, in strength, and in power for good

and evil as the industries in which the men were employed grew larger

and larger.

A democracy can be such in fact only if there is some rough

approximation in similarity in stature among the men composing it. One

of us can deal in our private lives with the grocer or the butcher

or the carpenter or the chicken raiser, or if we are the grocer or

carpenter or butcher or farmer, we can deal with our customers, because

_we are all of about the same size_. Therefore a simple and poor society

can exist as a democracy on a basis of sheer individualism. But a rich

and complex industrial society cannot so exist; for some individuals,

and especially those artificial individuals called corporations, become

so very big that the ordinary individual is utterly dwarfed beside them,

and cannot deal with them on terms of equality. It therefore becomes

necessary for these ordinary individuals to combine in their turn, first

in order to act in their collective capacity through that biggest of all

combinations called the Government, and second, to act, also in their

own self-defense, through private combinations, such as farmers'

associations and trade unions.

This the great coal operators did not see. They did not see that their

property rights, which they so stoutly defended, were of the same

texture as were the human rights, which they so blindly and hotly

denied. They did not see that the power which they exercised by

representing their stockholders was of the same texture as the power

which the union leaders demanded of representing the workmen, who had

democratically elected them. They did not see that the right to use

one's property as one will can be maintained only so long as it is

consistent with the maintenance of certain fundamental human rights, of

the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, or, as we

may restate them in these later days, of the rights of the worker to a

living wage, to reasonable hours of labor, to decent working and

living conditions, to freedom of thought and speech and industrial

representation,--in short, to a measure of industrial democracy and, in

return for his arduous toil, to a worthy and decent life according to

American standards. Still another thing these great business leaders did

not see. They did not see that both their interests and the interests of

the workers must be accommodated, and if need be, subordinated, to the

fundamental permanent interests of the whole community. No man and no

group of men may so exercise their rights as to deprive the nation of

the things which are necessary and vital to the common life. A strike

which ties up the coal supplies of a whole section is a strike invested

with a public interest.

So great was that public interest in the Coal Strike of 1902, so deeply

and strongly did I feel the wave of indignation which swept over the

whole country that had I not succeeded in my efforts to induce the

operators to listen to reason, I should reluctantly but none the less

decisively have taken a step which would have brought down upon my head

the execrations of many of "the captains of industry," as well as of

sundry "respectable" newspapers who dutifully take their cue from them.

As a man should be judged by his intentions as well as by his actions, I

will give here the story of the intervention that never happened.

While the coal operators were exulting over the fact that they had

"turned down" the miners and the President, there arose in all parts

of the country an outburst of wrath so universal that even so naturally

conservative a man as Grover Cleveland wrote to me, expressing his

sympathy with the course I was following, his indignation at the conduct

of the operators, and his hope that I would devise some method of

effective action. In my own mind I was already planning effective

action; but it was of a very drastic character, and I did not wish

to take it until the failure of all other expedients had rendered it

necessary. Above all, I did not wish to talk about it until and unless I

actually acted. I had definitely determined that somehow or other act

I would, that somehow or other the coal famine should be broken. To

accomplish this end it was necessary that the mines should be run, and,

if I could get no voluntary agreement between the contending sides, that

an Arbitration Commission should be appointed which would command such

public confidence as to enable me, without too much difficulty, to

enforce its terms upon both parties. Ex-President Cleveland's letter not

merely gratified me, but gave me the chance to secure him as head of the

Arbitration Commission. I at once wrote him, stating that I would very

probably have to appoint an Arbitration Commission or Investigating

Commission to look into the matter and decide on the rights of the

case, whether or not the operators asked for or agreed to abide by the

decisions of such a Commission; and that I would ask him to accept the

chief place on the Commission. He answered that he would do so. I picked

out several first-class men for other positions on the Commission.

Meanwhile the Governor of Pennsylvania had all the Pennsylvania

militia in the anthracite region, although without any effect upon the

resumption of mining. The method of action upon which I had determined

in the last resort was to get the Governor of Pennsylvania to ask me

to keep order. Then I would put in the army under the command of some

first-rate general. I would instruct this general to keep absolute

order, taking any steps whatever that was necessary to prevent

interference by the strikers or their sympathizers with men who wanted

to work. I would also instruct him to dispossess the operators and run

the mines as a receiver until such time as the Commission might make its

report, and until I, as President, might issue further orders in view of

this report. I had to find a man who possessed the necessary good sense,

judgment, and nerve to act in such event. He was ready to hand in the

person of Major-General Schofield. I sent for him, telling him that if

I had to make use of him it would be because the crisis was only less

serious than that of the Civil War, that the action taken would be

practically a war measure, and that if I sent him he must act in a

purely military capacity under me as commander-in-chief, paying no heed

to any authority, judicial or otherwise, except mine. He was a fine

fellow--a most respectable-looking old boy, with side whiskers and a

black skull-cap, without any of the outward aspect of the conventional

military dictator; but in both nerve and judgment he was all right, and

he answered quietly that if I gave the order he would take possession

of the mines, and would guarantee to open them and to run them without

permitting any interference either by the owners or the strikers or

anybody else, so long as I told him to stay. I then saw Senator Quay,

who, like every other responsible man in high position, was greatly

wrought up over the condition of things. I told him that he need be

under no alarm as to the problem not being solved, that I was going to

make another effort to get the operators and miners to come together,

but that I would solve the problem in any event and get coal; that,

however, I did not wish to tell him anything of the details of my

intention, but merely to have him arrange that whenever I gave the word

the Governor of Pennsylvania should request me to intervene; that when

this was done I would be responsible for all that followed, and would

guarantee that the coal famine would end forthwith. The Senator made

no inquiry or comment, and merely told me that he in his turn would

guarantee that the Governor would request my intervention the minute I

asked that the request be made.

These negotiations were concluded with the utmost secrecy, General

Schofield being the only man who knew exactly what my plan was, and

Senator Quay, two members of my Cabinet, and ex-President Cleveland and

the other men whom I proposed to put on the Commission, the only other

men who knew that I had a plan. As I have above outlined, my efforts to

bring about an agreement between the operators and miners were finally

successful. I was glad not to have to take possession of the mines on my

own initiative by means of General Schofield and the regulars. I was all

ready to act, and would have done so without the slightest hesitation or

a moment's delay if the negotiations had fallen through. And my action

would have been entirely effective. But it is never well to take drastic

action if the result can be achieved with equal efficiency in less

drastic fashion; and, although this was a minor consideration, I was

personally saved a good deal of future trouble by being able to avoid

this drastic action. At the time I should have been almost unanimously

supported. With the famine upon them the people would not have tolerated

any conduct that would have thwarted what I was doing. Probably no man

in Congress, and no man in the Pennsylvania State Legislature, would

have raised his voice against me. Although there would have been

plenty of muttering, nothing would have been done to interfere with the

solution of the problem which I had devised, _until the solution was

accomplished and the problem ceased to be a problem_. Once this was

done, and when people were no longer afraid of a coal famine, and began

to forget that they ever had been afraid of it, and to be indifferent as

regards the consequences to those who put an end to it, then my enemies

would have plucked up heart and begun a campaign against me. I doubt if

they could have accomplished much anyway, for the only effective remedy

against me would have been impeachment, and that they would not have

ventured to try.[*]

[*] One of my appointees on the Anthracite Strike Commission

was Judge George Gray, of Delaware, a Democrat whose

standing in the country was second only to that of Grover

Cleveland. A year later he commented on my action as

follows:

"I have no hesitation in saying that the President of the United States

was confronted in October, 1902, by the existence of a crisis more grave

and threatening than any that had occurred since the Civil War. I mean

that the cessation of mining in the anthracite country, brought about

by the dispute between the miners and those who controlled the greatest

natural monopoly in this country and perhaps in the world, had

brought upon more than one-half of the American people a condition

of deprivation of one of the necessaries of life, and the probable

continuance of the dispute threatened not only the comfort and health,

but the safety and good order, of the nation. He was without legal or

constitutional power to interfere, but his position as President of the

United States gave him an influence, a leadership, as first citizen

of the republic, that enabled him to appeal to the patriotism and good

sense of the parties to the controversy and to place upon them the moral

coercion of public opinion to agree to an arbitrament of the strike then

existing and threatening consequences so direful to the whole country.

He acted promptly and courageously, and in so doing averted the dangers

to which I have alluded.

"So far from interfering or infringing upon property rights, the

Presidents' action tended to conserve them. The peculiar situation, as

regards the anthracite coal interest, was that they controlled a natural

monopoly of a product necessary to the comfort and to the very life of a

large portion of the people. A prolonged deprivation of the enjoyment of

this necessary of life would have tended to precipitate an attack upon

these property rights of which you speak; for, after all, it is vain

to deny that this property, so peculiar in its conditions, and which

is properly spoken of as a natural monopoly, is affected with a public

interest.

"I do not think that any President ever acted more wisely, courageously

or promptly in a national crisis. Mr. Roosevelt deserves unstinted

praise for what he did."

They would doubtless have acted precisely as they acted as regards the

acquisition of the Panama Canal Zone in 1903, and the stoppage of

the panic of 1907 by my action in the Tennessee Coal and Iron Company

matter. Nothing could have made the American people surrender the canal

zone. But after it was an accomplished fact, and the canal was

under way, then they settled down to comfortable acceptance of the

accomplished fact, and as their own interests were no longer in

jeopardy, they paid no heed to the men who attacked me because of what I

had done--and also continue to attack me, although they are exceedingly

careful not to propose to right the "wrong," in the only proper way if

it really was a wrong, by replacing the old Republic of Panama under the

tyranny of Colombia and giving Colombia sole or joint ownership of

the canal itself. In the case of the panic of 1907 (as in the case

of Panama), what I did was not only done openly, but depended for its

effect upon being done and with the widest advertisement. Nobody in

Congress ventured to make an objection at the time. No serious leader

outside made any objection. The one concern of everybody was to stop

the panic, and everybody was overjoyed that I was willing to take the

responsibility of stopping it upon my own shoulders. But a few months

afterward, the panic was a thing of the past. People forgot the

frightful condition of alarm in which they had been. They no longer had

a personal interest in preventing any interference with the stoppage of

the panic. Then the men who had not dared to raise their voices until

all danger was past came bravely forth from their hiding places and

denounced the action which had saved them. They had kept a hushed

silence when there was danger; they made clamorous outcry when there was

safety in doing so.

Just the same course would have been followed in connection with the

Anthracite Coal Strike if I had been obliged to act in the fashion I

intended to act had I failed to secure a voluntary agreement between the

miners and the operators. Even as it was, my action was remembered with

rancor by the heads of the great moneyed interests; and as time went by

was assailed with constantly increasing vigor by the newspapers these

men controlled. Had I been forced to take possession of the mines,

these men and the politicians hostile to me would have waited until the

popular alarm was over and the popular needs met, just as they waited

in the case of the Tennessee Coal and Iron Company; and then they

would have attacked me precisely as they did attack me as regards the

Tennessee Coal and Iron Company.

Of course, in labor controversies it was not always possible to champion

the cause of the workers, because in many cases strikes were called

which were utterly unwarranted and were fought by methods which cannot

be too harshly condemned. No straightforward man can believe, and no

fearless man will assert, that a trade union is always right. That

man is an unworthy public servant who by speech or silence, by direct

statement or cowardly evasion, invariably throws the weight of his

influence on the side of the trade union, whether it is right or wrong.

It has occasionally been my duty to give utterance to the feelings of

all right thinking men by expressing the most emphatic disapproval of

unwise or even immoral notions by representatives of labor. The man is

no true democrat, and if an American, is unworthy of the traditions

of his country who, in problems calling for the exercise of a moral

judgment, fails to take his stand on conduct and not on class. There are

good and bad wage-workers just as there are good and bad employers, and

good and bad men of small means and of large means alike.

But a willingness to do equal and exact justice to all citizens,

irrespective of race, creed, section or economic interest and position,

does not imply a failure to recognize the enormous economic, political

and moral possibilities of the trade union. Just as democratic

government cannot be condemned because of errors and even crimes

committed by men democratically elected, so trade-unionism must not be

condemned because of errors or crimes of occasional trade-union leaders.

The problem lies deeper. While we must repress all illegalities and

discourage all immoralities, whether of labor organizations or of

corporations, we must recognize the fact that to-day the organization of

labor into trade unions and federations is necessary, is beneficent,

and is one of the greatest possible agencies in the attainment of a true

industrial, as well as a true political, democracy in the United States.

This is a fact which many well-intentioned people even to-day do not

understand. They do not understand that the labor problem is a human

and a moral as well as an economic problem; that a fall in wages, an

increase in hours, a deterioration of labor conditions mean wholesale

moral as well as economic degeneration, and the needless sacrifice of

human lives and human happiness, while a rise of wages, a lessening of

hours, a bettering of conditions, mean an intellectual, moral and social

uplift of millions of American men and women. There are employers to-day

who, like the great coal operators, speak as though they were lords of

these countless armies of Americans, who toil in factory, in shop, in

mill and in the dark places under the earth. They fail to see that all

these men have the right and the duty to combine to protect themselves

and their families from want and degradation. They fail to see that

the Nation and the Government, within the range of fair play and a just

administration of the law, must inevitably sympathize with the men who

have nothing but their wages, with the men who are struggling for

a decent life, as opposed to men, however honorable, who are merely

fighting for larger profits and an autocratic control of big business.

Each man should have all he earns, whether by brain or body; and

the director, the great industrial leader, is one of the greatest of

earners, and should have a proportional reward; but no man should live

on the earnings of another, and there should not be too gross inequality

between service and reward.

There are many men to-day, men of integrity and intelligence, who

honestly believe that we must go back to the labor conditions of half

a century ago. They are opposed to trade unions, root and branch. They

note the unworthy conduct of many labor leaders, they find instances

of bad work by union men, of a voluntary restriction of output, of

vexations and violent strikes, of jurisdictional disputes between unions

which often disastrously involve the best intentioned and fairest of

employers. All these things occur and should be repressed. But the same

critic of the trade union might find equal causes of complaint against

individual employers of labor, or even against great associations of

manufacturers. He might find many instances of an unwarranted cutting of

wages, of flagrant violations of factory laws and tenement house laws,

of the deliberate and systematic cheating of employees by means of truck

stores, of the speeding up of work to a point which is fatal to the

health of the workman, of the sweating of foreign-born workers, of

the drafting of feeble little children into dusty workshops, of

black-listing, of putting spies into union meetings and of the

employment in strike times of vicious and desperate ruffians, who

are neither better nor worse than are the thugs who are occasionally

employed by unions under the sinister name, "entertainment committees."

I believe that the overwhelming majority, both of workmen and of

employers, are law-abiding peaceful, and honorable citizens, and I do

not think that it is just to lay up the errors and wrongs of individuals

to the entire group to which they belong. I also think--and this is

a belief which has been borne upon me through many years of practical

experience--that the trade union is growing constantly in wisdom as well

as in power, and is becoming one of the most efficient agencies toward

the solution of our industrial problems, the elimination of poverty and

of industrial disease and accidents, the lessening of unemployment,

the achievement of industrial democracy and the attainment of a larger

measure of social and industrial justice.

If I were a factory employee, a workman on the railroads or a

wage-earner of any sort, I would undoubtedly join the union of my trade.

If I disapproved of its policy, I would join in order to fight that

policy; if the union leaders were dishonest, I would join in order to

put them out. I believe in the union and I believe that all men who are

benefited by the union are morally bound to help to the extent of their

power in the common interests advanced by the union. Nevertheless,

irrespective of whether a man should or should not, and does or does

not, join the union of his trade, all the rights, privileges and

immunities of that man as an American and as a citizen should be

safeguarded and upheld by the law. We dare not make an outlaw of any

individual or any group, whatever his or its opinions or professions.

The non-unionist, like the unionist, must be protected in all his legal

rights by the full weight and power of the law.

This question came up before me in the shape of the right of a non-union

printer named Miller to hold his position in the Government Printing

Office. As I said before, I believe in trade unions. I always prefer to

see a union shop. But any private preferences cannot control my public

actions. The Government can recognize neither union men nor non-union

men as such, and is bound to treat both exactly alike. In the Government

Printing Office not many months prior to the opening of the Presidential

campaign of 1904, when I was up for reelection, I discovered that a man

had been dismissed because he did not belong to the union. I reinstated

him. Mr. Gompers, the President of the American Federation of Labor,

with various members of the executive council of that body, called upon

me to protest on September 29, 1903, and I answered them as follows:

"I thank you and your committee for your courtesy, and I appreciate the

opportunity to meet with you. It will always be a pleasure to see you

or any representative of your organizations or of your Federation as a

whole.

"As regards the Miller case, I have little to add to what I have already

said. In dealing with it I ask you to remember that I am dealing purely

with the relation of the Government to its employees. I must govern

my action by the laws of the land, which I am sworn to administer,

and which differentiate any case in which the Government of the United

States is a party from all other cases whatsoever. These laws are

enacted for the benefit of the whole people, and cannot and must not be

construed as permitting the crimination against some of the people. I

am President of all the people of the United States, without regard to

creed, color, birthplace, occupation or social condition. My aim is

to do equal and exact justice as among them all. In the employment and

dismissal of men in the Government service I can no more recognize

the fact that a man does or does not belong to a union as being for or

against him than I can recognize the fact that he is a Protestant or a

Catholic, a Jew or a Gentile, as being for or against him.

"In the communications sent me by various labor organizations protesting

against the retention of Miller in the Government Printing Office, the

grounds alleged are twofold: 1, that he is a non-union man; 2, that he

is not personally fit. The question of his personal fitness is one to be

settled in the routine of administrative detail, and cannot be allowed

to conflict with or to complicate the larger question of governmental

discrimination for or against him or any other man because he is or is

not a member of a union. This is the only question now before me for

decision; and as to this my decision is final."

Because of things I have done on behalf of justice to the workingman, I

have often been called a Socialist. Usually I have not taken the trouble

even to notice the epithet. I am not afraid of names, and I am not

one of those who fear to do what is right because some one else will

confound me with partisans with whose principles I am not in accord.

Moreover, I know that many American Socialists are high-minded and

honorable citizens, who in reality are merely radical social reformers.

They are oppressed by the brutalities and industrial injustices which we

see everywhere about us. When I recall how often I have seen Socialists

and ardent non-Socialists working side by side for some specific measure

of social or industrial reform, and how I have found opposed to them on

the side of privilege many shrill reactionaries who insist on calling

all reformers Socialists, I refuse to be panic-stricken by having this

title mistakenly applied to me.

None the less, without impugning their motives, I do disagree most

emphatically with both the fundamental philosophy and the proposed

remedies of the Marxian Socialists. These Socialists are unalterably

opposed to our whole industrial system. They believe that the payment of

wages means everywhere and inevitably an exploitation of the laborer

by the employer, and that this leads inevitably to a class war between

those two groups, or, as they would say, between the capitalists and the

proletariat. They assert that this class war is already upon us and

can only be ended when capitalism is entirely destroyed and all the

machines, mills, mines, railroads and other private property used in

production are confiscated, expropriated or taken over by the workers.

They do not as a rule claim--although some of the sinister extremists

among them do--that there is and must be a continual struggle between

two great classes, whose interests are opposed and cannot be reconciled.

In this war they insist that the whole government--National, State and

local--is on the side of the employers and is used by them against

the workmen, and that our law and even our common morality are class

weapons, like a policeman's club or a Gatling gun.

I have never believed, and do not to-day believe, that such a class war

is upon us, or need ever be upon us; nor do I believe that the interests

of wage-earners and employers cannot be harmonized, compromised and

adjusted. It would be idle to deny that wage-earners have certain

different economic interests from, let us say, manufacturers or

importers, just as farmers have different interests from sailors, and

fishermen from bankers. There is no reason why any of these economic

groups should not consult their group interests by any legitimate means

and with due regard to the common, overlying interests of all. I do

not even deny that the majority of wage-earners, because they have less

property and less industrial security than others and because they do

not own the machinery with which they work (as does the farmer) are

perhaps in greater need of acting together than are other groups in the

community. But I do insist (and I believe that the great majority of

wage-earners take the same view) that employers and employees have

overwhelming interests in common, both as partners in industry and as

citizens of the republic, and that where these interests are apart they

can be adjusted by so altering our laws and their interpretation as to

secure to all members of the community social and industrial justice.

I have always maintained that our worst revolutionaries to-day are those

reactionaries who do not see and will not admit that there is any need

for change. Such men seem to believe that the four and a half million

Progressive voters, who in 1912 registered their solemn protest against

our social and industrial injustices, are "anarchists," who are not

willing to let ill enough alone. If these reactionaries had lived at an

earlier time in our history, they would have advocated Sedition Laws,

opposed free speech and free assembly, and voted against free schools,

free access by settlers to the public lands, mechanics' lien laws, the

prohibition of truck stores and the abolition of imprisonment for debt;

and they are the men who to-day oppose minimum wage laws, insurance

of workmen against the ills of industrial life and the reform of

our legislators and our courts, which can alone render such measures

possible. Some of these reactionaries are not bad men, but merely

shortsighted and belated. It is these reactionaries, however, who, by

"standing pat" on industrial injustice, incite inevitably to industrial

revolt, and it is only we who advocate political and industrial

democracy who render possible the progress of our American industry

on large constructive lines with a minimum of friction because with a

maximum of justice.

Everything possible should be done to secure the wage-workers fair

treatment. There should be an increased wage for the worker of

increased productiveness. Everything possible should be done against the

capitalist who strives, not to reward special efficiency, but to use

it as an excuse for reducing the reward of moderate efficiency. The

capitalist is an unworthy citizen who pays the efficient man no more

than he has been content to pay the average man, and nevertheless

reduces the wage of the average man; and effort should be made by the

Government to check and punish him. When labor-saving machinery

is introduced, special care should be taken--by the Government if

necessary--to see that the wage-worker gets his share of the benefit,

and that it is not all absorbed by the employer or capitalist. The

following case, which has come to my knowledge, illustrates what I mean.

A number of new machines were installed in a certain shoe factory, and

as a result there was a heavy increase in production even though there

was no increase in the labor force. Some of the workmen were instructed

in the use of these machines by special demonstrators sent out by the

makers of the machines. These men, by reason of their special aptitudes

and the fact that they were not called upon to operate the machines

continuously nine hours every day, week in and week out, but only for an

hour or so at special times, were naturally able to run the machines at

their maximum capacity. When these demonstrators had left the factory,

and the company's own employees had become used to operating the

machines at a fair rate of speed, the foreman of the establishment

gradually speeded the machines and demanded a larger and still larger

output, constantly endeavoring to drive the men on to greater exertions.

Even with a slightly less maximum capacity, the introduction of this

machinery resulted in a great increase over former production with the

same amount of labor; and so great were the profits from the business in

the following two years as to equal the total capitalized stock of the

company. But not a cent got into the pay envelope of the workmen beyond

what they had formerly been receiving before the introduction of this

new machinery, notwithstanding that it had meant an added strain,

physical and mental, upon their energies, and that they were forced

to work harder than ever before. The whole of the increased profits

remained with the company. Now this represented an "increase of

efficiency," with a positive decrease of social and industrial justice.

The increase of prosperity which came from increase of production in no

way benefited the wage-workers. I hold that they were treated with gross

injustice; and that society, acting if necessary through the Government,

in such a case should bend its energies to remedy such injustice; and

I will support any proper legislation that will aid in securing the

desired end.

The wage-worker should not only receive fair treatment; he should give

fair treatment. In order that prosperity may be passed around it is

necessary that the prosperity exist. In order that labor shall receive

its fair share in the division of reward it is necessary that there be

a reward to divide. Any proposal to reduce efficiency by insisting that

the most efficient shall be limited in their output to what the least

efficient can do, is a proposal to limit by so much production, and

therefore to impoverish by so much the public, and specifically to

reduce the amount that can be divided among the producers. This is all

wrong. Our protest must be against unfair division of the reward for

production. Every encouragement should be given the business man, the

employer, to make his business prosperous, and therefore to earn more

money for himself; and in like fashion every encouragement should be

given the efficient workman. We must always keep in mind that to reduce

the amount of production serves merely to reduce the amount that is

to be divided, is in no way permanently efficient as a protest against

unequal distribution and is permanently detrimental to the entire

community. But increased productiveness is not secured by excessive

labor amid unhealthy surroundings. The contrary is true. Shorter hours,

and healthful conditions, and opportunity for the wage-worker to make

more money, and the chance for enjoyment as well as work, all add to

efficiency. My contention is that there should be no penalization of

efficient productiveness, brought about under healthy conditions;

but that every increase of production brought about by an increase in

efficiency should benefit all the parties to it, including wage-workers

as well as employers or capitalists, men who work with their hands as

well as men who work with their heads.

With the Western Federation of Miners I more than once had serious

trouble. The leaders of this organization had preached anarchy, and

certain of them were indicted for having practiced murder in the case of

Governor Steunenberg, of Idaho. On one occasion in a letter or speech I

coupled condemnation of these labor leaders and condemnation of certain

big capitalists, describing them all alike as "undesirable citizens."

This gave great offense to both sides. The open attack upon me was made

for the most part either by the New York newspapers which were frankly

representatives of Wall Street, or else by those so-called--and

miscalled--Socialists who had anarchistic leanings. Many of the latter

sent me open letters of denunciation, and to one of them I responded as

follows:

THE WHITE HOUSE, WASHINGTON, April 22, 1907.

Dear Sir:

I have received your letter of the 19th instant, in which you enclose

the draft of the formal letter which is to follow. I have been notified

that several delegations, bearing similar requests, are on the way

hither. In the letter you, on behalf of the Cook County, Moyer-Haywood

conference, protest against certain language I used in a recent letter

which you assert to be designed to influence the course of justice

in the case of the trial for murder of Messrs. Moyer and Haywood. I

entirely agree with you that it is improper to endeavor to influence the

course of justice, whether by threats or in any similar manner. For this

reason I have regretted most deeply the actions of such organizations as

your own in undertaking to accomplish this very result in the very case

of which you speak. For instance, your letter is headed "Cook

County Moyer-Haywood-Pettibone Conference," with the headlines:

"_Death_--cannot--will not--and shall not claim our brothers!" This

shows that you and your associates are not demanding a fair trial, or

working for a fair trial, but are announcing in advance that the verdict

shall only be one way and that you will not tolerate any other verdict.

Such action is flagrant in its impropriety, and I join heartily in

condemning it.

But it is a simple absurdity to suppose that because any man is on trial

for a given offense he is therefore to be freed from all criticism upon

his general conduct and manner of life. In my letter to which you object

I referred to a certain prominent financier, Mr. Harriman, on the one

hand, and to Messrs. Moyer, Haywood and Debs on the other, as being

equally undesirable citizens. It is as foolish to assert that this was

designed to influence the trial of Moyer and Haywood as to assert that

it was designed to influence the suits that have been brought against

Mr. Harriman. I neither expressed nor indicated any opinion as to

whether Messrs. Moyer and Haywood were guilty of the murder of Governor

Steunenberg. If they are guilty, they certainly ought to be punished.

If they are not guilty, they certainly ought not to be punished. But no

possible outcome either of the trial or the suits can affect my judgment

as to the undesirability of the type of citizenship of those whom I

mentioned. Messrs. Moyer, Haywood, and Debs stand as representatives of

those men who have done as much to discredit the labor movement as the

worst speculative financiers or most unscrupulous employers of labor and

debauchers of legislatures have done to discredit honest capitalists and

fair-dealing business men. They stand as the representatives of those

men who by their public utterances and manifestoes, by the utterances of

the papers they control or inspire, and by the words and deeds of those

associated with or subordinated to them, habitually appear as guilty of

incitement to or apology for bloodshed and violence. If this does

not constitute undesirable citizenship, then there can never be any

undesirable citizens. The men whom I denounce represent the men who

have abandoned that legitimate movement for the uplifting of labor, with

which I have the most hearty sympathy; they have adopted practices which

cut them off from those who lead this legitimate movement. In every way

I shall support the law-abiding and upright representatives of labor,

and in no way can I better support them than by drawing the sharpest

possible line between them on the one hand, and, on the other hand,

those preachers of violence who are themselves the worst foes of the

honest laboring man.

Let me repeat my deep regret that any body of men should so far forget

their duty to the country as to endeavor by the formation of societies

and in other ways to influence the course of justice in this matter.

I have received many such letters as yours. Accompanying them

were newspaper clippings announcing demonstrations, parades, and

mass-meetings designed to show that the representatives of labor,

without regard to the facts, demand the acquittal of Messrs. Haywood and

Moyer. Such meetings can, of course, be designed only to coerce court

or jury in rendering a verdict, and they therefore deserve all the

condemnation which you in your letters say should be awarded to those

who endeavor improperly to influence the course of justice.

You would, of course, be entirely within your rights if you merely

announced that you thought Messrs. Moyer and Haywood were "desirable

citizens"--though in such case I should take frank issue with you and

should say that, wholly without regard to whether or not they are guilty

of the crime for which they are now being tried, they represent as

thoroughly undesirable a type of citizenship as can be found in this

country; a type which, in the letter to which you so unreasonably take

exception, I showed not to be confined to any one class, but to exist

among some representatives of great capitalists as well as among some

representatives of wage-workers. In that letter I condemned both types.

Certain representatives of the great capitalists in turn condemned

me for including Mr. Harriman in my condemnation of Messrs. Moyer and

Haywood. Certain of the representatives of labor in their turn condemned

me because I included Messrs. Moyer and Haywood as undesirable citizens

together with Mr. Harrison. I am as profoundly indifferent to the

condemnation in one case as in the other. I challenge as a right the

support of all good Americans, whether wage-workers or capitalists,

whatever their occupation or creed, or in whatever portion of the

country they live, when I condemn both the types of bad citizenship

which I have held up to reprobation. It seems to be a mark of utter

insincerity to fail thus to condemn both; and to apologize for either

robs the man thus apologizing of all right to condemn any wrongdoing in

any man, rich or poor, in public or in private life.

You say you ask for a "square deal" for Messrs. Moyer and Haywood. So

do I. When I say "Square deal," I mean a square deal to every one; it is

equally a violation of the policy of the square deal for a capitalist to

protest against denunciation of a capitalist who is guilty of wrongdoing

and for a labor leader to protest against the denunciation of a labor

leader who has been guilty of wrongdoing. I stand for equal justice to

both; and so far as in my power lies I shall uphold justice, whether

the man accused of guilt has behind him the wealthiest corporation, the

greatest aggregations of riches in the country, or whether he has behind

him the most influential labor organization in the country.

I treated anarchists and the bomb-throwing and dynamiting gentry

precisely as I treated other criminals. Murder is murder. It is not

rendered one whit better by the allegation that it is committed

on behalf of "a cause." It is true that law and order are not all

sufficient; but they are essential; lawlessness and murderous violence

must be quelled before any permanence of reform can be obtained. Yet

when they have been quelled, the beneficiaries of the enforcement of

law must in their turn be taught that law is upheld as a means to the

enforcement of justice, and that we will not tolerate its being turned

into an engine of injustice and oppression. The fundamental need in

dealing with our people, whether laboring men or others, is not charity

but justice; we must all work in common for the common end of

helping each and all, in a spirit of the sanest, broadest and deepest

brotherhood.

It was not always easy to avoid feeling very deep anger with the

selfishness and short-sightedness shown both by the representatives of

certain employers' organizations and by certain great labor federations

or unions. One such employers' association was called the National

Association of Manufacturers. Extreme though the attacks sometimes made

upon me by the extreme labor organizations were, they were not quite

as extreme as the attacks made upon me by the head of the National

Association of Manufacturers, and as regards their attitude toward

legislation I came to the conclusion toward the end of my term that the

latter had actually gone further the wrong way than did the former--and

the former went a good distance also. The opposition of the National

Association of Manufacturers to every rational and moderate measure

for benefiting workingmen, such as measures abolishing child labor, or

securing workmen's compensation, caused me real and grave concern; for

I felt that it was ominous of evil for the whole country to have men who

ought to stand high in wisdom and in guiding force take a course and use

language of such reactionary type as directly to incite revolution--for

this is what the extreme reactionary always does.

Often I was attacked by the two sides at once. In the spring of 1906 I

received in the same mail a letter from a very good friend of mine who

thought that I had been unduly hard on some labor men, and a letter from

another friend, the head of a great corporation, who complained about me

for both favoring labor and speaking against large fortunes. My answers

ran as follows:

April 26, 1906.

"Personal. _My dear Doctor_:

"In one of my last letters to you I enclosed you a copy of a letter of

mine, in which I quoted from [So and so's] advocacy of murder. You may

be interested to know that he and his brother Socialists--in reality

anarchists--of the frankly murderous type have been violently attacking

my speech because of my allusion to the sympathy expressed for murder.

In _The Socialist_, of Toledo, Ohio, of April 21st, for instance, the

attack [on me] is based specifically on the following paragraph of my

speech, to which he takes violent exception:

"We can no more and no less afford to condone evil in the man of capital

than evil in the man of no capital. The wealthy man who exults because

there is a failure of justice in the effort to bring some trust magnate

to an account for his misdeeds is as bad as, and no worse than, the

so-called labor leader who clamorously strives to excite a foul class

feeling on behalf of some other labor leader who is implicated in

murder. One attitude is as bad as the other, and no worse; in each case

the accused is entitled to exact justice; and in neither case is there

need of action by others which can be construed into an expression of

sympathy for crime.

"Remember that this crowd of labor leaders have done all in their

power to overawe the executive and the courts of Idaho on behalf of men

accused of murder, and beyond question inciters of murder in the past."

April 26, 1906.

"_My dear Judge_:

"I wish the papers had given more prominence to what I said as to the

murder part of my speech. But oh, my dear sir, I utterly and radically

disagree with you in what you say about large fortunes. I wish it were

in my power to devise some scheme to make it increasingly difficult to

heap them up beyond a certain amount. As the difficulties in the way

of such a scheme are very great, let us at least prevent their being

bequeathed after death or given during life to any one man in excessive

amount.

"You and other capitalist friends, on one side, shy off at what I say

against them. Have you seen the frantic articles against me by [the

anarchists and] the Socialists of the bomb-throwing persuasion, on the

other side, because of what I said in my speech in reference to those

who, in effect, advocate murder?"

On another occasion I was vehemently denounced in certain capitalistic

papers because I had a number of labor leaders, including miners from

Butte, lunch with me at the White House; and this at the very time that

the Western Federation of Miners was most ferocious in its denunciation

of me because of what it alleged to be my unfriendly attitude toward

labor. To one of my critics I set forth my views in the following

letter:

November 26, 1903.

"I have your letter of the 25th instant, with enclosure. These men, not

all of whom were miners, by the way, came here and were at lunch with

me, in company with Mr. Carroll D. Wright, Mr. Wayne MacVeagh, and

Secretary Cortelyou. They are as decent a set of men as can be. They all

agreed entirely with me in my denunciation of what had been done in the

Court d'Alene country; and it appeared that some of them were on the

platform with me when I denounced this type of outrage three years ago

in Butte. There is not one man who was here, who, I believe, was in

any way, shape or form responsible for such outrages. I find that the

ultra-Socialistic members of the unions in Butte denounced these men for

coming here, in a manner as violent--and I may say as irrational--as the

denunciation [by the capitalistic writer] in the article you sent me.

Doubtless the gentleman of whom you speak as your general manager is

an admirable man. I, of course, was not alluding to him; but I most

emphatically _was_ alluding to men who write such articles as that you

sent me. These articles are to be paralleled by the similar articles in

the Populist and Socialist papers when two years ago I had at dinner

at one time Pierpont Morgan, and at another time J. J. Hill, and at

another, Harriman, and at another time Schiff. Furthermore, they could

be paralleled by the articles in the same type of paper which at the

time of the Miller incident in the Printing Office were in a condition

of nervous anxiety because I met the labor leaders to discuss it. It

would have been a great misfortune if I had not met them; and it would

have been an even greater misfortune if after meeting them I had yielded

to their protests in the matter.

"You say in your letter that you know that I am 'on record' as opposed

to violence. Pardon my saying that this seems to me not the right way to

put the matter, if by 'record' you mean utterance and not action. Aside

from what happened when I was Governor in connection, for instance with

the Croton dam strike riots, all you have to do is to turn back to what

took place last June in Arizona--and you can find out about it from

[Mr. X] of New York. The miners struck, violence followed, and the

Arizona Territorial authorities notified me they could not grapple with

the situation. Within twenty minutes of the receipt of the telegram,

orders were issued to the nearest available troops, and twenty-four

hours afterwards General Baldwin and his regulars were on the ground,

and twenty-four hours later every vestige of disorder had disappeared.

The Miners' Federation in their meeting, I think at Denver, a short

while afterwards, passed resolutions denouncing me. I do not know

whether the _Mining and Engineering Journal_ paid any heed to this

incident or know of it. If the _Journal_ did, I suppose it can hardly

have failed to understand that to put an immediate stop to rioting by

the use of the United States army is a fact of importance beside which

the criticism of my having 'labor leaders' to lunch, shrinks into the

same insignificance as the criticism in a different type of paper about

my having 'trust magnates' to lunch. While I am President I wish the

labor man to feel that he has the same right of access to me that the

capitalist has; that the doors swing open as easily to the wage-worker

as to the head of a big corporation--_and no easier_. Anything else

seems to be not only un-American, but as symptomatic of an attitude

which will cost grave trouble if persevered in. To discriminate against

labor men from Butte because there is reason to believe that rioting has

been excited in other districts by certain labor unions, or individuals

in labor unions in Butte, would be to adopt precisely the attitude of

those who desire me to discriminate against all capitalists in Wall

street because there are plenty of capitalists in Wall Street who

have been guilty of bad financial practices and who have endeavored to

override or evade the laws of the land. In my judgment, the only safe

attitude for a private citizen, and still more for a public servant, to

assume, is that he will draw the line on conduct, discriminating against

neither corporation nor union as such, nor in favor of either as such,

but endeavoring to make the decent member of the union and the upright

capitalists alike feel that they are bound, not only by self-interest,

but by every consideration of principle and duty to stand together on

the matters of most moment to the nation."

On another of the various occasions when I had labor leaders to dine

at the White House, my critics were rather shocked because I had John

Morley to meet them. The labor leaders in question included the heads

of the various railroad brotherhoods, men like Mr. Morrissey, in

whose sound judgment and high standard of citizenship I had peculiar

confidence; and I asked Mr. Morley to meet them because they represented

the exact type of American citizen with whom I thought he ought to be

brought in contact.

One of the devices sometimes used by big corporations to break down the

law was to treat the passage of laws as an excuse for action on their

part which they knew would be resented by the public, it being their

purpose to turn this resentment against the law instead of against

themselves. The heads of the Louisville and Nashville road were bitter

opponents of everything done by the Government toward securing good

treatment for their employees. In February, 1908, they and various

other railways announced that they intended to reduce the wages of

their employees. A general strike, with all the attendant disorder and

trouble, was threatened in consequence. I accordingly sent the following

open letter to the Inter-State Commerce Commission:

February 16, 1908.

"To the Inter-State Commerce Commission:

"I am informed that a number of railroad companies have served notice

of a proposed reduction of wages of their employees. One of them, the

Louisville and Nashville, in announcing the reduction, states that 'the

drastic laws inimical to the interests of the railroads that have in the

past year or two been enacted by Congress and the State Legislatures'

are largely or chiefly responsible for the conditions requiring the

reduction.

"Under such circumstances it is possible that the public may soon be

confronted by serious industrial disputes, and the law provides that in

such case either party may demand the services of your Chairman and

of the Commissioner of Labor as a Board of Mediation and Conciliation.

These reductions in wages may be warranted, or they may not. As to this

the public, which is a vitally interested party, can form no judgment

without a more complete knowledge of the essential facts and real merits

of the case than it now has or than it can possibly obtain from the

special pleadings, certain to be put forth by each side in case their

dispute should bring about serious interruption to traffic. If the

reduction in wages is due to natural causes, the loss of business being

such that the burden should be and is, equitably distributed between

capitalist and wage-worker, the public should know it. If it is caused

by legislation, the public, and Congress, should know it; and if it is

caused by misconduct in the past financial or other operations of any

railroad, then everybody should know it, especially if the excuse of

unfriendly legislation is advanced as a method of covering up past

business misconduct by the railroad managers, or as a justification for

failure to treat fairly the wage-earning employees of the company.

"Moreover, an industrial conflict between a railroad corporation and

its employees offers peculiar opportunities to any small number of

evil-disposed persons to destroy life and property and foment public

disorder. Of course, if life, property, and public order are endangered,

prompt and drastic measures for their protection become the first plain

duty. All other issues then become subordinate to the preservation of

the public peace, and the real merits of the original controversy are

necessarily lost from view. This vital consideration should be ever

kept in mind by all law-abiding and far-sighted members of labor

organizations.

"It is sincerely to be hoped, therefore, that any wage controversy that

may arise between the railroads and their employees may find a peaceful

solution through the methods of conciliation and arbitration already

provided by Congress, which have proven so effective during the past

year. To this end the Commission should be in a position to have

available for any Board of Conciliation or Arbitration relevant data

pertaining to such carriers as may become involved in industrial

disputes. Should conciliation fail to effect a settlement and

arbitration be rejected, accurate information should be available in

order to develop a properly informed public opinion.

"I therefore ask you to make such investigation, both of your records

and by any other means at your command, as will enable you to furnish

data concerning such conditions obtaining on the Louisville and

Nashville and any other roads, as may relate, directly or indirectly, to

the real merits of the possibly impending controversy.

"THEODORE ROOSEVELT."

This letter achieved its purpose, and the threatened reduction of

wages was not made. It was an instance of what could be accomplished

by governmental action. Let me add, however, with all the emphasis I

possess, that this does not mean any failure on my part to recognize the

fact that if governmental action places too heavy burdens on railways,

it will be impossible for them to operate without doing injustice to

somebody. Railways cannot pay proper wages and render proper service

unless they make money. The investors must get a reasonable profit or

they will not invest, and the public cannot be well served unless the

investors are making reasonable profits. There is every reason why rates

should not be too high, but they must be sufficiently high to allow

the railways to pay good wages. Moreover, when laws like workmen's

compensation laws, and the like are passed, it must always be kept in

mind by the Legislature that the purpose is to distribute over the whole

community a burden that should not be borne only by those least able

to bear it--that is, by the injured man or the widow and orphans of the

dead man. If the railway is already receiving a disproportionate return

from the public, then the burden may, with propriety, bear purely on the

railway; but if it is not earning a disproportionate return, then the

public must bear its share of the burden of the increased service the

railway is rendering. Dividends and wages should go up together; and the

relation of rates to them should never be forgotten. This of course does

not apply to dividends based on water; nor does it mean that if foolish

people have built a road that renders no service, the public must

nevertheless in some way guarantee a return on the investment; but it

does mean that the interests of the honest investor are entitled to

the same protection as the interests of the honest manager, the honest

shipper and the honest wage-earner. All these conflicting considerations

should be carefully considered by Legislatures before passing laws. One

of the great objects in creating commissions should be the provision of

disinterested, fair-minded experts who will really and wisely consider

all these matters, and will shape their actions accordingly. This is one

reason why such matters as the regulation of rates, the provision for

full crews on roads and the like should be left for treatment by railway

commissions, and not be settled off hand by direct legislative action.

APPENDIX

SOCIALISM

As regards what I have said in this chapter concerning Socialism, I

wish to call especial attention to the admirable book on "Marxism versus

Socialism," which has just been published by Vladimir D. Simkhovitch.

What I have, here and elsewhere, merely pointed out in rough and

ready fashion from actual observation of the facts of life around me,

Professor Simkhovitch in his book has discussed with keen practical

insight, with profundity of learning, and with a wealth of applied

philosophy. Crude thinkers in the United States, and moreover honest and

intelligent men who are not crude thinkers, but who are oppressed by

the sight of the misery around them and have not deeply studied what has

been done elsewhere, are very apt to adopt as their own the theories

of European Marxian Socialists of half a century ago, ignorant that the

course of events has so completely falsified the prophecies contained

in these theories that they have been abandoned even by the authors

themselves. With quiet humor Professor Simkhovitch now and then makes

an allusion which shows that he appreciates to perfection this rather

curious quality of some of our fellow countrymen; as for example when

he says that "A Socialist State with the farmer outside of it is a

conception that can rest comfortably only in the head of an American

Socialist," or as when he speaks of Marx and Engels as men "to whom

thinking was not an irrelevant foreign tradition." Too many thoroughly

well-meaning men and women in the America of to-day glibly repeat and

accept--much as medieval schoolmen repeated and accepted authorized

dogma in their day--various assumptions and speculations by Marx and

others which by the lapse of time and by actual experiment have been

shown to possess not one shred of value. Professor Simkhovitch possesses

the gift of condensation as well as the gift of clear and logical

statement, and it is not possible to give in brief any idea of his

admirable work. Every social reformer who desires to face facts should

study it--just as social reformers should study John Graham Brooks's

"American Syndicalism." From Professor Simkhovitch's book we Americans

should learn: First, to discard crude thinking; second, to realize that

the orthodox or so-called scientific or purely economic or materialistic

socialism of the type preached by Marx is an exploded theory; and,

third, that many of the men who call themselves Socialists to-day are in

reality merely radical social reformers, with whom on many points good

citizens can and ought to work in hearty general agreement, and whom

in many practical matters of government good citizens well afford to

follow.