It is to be regretted that among those measures that failed to become laws through stress of circumstances in the crowded moments at the close of the last session of Congress, was included a bill to incorporate the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America.

The introduction of the bill in the national House of Representatives was the outcome of a conference participated in by nearly eight hundred of our leading business men, held in Washington during the 15th and 16th of last April, April, at the invitation of former President Taft, who was led to call them together by a widespread desire that certain plans be considered having in view the promotion of the commercial welfare.

The idea was not to benefit any particular locality, but to enCourage trade generally throughout the country and in our territories and island possessions, "to the end," as one of the delegates stated, "that in all the waiting markets in the world the products of American brains, genius and labor might be found." As a result, the plan of creating an institution in the nature of a National Chamber of Commerce, with headquarters at the federal capital, was devised, and soon afterwards a number of volunteers effected a temporary organization.

Already a most efficient executive and secretarial force is at work, offices have been opened in Washington and the temporary association has had no difficulty in securing the co-operation and financial support of the local Chambers of Commerce and Boards of Trade of many of our most important cities. The names of the individual members designated as incor

porators in the bill are Horace H. Allen, Bernard N. Baker, Frederick Bode, A. M. Cooper, C. G. Craddock, A. C. Dixon, John Joy Edson, John H. Fahey, A. B. Farquhar, Everett G. Griggs, H. J. Dodge, P. J. Kruesi, I. H. Kempner, B. F. Kauffman, Albert J. Logan, William D. Mullen, Elias Michael, Ludwig Nissen, Francis F. Prentiss, Lewis W. Parker, John P. Truesdell, J. N. Teal, W. B. Thompson, August H. Vogel, Harry A. Wheeler, George H. Whitcher, Harry T. Wickes and E. P. Wells.

"The purpose of those seeking this charter," said Congressman James F. Burke, at the hearing before the House Committee on the Judiciary, "is to encourage trade and commercial intercourse among the states, territories and insular possessions of the United States and with foreign nations by the collection and transmission of information affecting commerce in general, and not transactions incident to a single industry, or to a few industries in a single state, or a few states, but with reference to all those commercial matters, communities and commodities in which the American people have, or should have, an interest. The ultimate object is to enlarge those fields and increase their activities in which American genius and industry should assume that real leadership for which they are so eminently fitted, and as a consequence of which our nation will be enriched commercially and strengthened politically throughout the world.

"To this end," he continued, "the Congress may fittingly exercise its power. As the Supreme Court in the North River Bridge case declared: 'Congress being empowered by the constitution to regulate commerce

The

among its states and to pass laws necessary or proper for carrying into execution any of the powers specifically conferred, may make use of any legitimate means for this end. Congress, therefore, may create corporations as appropriate means of executing the powers of government.' propriety of granting this charter is found in the fact that virtually all the commercial bodies. Boards of Trade, Chambers of Commerce and kindred organizations throughout the United States have planned its organization and are about to participate in its activities. Business integrity and commercial patriotism will both be enhanced, the volume of trade increased and the means and manner of conducting our commercial affairs improved."

"Its possible usefulness." the House Committee adds, after quoting the above, in its report, "is practically unlimited, both as to our domestic and foreign relations. With the collection, publication and distribution of commercial statistics alone it can do incalculable good." There would seem to be little doubt also that, as the friends of the measure claim, the permanent establishment of such an institution would tend to bring into much closer touch the commercial geniuses of the country, and, by providing a source of information respecting the needs, and the traffic, trade and labor conditions in the various sections, do much to harmonize the conflicting opinions that now so often result from incomplete knowledge and misunderstanding.

HAYWOOD GOADED

"Big Bill" at Last Answers President
Moyer

President Moyer, of the Western Federation of Miners, who has been pounding away at William D. Haywood for some time has at last started "Big Bill", who has written him as follows from Vancouver, B. C., Canada:

"Sir: In the official organ of the Western Federation of Miners, issue of Feb. 6th, there appears a statement under the caption 'A Near View of Bill Haywood,' the same purporting to be from Adolph Germer. It could only have been written with your connivance and approval. You know that what he sets forth as facts regarding collections made by me in behalf of Steve Adams are contemptible and malicious lies.

"You have in the office of the Western Federation of Miners my report of all collections made and the expense account incident to the same. You know that it was not I who failed of an accounting and you further know that up to this time, though nearly five years have passed, the W. F. of M. has failed to make an adjustment.

"In view of my standing with the working class, I am entitled to a hearing and a vindication; it is not for you, the jealous enemy, to condemn me ex-parte.

"The Socialist party and organized labor generally are entitled to know the truth in connection with these charges, and to this end I demand that a representative committee be authorized to make a complete investigation and report of my stewardship of the finances of the Western Federation of Miners, this investigation to cover the entire period of my official connection with the W. F. of M.

"You are to name two of a committee of five, I will name two, who will be in all ways satisfactory to the Socialist and Labor movement. the four members thus appointed to select the fifth member of said committee.

"This committee to have free access to all documents, papers, books, minutes and files of the organization.

"You must agree to this investigation or stand branded of guilt worse than that of which you would convict

me.

(Signed) WILLIAM D. HAYWOOD."

UNLAWFUL

Rights of Labor Unions and Employers
Defined

Judge Alston G. Dayton, of the United States District Court of the northern district of West Virginia, handed down a decision recently which he granted a perpetual injunction against the United Mine Workers of America, its officers, agents and members at the request of the Hitchman Coal & Coke Co., of Wheeling, W. Va. The case was begun at the time of a strike four years ago, but this decision made the injunction, originally granted, effective in the present strike situation. The affect of the decision is substantially to declare the mine workers' union unlawful.

Without any reference to the legal aspect of the case, the history of the dealings between the Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. and the mine workers forms an interesting chapter. The mines of the company are situated in what is known as the Pan Handle of West Virginia, just across the Ohio river from the state of Ohio, being within the jurisdiction of what is known as sub-district five of the Ohio end of the United Mine Workers. The mines of the company were first operated in 1903 as non-union mines. Some of the company's stockholders were owners of a mine near Mt. Pleasant, O., which was operated as a union mine. The first appearance of the union came in the shape of a notice that if it did not operate its mines in West Virginia as union, the mines owned by the same people in Ohio would be shut down by a strike.

On

April 1, 1903, the demand was agreed to and the mine operated as union. The very next day a strike was called over a dispute regarding the scale price for run of mine and was compromised by the union receiving a slight increase. From April 23, 1903, until April 20, 1904, the mine was operated, but on the latter date a strike was called again. This time the union officials were not satisfied with the agreement of the year before, and demanded an average as distinct from the tonnage basis.

The company yielded to the demands and the men went back to work June 15, 1904. The following April the union demanded a return to the tonnage basis and this return was granted. A year later the socalled national strike was called, and the Hitchman Co., after vainly trying to have the union live up to its contracts, was included. This sort of

thing, strike year in and out, continued until finally the company ordered all the union men out of the mines, and made them sign an agreement not to join the union. The result was that nearly all the men went back to work as non-union men and the local surrendered its charter. From this time until September 21, 1909, there was all sorts of trouble. The men of the company were harassed and picketed and everything was done to make their lives miserable.

The company has applied for an injunction to keep the union organizers away from their premises and to prevent the picketing of their mines. On September 21, the date above, Judge Dayton granted a pre

liminary injunction. Subsequently the union asked for an order modifying the injunction, which was a sweeping one, but this was refused. The union thereupon made an appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals for that particular circuit. This court decided that it had no jurisdiction and the case was then prepared for final hearing. The hearings before Judge Day

ton lasted for months. Several thousand pages of testimony were taken and many hundreds more of letters and records of the unions read into the evidence. Finally the hearings were closed and in December of 1912, Judge Dayton decided that the injunction should be perpetual, and in January it was so ordered.

In his opinion, Judge Dayton traces the history of trade unionism in England, both under the common law and the statutes, and gradually works around to the point where he says:

"I have made this review of the English legislation and decisions in regard thereto to make clear the demonstration of the propositions:

"First. That these union combinations, under the law, must be considered in their three-fold relation, (a) to their own members, (b) to those who may employ such members, and (c) to the public interests.

"Second. That in their relations to their respective members, they cannot, even under the advanced legislation of England, undertake to require by oath, by-law, constitution or rule, a surrender by such of their members of their individual freedom of action; that when they seek to do so they become illegal and, while tolerated in England under the trade union acts, nevertheless there, by reason of their illegality, neither can the unions. enforce such contracts with their members or members with the unions.

"Third. That the question of legality is to be terminated from an examination of the union's constitution, by-laws or rules, as they may be called, and while some such rules may be lawful, yet if others unlawful in character are of such weight and importance as to dominate the

course of such union's action, or if the lawful and unlawful ones are so interdependent or intermingled as to render separation one from the other impracticable, then the organization becomes wholly illegal.

"Fourth. That in their relations to the employers of their members, while they may use all peaceful efforts to advance their members' interests, in the way of aiding them to secure better wages, shorter hours of labor and better conditions in which to work, they cannot accomplish these ends by any acts of violence, coercion or intimidation on their part or at their instance. They may not by common law, and in the absence of permissive legislation such as that of the English act of 1906, interfere with the contracts which their members have entered into and which are existing between an employer and his employes, nor by any means induce such employes to break such contract or contracts. To break a legal contract is unlawful, therefore, to persuade or induce one to do this unlawful thing is in itself unlawful. Further, these unions have no right by intimidation or coercion to destroy the inherent right vested in the employer to control his property and conduct his business in any lawful manner he may choose. Such employer may fix the terms and conditions upon which he will give employment; may employ whom he desires, refuse to employ whom it pleases him to deny employment; may discharge (in absence of contract) whom he pleases and refuse to discharge whom he pleases. It is entirely within the right of the union to advise its members, in the absence of contract on their part with the employer to quit their labor for him, to strike, in other words, and insist upon other and different terms of employment before they return to their labor, but neither the union or its striking members have any right by intimidation or coercion to prevent other laborers or the members of the union itself from assuming the employment under the employer's terms if they so desire. There may be reasoning and persuasion under such