T

CHAPTER V.

THE FARMER AND THE LABOR QUESTION.

HE farmer does not sell his labor, but the products thereof. He is largely an employer of labor, hoping by the sale of the product thus obtained to make a profit. The "laborer"-especially the skilled laborer-sells his labor direct to capitalists, who hope to sell the resulting product at a profit. With the money obtained from the capitalist from the sale of his labor, the laborer buys produce from the farmer. Economically, therefore, the relation of the farmer to the laborer is that of either a buyer of labor or a seller of produce. It is to the farmer's interest to have labor cheap and produce dear. It is to the interest of the laborer that produce shall be cheap and labor dear. Nothing can change these conditions so long as men are deemed entitled to the products of their own labor and land, and permitted to buy and sell as they may agree with each other.

It does not follow that this economic antagonism should produce enmity. All classes are in economic antagonism with all other classes, and must remain so while men compete with each other, and yet upon the whole they get on together, because at the bottom they have an identical interest in the fact that each has a surplus of what some other lacks. Their mutual necessity to trade together is the bond which unites all classes, and should prevent economic differences from culminating in mutual hate. As between individuals brought into personal contact, hostility does not ordinarily result from trading. Occasionally it does, but friendship results quite as often. As between classes whose members do not mingle freely with those of other classes there is more danger. If one class, upon the average, is prosperous, and the other, upon the whole, unfortunate, enmity is quite certain to result. In this lies the danger to modern society, to be escaped only

by mutual forbearance, and mediation or repression by the consolidated social force.

Between the farmers and the laboring classes there is a certain bond of union in the fact that both conceive themselves to be suffering from the oppression of consolidated wealth. The most discontented farmers and the most discontented laborers are at times quite inclined to unite for political action. This tendency is promoted by the fact that between the farmers and the workingmen there is a buffer class of tradesmen, which impartially receives the kicks which the two classes would bestow upon each other if they dealt directly. At the same time fariners belong logically with capitalists and employers (or exploiters), and as attached to the private ownership of land, must oppose one of the fundamental dogmas of a large body of workingmen.

Before considering the relations of the farmers to the labor question it is necessary, if we can, to define the labor question. This is not easy to do, because workingmen do not agree in their demands. We are compelled to deal only with the demands of organized labor, because those only are formulated. Organized labor, however, is a minority of labor, and the quarrels between labor factions, like other civil wars, are more bitter than the contests with outsiders. As I write I have before me a copy of a weekly paper which is the organ of one branch of workingmen which denounces the national leader of another branch in terms of positive ferocity. I imagine that both the writer and the person attacked are honest men carried away by one-sided views of the ills of society.

Trade unionism seeks to incorporate in "unions" of the different trades all workers therein, and to prevent the employment in that trade of any person not a member of the union. At the same time it seeks to limit the number of workmen in the trade, by fixing the number of apprentices in each shop at a fixed ratio to the total number of employees. At times and places where the unions are strong enough these rules are strictly enforced. Without the consent of the union an employer may not put his own son to work in the shop. The

hours of labor to constitute a day's work are fixed with reference to giving employment to the largest number possible. At first, in this country, the day's work was ten hours, then nine; now all trades are striving for an eight-hour day, and some have achieved it. In case of disagreement with employers the ultimate remedy is a strike. The unions claim to, and probably do in most cases, include the best workmen in their respective trades. In most cases, however, the places of strikers can be promptly filled by other workmen who are out of employment. The new men, however, are seldom so efficient as the old, and strikes in large establishments, and especially when important work is pressing, cause great loss to employers. In some trades, as locomotive engineers, for example, an extensive strike may almost paralyze trade, since there are almost never at hand skilled engineers, who can safely operate a locomotive, in sufficient number to run trains. When strikes are organized on a large scale, and the result is doubtful, efforts are made to induce "sympathetic strikes," in trades more or less closely connected with the strikers, but who have at the time no grievance of their own. This adds to the embarrassment of the employers, and by interesting a larger number of people, increases the pressure of public opinion. For example, if locomotive engineers were on a strike, they would seek to enlist the fireman's organization, or that of the trainmen, in the hope of absolutely stopping transportation. This would tend to bring the public to the side of the strikers, because it would desire business to be resumed and travel made safe, with little regard to the interest of contending parties; and as the railroads can usually be coerced easier and quicker than the strikers, the pressure tends to be put on them to yield.

It has come to be generally conceded that a strike is a legitimate and proper method of procedure in case of extremity, provided it be conducted peacefully. No one questions the right of any person to stop work when he does not wish to work longer, and very few now question the right of organized bodies of workingmen to stop simultaneously by virtue of a prearranged agreement. Early in the history of trade union

ism this was not the case. A "conspiracy" to injure one in his business is now, and always has been, a penal offense,* and in the early days of labor organization in Great Britain the conspiracy laws were invoked and applied with great severity to members of trade unions. It is now conceded that action by an organized trade union is not a conspiracy within the meaning of the law. A notable exception was in the case of the great railroad strike of 1894, when a United States judge enjoined certain labor leaders from "conspiring" to interrupt the transportation of trains carrying the United States mails and also certain employees from quitting work without notice, when interruption of the passage of mails would result. This, however, was not approved by public sentiment, and no similar instance is likely to occur. The right to engage in a peaceful strike may be considered settled.

The trouble is that great strikes are never conducted peacefully. They are almost certain to result in riots, destruction of property, and murder. When strikes occur there is always a rush of the unemployed to obtain the vacated positions, and, as a rule, a strictly peaceful strike would simply result in a change of workmen, those who were formerly employed changing places with those who were not. Work would Work would go on with more or less hindrance and loss for a

time, and finally resume

its normal condition. This is perfectly understood by the workmen, who, upon the occurrence of the strike, congregate about the place where they were employed, entering it if permitted, and by all means in their power seeking to dissuade others from taking their places. The persuasion is backed up by a strong display of force, and if unsuccessful is followed by insults and abuse. The thugs and thieves always join themselves to the strikers, in the hope of a resulting tumult in which they may ply their trade. The new workmen can only reach or leave their employment under police protection, and

*This chapter can not deal with the history of the organization of labor, or even its present condition or the ethics of the subject. It must be confined to an elucidation of the topics which may involve political controversy, and the relation of the farmers thereto.

are assaulted whenever they are caught alone. The property of the offending company is injured and destroyed so far as possible. Riots may follow and the military be called out.

For all these disturbances the unions invariably disclaim responsibility, stating them to be the work of sympathizers whom they can not control. This is sometimes literally true and sometimes not. It is always disingenuous, however, to disavow responsibility, for tumult is known to be an almost certain result of a large strike followed by even peaceful dem onstrations against new workmen. In most cases it is only by intimidation of persons and destruction of property committed by somebody that strikers can hope to win, and they count on them accordingly. Nobody claims that strikers will be molested if they do not provoke attack by insult or worse, and the quibble of disclaiming responsibility for riot, even where not actually engaged in it, is discreditable.

When such conditions arise it is the first duty of society to preserve order. Those seeking work have the right to be protected, even from intimidation and insult, and owners of property have a right to its protection. With the original cause of quarrel it may or may not be desirable that society should concern itself. As to the duty of society to preserve order under all circumstances, there can be no question whatever.

The concrete questions which arise out of this condition of things, and which tend to become the subject of political action, are substantially as follows:

It is demanded that the state make and enforce a short-day law-eight hours being the length usually demanded-forbidding all contracts for payment by the hour, or for days to exceed eight hours; that the state itself shall set the example, by making its days of work eight hours long, and prohibiting the performance of public work by contract, unless the contractors bind themselves to the eight-hour day.

This involves a number of things. In the first place, there is the question whether the state should pay more for its labor than individuals pay. Doubtless it does pay more if it, at present, makes eight hours a day's work in all departments.