of jurisprudence is an audacious plutocratic coup, which an independent and courageous judiciary would have checked at the first hint or suggestion.

"Our opponents charge that the labor organizations want power without responsibility, special immunities, and privileges in order to escape the legal consequences of their acts. "This is false and nonsensical.

"The unions object to special judge-made laws directed against them. The unions do not seek to be a law unto themselves.

"Hold them responsible under the general laws, punish them for torts and crimes when they are really guilty, but do not stretch the law to establish a 'responsibility' which has never been imposed on voluntary associations.

"Labor has declined to incorporate, thus avoiding its enemies' trap. But thanks to unscrupulous lawyers and subservient, bigoted, or ignorant judges, plutocracy may be able to accomplish the same result the seizure of union property, the crippling of labor by ruinous litigation and all sorts of legal entanglements without incorporation."

Trade unions are not formed for the accumulation of property, nor for the making of profits. They are formed of individuals who must of necessity come together for mutual protection and advancement. Their work constitutes a great and noble contribution to the advancement of all humanity. Labor power is not a product. It is flesh and blood, brain and brawn. It is a part of the human being. Labor power is the inherent power in human beings to produce commodities for the sustenance of life. To suggest that this power and these qualities of the human race should be incorporated by law is to suggest a desperation on the part of employers which must be curbed for the very safety of society. 4. In the event of incorporation should the power of injunction. be limited?

In this question the workers are asked to barter one evil for another. The workers are asked whether they prefer being struck on the left cheek. The trade union movement does not indulge in that kind of trading. It opposes all injustice. The character and integrity of the trade union movement should be better known than to permit of such an astounding suggestion.

The question of the injunction must be treated as a separate question. The trade union attitude toward the injunction is best

illustrated in the declaration adopted by representatives of Amer ican labor meeting in Washington, D. C., December 13, 1919:

"The paramount issues that concern all the people of the United States, and in particular the wage-earners, are the perversion and the abuse of the writ of injunction and the necessity for full and adequate protection of the voluntary associations of wage-earners organized not for profit.

"Government by injunction has grown out of the perversion of the injunction process. By the misuse of that process workers have been forbidden to do those things which they have a natural and constitutional right to do.

"The injunction as now used is a revolutionary measure which substitutes government by judicial discretion or bias for government by law. It substitutes a trial by one man, a judge, in his discretion, for a trial by jury. This abuse of the injunctive process undermines and destroys the very foundations of our free institutions. It is subversive of the spirit of a free people working out their destiny in an orderly and rational manner.

"Because we have reverence for law, because we believe that every citizen must be a guardian of the heritage given us by our fathers who fought for an established freedom and democracy, by every lawful means, we must resist the estab lishment of a practice that would destroy the very spirit of freedom and democracy. Our protest against the abuse of the writ of injunction and its unwarranted application to labor in the exercise of labor's normal activities to realize laudable aspirations is a duty we owe to ourselves and to posterity.

"Formerly injunctions issued in labor disputes were of a prohibitive character. Within the recent past this abuse of the injunction writ has been enlarged to include mandatory orders whereby men have been compelled to do specific things which they have a lawful right to refrain from doing.

"We declare these abuses in the exercise of the injunction writ are clearly violative of the constitution and that this issue must be determined definitely in accordance with the guarantees of the Constitution of the United States."

5. Should such organizations come within the provision of or be specifically exempt from anti-trust laws?

Trade union organizations, as well as co-operative organizations and organizations of farmers organized not for profit but for the mutual benefit and protection of their members, should be specifically exempt from the provisions of anti-trust laws. Existing law declares that the labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce. The Clayton Law lays down the guiding principle in this respect and this principle cannot, with safety, be abandoned or destroyed. It is the principle that should be followed in all states.

6. In joint conferences should the general principle be recognized that employees have the right to choose their own representatives from within or without the plant involved?

The principle should always be accepted that employees have the right to choose their own representatives from within or without the plant. Corporations, combinations of investors, dominate the field of American industry. Of necessity they operate through representatives. In selecting those who are to speak for them or negotiate for them corporations choose whom they wish. The selection is not even made by the stockholders; it is made by the directors or by an officer. There is no limitation upon the field from which selection may be made. Labor demands for itself no more than the same rights exercised by the employers. The moment it is sought to exercise any outside control over the selection of labor's representatives, at that moment a measure of democracy disappears and autocratic control begins to reclaim its lost privileges. The employer has no more right to dictate to trade unionists whom they shall select as their representatives than the employees have to dictate to the employers. In fact, representatives cannot be representative unless they are chosen freely by those who are to be represented. The right to be heard by counsel is a constitutional guarantee. That principle must not be denied, but firmly established in the industrial relations between employers and employees.

7. Do you approve of the general principles of the Kansas Court of Industrial Relations Law, and if so should it be adopted by other states and by the Federal Government as far as applicable?

The general principles in what is known as the Kansas Court of Industrial Relations Law are principles that are so anti-democratic as to he reprehensible in the extreme and repugnant to

every American concept of justice, freedom and democracy. This is not the place to enter into an extended argument in relation to the Kansas law. It may be said, however, that the principles around which the law is built are the principles of compulsion and coercion constituting a negation of freedom and voluntary effort. Safety, success and justice in American industry can be achieved only through joint, constructive, voluntary effort and through the free negotiation between employers and workers in the industry.

The principle which it is sought to set up in legislation similar to that enacted in Kansas is in distinct violation of section 1 of Article XIII of the Constitution of the United States, which reads as follows:

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

8. Should lockouts and strikes be restricted by law and, if so, how?

(a) In government employment.

(b) In public utilities.

(c) In private employments.

In this question there is a continuance of the discussion of compulsion and coercion. It must be understood in American industry, in practice as it has been established in law, that "the labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce.' Acceptance of that principle makes impossible legisla tion limiting the right to cease work-strike. The difference between a strike and a lockout is this: The strike is a resort to the final argument by workers seeking to establish better conditions and higher concepts in industry. A lockout is a resort to the final argument in denial of those aspirations.

The American labor movement believes that those in the employ of the government should secure redress for wrongs, through the political machinery of the nation. It is, however, equally firm in the belief that the right of such employees to cease work must be maintained. The right should be maintained, but there should never be occasion to use it.

9. What, if any, is the proper function of the secondary strike or boycott?

Definition of the proper function of what is termed in the questionnaire "secondary strike" (which, by the way, is an employer's definition) and what is the proper function of the boycott cannot well be set forth within the limitation of a proper reply to this questionnaire. It is neither possible nor desirable to set forth a dictionary definition of these terms. In its struggle to establish greater democracy in industry, a struggle which began with efforts to secure the most simple and elemental measures of justice, the measures that have been used by labor have to a large degree necessarily been determined by the conditions under which the struggle has been made. Where the boycott has been used, it has not been used out of any desire on the part of labor to do any injury to others, but it has been used because the tactics of the employers left to labor no other course to pursue. The same may be said regarding what the questionnaire terms "the secondary strike." It is not possible, nor is it desirable by law or decree to limit the freedom of action of working people who may either singly or collectively seek to improve the conditions under which they live and thus to make more valuable to the country their services and their citizenship. It would be inhuman to deny to any one group the right to go to the assistance of another group. History is largely made up of the struggles of groups of people to overcome their environment and to overcome oppression by other groups. The allied and associated nations in the World. War could not have combined to overthrow German autocracy if they had permitted themselves to be bound by the principle which it is here sought to set up.

At various times and under varying conditions the struggle has taken on different forms and at times it has been attended by a roughness and even a crudeness which in the abstract might appear to be undesirable. The fact that civilization is today at such an advanced stage is due solely to this age-long struggle. No intelligent person will deny that much improvement still is necessary. Neither will any intelligent person deny that there must be a continuance of the struggle if that improvement is to be secured. Regardless of what men may write into books, the struggle will take the form, for the most part, at least, which is demanded by the conditions under which it is waged. Under any circumstances employers have no property right in the labor power of human beings nor has any one a property right in the patronage of the people.