i STEAM COAL - Clpdigital.org

for the profit of his government, or of his own
purse, was one of the great steps in the development
of public liberty. The recent revival of
monopolies under free institutions, aided by all
the new facilities for transportation and intercommunication
over great distances, is one of
the most striking social and political phenomena
of the present generation. The world has never
before seen such elaborate or such successful efforts
after the acquisition of monopolies as the
last thirty years have witnessed
UNDER THE FREE GOVERNMENTS
of the world, first on the part of bands of working
people, and secondly on the part of bands of
capitalists. In the long run in a free country
neither sort of monopoly will approve itself to
the public, or be permitted to exist without public
regulation. A monopoly of all the labor in a
given trade, sought in order that the trade union
may regulate wages, hours and output in that
trade, will never commend itself to a free people;
no more will the effort of capitalists banded together
to prevent competition, to corner the
market and control prices commend itself to a
free people. These two monopolies are equally
dangerous and detestable. Therefore the employers'
associations must acquit themselves, in
the public view, of every suspicion that they are
attempting to acquire monopolies in their several
trades, or to restrict that free competition which
is essential to the progress of all the industries
and to the building up of the whole community in
comfort and happiness. Some monopolies there
must be; but every inevitable monopoly, like a
street railway or a gas company or a patent
should be strictly regulated and limited by public
authority.
This avoidance of the monopolistic tendency is,
however, a negative quality. Are there any positive
tests by which
THE RIGHTFUL POLICIES OF EMPLOYEES
may be recognized? It seems to me that there
are two such tests, and these I proceed to describe
The first I should state thus: the policy of an
employers' association is rightful whenever it
clearly appears that in the execution of that policy
a sing'e employer or a great association of employers
is promoting the development of private
and public liberty. If on the contrary, a policy
adopted b.v employers tends the other way—towards
the restriction of either private or public
liberty—the chances are that the policy is wrong
or dangerous to the public weal, not righi o.'
beneficial. To illustrate what I mean by this
test I shall use the following list of the objects of
an employers' association in Boston which was
formed within the last six months. The association
states its objects as follows: (1) No closed
shop; (2) No restriction as to the use of tools,
THE COAL TRADE BULLETIN. .",1
machinery, or materials except such as are unsafe;
(3) No limitation of output; (4) No restriction
as to the number of apprentices and helpers when
of proper age; (5) No boycott; 16) No sympathetic
strike; (7) No sacrifice of the independent
workman to the labor union; (8) No compulsory
use of the union label. Do these eight objects
tend towards liberty or towards the restriction of
liberty?
"No closed shop." That means resistance to
the most effective policy of the labor unions to
procure the establishment of a complete monopoly;
and this resistance is a measure
IN DEFENSE OF COMPETITION.
Now, the restriction of competition is inimical
to personal and public freedom, to progress, and
to the common well-being.
"No restriction as to the use of tools, machinery
or materials." There again the effort clearly is
to prevent bonds being put on the development of
the trade or on the introduction of improvements.
It tends toward freedom.
"No limitation of output." That principle not
only tends toward freedom, but it tends to the
development of independent and unusual powers
in the individual workman, which is, indeed, a
most important element in individual liberty. It
resists, of course, the most demoralizing doctrine
and most enfeebling practice of the labor unions.
"No restriction as to the number of apprentices
and helpers when of proper age." Is that an employers'
policy which tends toward freedom or
towards the restriction of freedom? In education
we should not for a moment doubt but that this
policy tended towards freedom. Even Napoleon
stated, and stated very compactly, the principle
this policy tends to promote—"Every career open
to talent." To partition off and regulate wisely
and effectively the numerous grades of labor which
can be employed most advantageously at the
various stages, or in the various parts, of a series
of operations which contribute to the creation of
a valuable product, like a building, a car-load of
dressed beef, or a ream of notepaper wim envelopes
to match, is nowadays one of the most important
elements in business success. The labor
union tries
To LIMIT THE EMPLOYERS' FREEDOM
in this essential part of his business by forcing
on him a prescribed proportion between the skilled.
the less skilled, and the unskilled laborers in
his shop or factory. The employers' associations
must resist this effort of the unions, if the business
of the country is to be conducted in the most
productive and profitable manner. To give employment
to two, or three, or five, unskilled men
in place of one highly skilled man may be as
great a public service as to give employment to
that skilled laborer. It certainly is. if it results