Fifty years in Wall Street
of pay. A greater injustice and a more flagrant inequity cannot be found
in the whole range of the world’s social institutions; nor is the wrong
the less culpable because the members voluntarily inflict it upon
themselves; for as “no man liveth unto himself” but has dependents for
whom he is bound to do the best in his power, so no man is free to throw
away to the less industrious or less competent what his superior
abilities and industry have earned for himself.
This levelling system is not only in defiance of the law of varied
endowment which the Creator has incorporated into the constitution of
humanity, but it tends to bind into one cast-iron man the entire working
community, debarring them from all chances of progress and consigning
them to a degrading condition of semi-slavery or serfdom. Time was when
the way was clear to any workingman in this country to the highest
positions of wealth, or of social standing or political influence. As a
matter of fact, a large proportion of our present successful merchants,
and not a few even of our millionaires, are men who have risen from the
ranks of labor. The first steps in their progress were won by the
superiority of their skill or faithfulness as workmen, which qualified
them to rise step by step to higher achievements. Then, the workman was
free to rise according to his abilities and his character; he was the
free ruler of his own destiny. Now, it seems the tendency of the trades
unions is to obliterate all such distinctions and virtually debar the
workman from the possibility of earning a rank among his fellowmen
proportioned to his merits; and on this plan the American workman would
be as completely cut off from the chances of social elevation, as was
the American slave twenty-five years ago. This would be a terrible
degradation, of which every man who enjoys the rights of American
citizenship should deem himself incapable and feel ashamed.
However much political leaders, and even some who rejoice in the
reputation of economists, may feel disposed to regard these combinations
as a social necessity of the time, and an institution that has come to
stay, I cannot resist the conviction that the trades-union movement has
already seen its culmination and is destined to a steady disintegration,
unless the system is greatly modified. The principle of combination is
useless unless it can be successfully employed to compel employers to
accept the terms of the employees. In fact, it has been almost the sole
object of the unions to employ it, through the agency of strikes, to
compel the acquiescence of capital. Up to a recent period, it has been
largely successful in this sense. So long as employers could at all
afford to comply with the demands of labor, they would make considerable
sacrifices to avoid the inconvenience and loss connected with the
interruption of their operations involved in a strike. At last, however,
the workingmen advanced their demands to a pitch so seriously
threatening to industry and so vitally dangerous to the material
interests of the country at large, that employers saw, with common
consent, that the time had come when a square issue must be made with
this modern invasion on their rights.
The spring of 1886 will always be memorable, for its having brought to a
fair test the power and principles of trades-unionism. Strikes were
suddenly initiated on a stupendous scale, upon the railroads, among the
western factories, and among the larger employers in the Middle States,
partly to enforce demands for higher wages, partly to shorten the time
of work to eight hours a day, and above all, to compel employers to
recognize the leaders of the unions in determining the conditions of
employment and to submit all disputes between the two parties to
arbitration. Employers, simultaneously, but without any concert of
action, met the challenge squarely. They refused to concede the demands
made; they in many instances declined to recognize the officers of the
unions; they proceeded promptly to fill the places of the strikers with
non-union men, and refused to make formal conditions with returning
strikers; they brought to bear upon the leaders of the strikes the laws
against conspiracy; and they took the “boycotters” before the courts.
The result of this treatment was an almost universal failure of the
strikers; the declaration by the courts that the compulsory methods of
the unions are illegal, and in the nature of conspiracies; the throwing
out of employment of tens of thousands of union employees, and the
exhaustion of the funds raised by the unions for enforcing their
coercive tactics.
The result of the contest was that, within one brief month, the power of
the unions was shown to be weakness itself; employers everywhere
discovered the intrinsic importance of the combinations they had so much
before dreaded, and very many respectable and reflecting members of the
unions felt themselves discredited in the eyes of the public, while
their faith in the efficiency of their system of supposed protection was
seriously shaken. After this, if I am not seriously mistaken, employers
will find that they have much less to fear from trades-unions than they
had once supposed. A defeat so fundamental as this, is likely to be
followed by the gradual dispersion of the formidable array of united
workmen. Such a result is no more than is to be reasonably expected from
an organization based upon no great truth and no sound principle, but
resting upon popular ignorance and misconception of the natural laws
governing society.
During the progress of the recent strikes, I had occasion to make
frequent allusions to the course of events, from which I may be
permitted to make the following quotations:
(The following appeared on the 3d of May.)
“The Knights of Labor have undertaken to test, upon a large
scale, the application of compulsion as a means of enforcing
their demands. The point to be determined is, whether capital or
labor shall, in future, determine the terms upon which the
invested resources of the nation are to be employed.
“To the employer it is a question whether his individual rights
as to the control of his property shall be so far overborne as
not only to deprive him of his freedom, but also expose him to
interference seriously impairing the value of his capital. To
the employees, it is a question whether, by the force of
coercion, they can wrest, to their own profit, powers and
control, which, in every civilized community, are secured as the
most sacred and inalienable rights of the employer.
“This issue is so absolutely revolutionary of the moral
relations between labor and capital, that it has naturally
produced a partial paralysis of business, especially among
industries whose operations involve contracts extending into the
future. There has been at no time any serious apprehensions that
such an anarchical movement could succeed, so long as American
citizens have a clear perception of their rights and their true
interests; but it has been distinctly perceived that this war
could not fail to create a divided, if not a hostile feeling,
between the two great classes of society; that it must hold in
check not only a large extent of ordinary business operations,
but also the undertaking of those new enterprises which
contribute to our national progress, and that the commercial
markets must be subjected to serious embarrassments.
“From the nature of the case, however, this labor disease must
soon end one way or another; and there is not much difficulty in
foreseeing what its termination will be. The demands of the
Knights and their sympathizers, whether openly expressed or
temporarily concealed, are so utterly revolutionary of the
inalienable rights of the citizen, and so completely subversive
of social order, that the whole community has come to a firm
conclusion that those pretensions must be resisted to the last
extremity of endurance and authority; and that the present is
the best opportunity for meeting the issue firmly and upon its
merits. The organizations have sacrificed the sympathy which
lately was entertained for them, on account of inequities
existing in certain employments; they stand discredited and
distrusted before the community at large as impracticable,
unjust and reckless; and, occupying this attitude before the
public, their cause is gone and their organization doomed to
failure. They have opened the flood gates to the immigration of
foreign labor, which is already pouring in by tens of thousands;
and they have set a premium on non-union labor, which will be
more sought after than ever, and will not be slow to secure
superior earnings by making arrangements with employers upon
such terms and for such hours as may best suit their interests.
Thus, one great advantage will incidentally come out of this
crisis beneficial to the workingman, who, by standing aloof from
the dead-level system of the unions, will be able to earn
according to his capacity, and thereby maintain his chances for
rising from the rank of the employee to that of the employer.
This result cannot be long delayed, because not only is loss and
suffering following close upon the heels of the strikers, but
the imprudences of their leaders are breeding dissatisfaction
among the rank and file of the organizations, which if much
further protracted, will gravely threaten their cohesion. It is
by no means certain that we may not see a further spread of
strikes, and possibly with even worse forms of violence than we
have yet witnessed; but, so long as a way to the end is seen,
with a chance of that end demonstrating to the organizations
that their aspirations to control capital are impossible dreams,
the temporary evils will be borne with equanimity. The coolness
with which the past phases of the strikes have been endured,
shows that the steady judgment of our people may be trusted to
keep them calm under any further disturbance that may arise.
“Prior to the strike in the Missouri Pacific, Jay Gould was one
of the most hated men in the people. He was anxious to have
public respect and sympathy. He had made all the money he
wanted, and was willing to spend part of it in gaining the
respect and honor of the country. What his money could not do
for him this strike on the Missouri Pacific has done. The
sympathy and good-will which previously were with the strikers
have been shifted from them to him. There is no doubt that the
strikers selected the Missouri Pacific because it was a property
with which Gould was known to be most largely identified, and
because they thought that general execration would be poured out
on him in any event. But, instead of injuring Mr. Gould, they
have done him inestimable service.
“The timely and forcible action of Mayor Harrison, of Chicago,
will put dynamiters and rioters where they belong, and thus
divide the sheep from the goats in a very short time. If
officials would sink political bias, the country would soon be
rid of law-breakers and disturbers of the peace. As this plan of
treatment has now been adopted, it will be far reaching in its
effect, and stop mob gatherings, riotous speech-making, and
other such bad incentives, which recently have been so
conspicuous in Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Louis, and elsewhere. The
laboring classes, who are parties to the strike, will now have
an opportunity to retire to their homes, where there will be