in its operating head. Not many months after the change I had the opportunity to inquire of a foreman how things were working under the new management. "Sir," was the reply, "there isn't a man in the works but what would go straight through hell with the new boss if he wanted it." I told the ". new boss" the story; and all he said was, "I guess they know that I'd do the same for them." That was the voice of a man an exceptional man; but what he really accomplished represents a kind of result which all of us will do well to keep in view.

In the great railroad strikes of 1877, when the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, at that time a far less conservatively managed organization than it has since become, — intoxicated with its successes in the South, ordered a general tie-up of New England, the men of the New York & New England Railroad met the order with a flat refusal. They had no other reason, and they gave no other reason, than their loyalty to a man who was at that time a superintendent of no particular reputation or influence outside of his own immediate sphere of duty, Charles P. Clark, who afterward became president of the road. That one man by his personality not only prevented a general strike throughout New England, but by that act restored the balance of industrial force in the United States at a time when it was more seriously threatened than it ever has been before or since.

A few years later, when a strike on the Union Pacific Railroad was scheduled by the Knights of Labor, the president of that road prevented the strike by the simple expedient of so arranging matters that the responsibility for the interruption of public service would at each stage of the proceedings be clearly put upon the labor leaders themselves. If the company had been simply claiming the right to serve itself, they would have claimed an equal right to serve themselves, and might very possibly have had the sympathy of the public behind them. But when matters were so arranged in advance that the responsibility for the interruption rested upon their shoulders alone, even the Knights of Labor and Western Knights of Labor at that shrank from

taking the responsibility of a conflict with the nation. Of course strikes will continue to occur after all precautions are taken. They may come to the man or the company that least deserves it. But we can impress upon the managers of corporations the duty of showing more solicitude for the protection of the public against the disastrous results of the strike when it does come, and the unwisdom of saying much about the sacredness of the rights of private property under the Constitution at a time when such words can only irritate the employees and alienate the suffering public.

There is, indeed, a sacredness of property right in this country which goes far beyond the letter of the Constitution. The Constitution guarantees that no man shall be deprived of his property without due process of law; that no state shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contract; and that a corporation has the right of a person in the sense of being entitled to fair and equal treatment. The conservatism of the American people goes farther than this. It supports a business man in the exercise of his traditional rights, because it believes, on the basis of the experience of centuries, that the exercise of these rights will conduce to the public interests. It puts the large industries of the country in the hands of corporations, even when this results in creating corporate monopoly, because it distrusts the unrestricted extension of government activity, and believes that business is on the whole better handled by commercial agencies than by political ones. But every case of failure to meet public needs somewhat shakes the public in this confidence; and this confidence is not only shaken but destroyed if the manager of a corporation claims immunity from interference as a moral or constitutional right, independent of the public interests involved.

Personally, I am one of those who look with serious distrust on each extension of political activity. I believe that the interstate commerce law1 did more to prevent wise railroad regulation than any other event in the history of the country. I think

1 A federal act for the regulation of railroad rates, passed in 1887. — Editors.

that the courts would have dealt with our industrial problems better than they have done if the antitrust act1 had never been passed. I have gravely doubted the wisdom of some of the more recent measures passed by the national government. But I cannot shut my eyes to the fact that these things are what business men must expect unless business ethics is somewhat modified to meet existing conditions. Industrial corporations grew up into power because they met the needs of the past. To stay in power, they must meet the needs of the present, and arrange their ethics accordingly. If they can do it by their own voluntary development of the sense of trusteeship, that is the simplest and best solution. But if not, one of two things will happen: vastly increased legal regulation, or state ownership of monopolies. Those who fear the effects of increased government activity must prove by their acceptance of ethical duties to the public that they are not blind devotees of an industrial past which has ceased to exist, but are preparing to accept the heavier burdens and obligations which the industrial present carries with it.

1 Passed by Congress in 1890 to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies." ― Editors.

XV

THE LABOR QUESTION FROM THE
SOCIALIST STANDPOINT

WILLIAM MORRIS

[William Morris (1834–1896) as a man of letters was distinguished for his interest in the revival of medieval romanticism. In his public life he was probably still more widely known as a sympathetic and practical philanthropist, and a remarkably gifted designer, craftsman, and printer of exquisite books. His social views embrace the belief that much of the sordidness and misery occasioned by our modern industrial system may be eliminated by a benevolent socialism, and that the gradual return of simpler conditions of life and a more sincere attitude toward the question of class relationships will revive in man a dignified personal interest in the labor of his hands. In this connection he defines his conception of art: "The thing which I understand by real art is the expression by man of his pleasure in labor. I do not believe he can be happy in his labor without expressing that happiness." It is a point of importance that his interest in socialistic theories was the outgrowth of his study of medieval art, and of the social conditions which produced it. Morris stands with John Ruskin not as a skilled economic theorist, but as the exponent of a generous and enlightened humanitarianism.

The Labor Question from the Socialist Standpoint, which is one of Morris's numerous addresses on socialistic topics, was delivered as a lecture in Scotland in 1886, and was printed in Edinburgh as a penny pamphlet in the same year. The lecture is a criticism of the oppressive tendencies of modern commercialism, and not an attempt to formulate a program of amelioration.]

I HAVE been asked to give you the socialist view on the labor question. Now, in some ways that is a difficult matter to deal with far beyond my individual capacities - and would also be a long business; yet in another way, as a matter of principle, it is not difficult to understand or long to tell of, and it does not need previous study or acquaintance with the works

of specialists or philosophers. Indeed, if it did, it would not be a political subject, and I hope to show you that it is preëminently political in the sense in which I should use the word; that is to say, that it is a matter which concerns every one, and has to do with the practical everyday relations of his life, and that not only as an individual, but as a member of a body corporate, nay, as a member of that great corporation - humanity. Thus considered, it would be hard indeed if it could not be understood readily by a person of ordinary intelligence who can bring his mind to bear upon prejudice. Such a person can learn the basis of the opinion in even an hour's talk, if the matter be clearly put before him: it is my task to attempt this; and whether I fail or succeed, I can at least promise you to use no technical phrases which would require explanation; nor will I, as far as I can help, go into any speculative matter, but will be as plain and practical as I can be.

Yet I must warn you that you may be disappointed when you find that I have no elaborate plan, no details of a new society to lay before you, that to my mind to attempt this would be putting before you a mere delusion. What I ask you to consider is in the main the clearing away of certain obstacles that stand in the way of the due and unwasteful use of labor a task not light, indeed, nor to be accomplished without the most strenuous effort in the teeth of violent resistance, but yet not impossible for humanity as we know it, and, as I firmly believe, not only necessary, but as things now are, the one thing essential to be undertaken.

Now, you all know that, taking mankind as a whole, it is necessary for man to labor in order to live. Certainly not all things that we enjoy are the works of man's labor; the beauty of the earth, and the action of nature on our sensations, are always here for us to enjoy, but we can only do so on the terms of our keeping ourselves alive and in good case by means of labor, and no inventions can set aside that necessity. The merest savage has to pluck the berry from the tree, or dig up the root from the ground before he can enjoy his dog-like sleep