|
Labor, Ethics and John L. Lewis
Charles R. Eckert
[A speech delivered in the U.S. House of
Representatives, Friday, 20 August 1937]
Mr. Speaker, the labor program of the Federal administration is in
keeping with the spirit of the New Deal. All legislative enactments of
the Seventy-third and subsequent Congresses, in relation to the
national economy, are designed to improve the economic condition of
the American people. The economic crisis that gripped the country at
the time the present administration came into power demanded quick and
heroic action. The legislation enacted was improvised to meet a dire
emergency. As the emergency is receding, the New Deal program may very
properly be scrutinized, with the object in mind of detecting possible
defects and proposing changes wherever necessary in order to bring the
entire program in line with sound economics and fundamental principles
of democracy. For it must be borne in mind that America was set up to
secure to all its citizens the inalienable rights of life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness. Therefore, any New Deal legislation now
in force, or hereafter enacted, must stand the acid test of good law
and sound economics.
Blackstone declared that permanent legislation, in order that it may
have force and validity, must be in harmony with ethics or natural
law. This is the foundation of all sound legislation. It is said that
Nature abhors a vacuum, and with equal assurance it may be said that
Nature resents assaults upon the majesty of natural law.
Hooker, while contemplating the order of the universe, in a moment of
ecstasy cried out:
Law - her seat is the bosom of God; her voice the harmony
of the world. All things in Heaven and earth do her homage, the
least as receiving her care and the greatest as not exempt from her
power.
Wherever man delves into the mysteries of Nature there is found the
universality of immutable law. A noted student of modern medical
science recently was moved to observe that -
The sum of all folly and the foundation of all corruption
is rebellion against the laws and regulations of Nature.
The National Assembly of France 150 years ago, in a similar vein,
discoursing upon the excesses and misfortunes of the French people,
declared:
Ignorance, neglect, or contempt of human rights are the
sole causes of public misfortune and corruption of government.
And so, whether in the field of medicine, sociology, or other
branches of science, there is found eternal, immutable law. This fact
must be borne in mind by statesmen and lawmakers.
The Department of Justice Building, in the Capital City of the
Nation, carries this inscription:
Justice is founded in the rights bestowed by Nature upon
man. Liberty is maintained in security of justice.
When it is remembered that America's first claim to greatness lies in
the fact that she was established as the land of the free, and also
remind ourselves that liberty is maintained only where justice is
secure, and that justice rests upon the rights of man, bestowed by
Nature, it is clear that the attainment and preservation of the gifts
of Nature to man must be the statesman's and the lawmaker's primary
and deepest concern. Therefore any civil enactments that violate the
elemental rights of man bestowed by Nature are unsound and have no
place in the governmental structure of a free people. All New Deal
legislation ought to be subjected to the acid test of ethics and
natural law. For a social structure that is to endure must be true to
justice and liberty. In this light and spirit the labor program of the
New Deal ought to be scrutinized and considered. The fixing of
arbitrary standards of hours and wages is fraught with difficulty, due
to conflict with natural economic law.
But until the conditions in our economic order that breed and foster
monopolies are removed, the enactment of legislation designed to
establish minimum wages and maximum hours, abolish the curse of child
labor and the iniquity of sweatshops and other immoral conditions is
inevitable. But that is not enough. Regulation at best is a mere
palliative. It will not cure the disease. The root causes of poverty
and unemployment must be eradicated. This involves a program based
upon sound economic principles, and labor leaders and statesmen are
apt to go astray unless they are grounded in the principles of sound
economics.
As the labor problem revolves around the wage question, a simple
lesson in elementary economics may be of interest. G. Frank Kelly, a
distinguished citizen and noted economist, of Scottdale, Pa.,
discusses the wage question in these words:
"To know the nature of wage is to know that to fix
them by statute is an economic impossibility. A man's wage is what
he produces, not the amount of his pay. If he produces nothing, he
has no wage. No man is entitled to a minimum living or maximum wage,
other than what he produces. If a man made a wheelbarrow, that is
his wage. If 100 men in a factory, each doing equal work, made 100
barrows, a barrow is still the wage of each, if equal or unequal,
each wage is its owner's product. The entrepreneur's wage is his
part in production, be it $1 or $100 per day. Economically there is
no such thing as profit; all produce is somebody's wage.
"But that those may make barrows, thousands of others must
toil -produce. The farmer must produce food; others must produce all
the personal needs of the barrowmakers and the needs of those who
supply them. It is an endless chain - plant and equipment,
transportation, housing, food supply, all factors in producing
wheelbarrows. The doctor adds to production by keeping men fit, the
preacher, poet, and philosopher by maintaining morale. Railroad
president and paddy each earns his wage. The total world produce of
any year constitutes the total wage of human exertion, mental and
physical, white collar and overalls, for that year, and each man's
wage is his share in that production.
"Capital takes nothing from labor, but produces and is
entitled to its own increment. To take from labor and capital its
increment, its part in production, is robbery. Just as a man with a
hoe (capital) produces more and is better off than with his hands
alone, so it is with every form of capital, including machines.
Capital takes nothing from, but aids, labor. How, then, can a
statute fix wages when every wage is a fixed entity, the amount of
the individual's production? The trouble is we operate under an
economic system by which labor and capital are robbed; neither gets
what it produces. That capital and labor are natural allies and
complements is shown by the fact that when wages are high, interest
- return from capital-is high, and vice versa; labor and capital
prosper or suffer together. Human enactments in violation of natural
law can result only in disaster.
"Henry George in Progress and Poverty shows where and
how capital and labor are robbed, who gets the increment earned by
labor and capital, and how to establish ourselves so that every
worker will get his own produce, his economic wage, and every item
of capital its own increment. He shows how every man may have
unlimited opportunity of employment with obligation to no man for a
job. Unemployment and its concomitants, poverty, and economic
slavery, are results of economic error.
True, Mr. Kelly's discussion is academic and, as such, contains no
proposals for immediate relief of labor's woes. But in the light of
Mr. Kelly's sound reasoning and the logical and conclusive
demonstration of the problem by Henry George in his monumental work
Progress and Poverty, is it not the part of wisdom to frame pending
legislation, in relation not only to the labor problem but to the
national economy generally, so that infractions of the rights and
liberties of the people will be removed as rapidly as progress along
the path of sound economics and true democracy will warrant? Our first
concern ought to be, not to set up an artificial Utopia, but, to clear
the way for the establishment and development of a society founded
upon liberty and justice.
Inasmuch as the labor problem is of peculiar concern to the wage
worker, under leave to extend my remarks, I include a copy of a letter
addressed to John L. Lewis, in which an effort is made to point out
the way labor must travel in order to gain its rights and freedom.
July 14, 1937
Mr. John L. Lewis,
Washington, D. C.
My Dear Mr. Lewis: It seems to be written in the stars that
those who are influential in the labor movement are targets for
abuse, ridicule, and misrepresentation. There is no dart too
poisonous, no lie too vicious, no punishment too cruel for their
traducers. And it also seems to be written in the stars that "If
the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."
Hence the task of directing the movements of the toilers in
their struggle for better things is both unpleasant and
difficult. On the one hand, calumny and abuse; on the other,
tribulation and danger.
And so it is with extreme pleasure that I listened last evening
to your discourse on the present labor situation. Poise and
restraint and good common sense characterized your every
utterance. This is reassuring and full of promise. It is an
indication that at last labor leaders are seeking not only
unionization of labor but social reforms that will open the way
for the establishment of a social order based on the principles
of freedom and justice, of equal rights for all, special
privileges for none. If these ideals are to be achieved, then
those who are charged with the responsibility of leadership must
confine their activities strictly within the limits of the
ethics of the social problem. It is only by doing so that the
movement can gain the moral sanction of mankind and thus achieve
its coveted goal.
This fact has been emphasized time and again throughout labor's
bitter struggle. On this point no one has been more outspoken
than Henry George. In 1894, in a speech delivered at a Cooper
Union labor meeting called to protest the sending of Federal
troops to Chicago in the railroad strike of that year, he said:
"Let me tell you what I have told you many
times before. It is something I must tell you or I would be
dishonest. This whole great organized-labor movement is on a
wrong line - a line on which no large and permanent success
can possibly be won. Trade unions, with their necessary
weapon, the strike, have accomplished something and may
accomplish something but it is very little and at a great
cost. The necessary endeavor of the strike to induce or to
compel others to stop work is in its nature war; and,
furthermore, it is a war that must necessarily deny a
fundamental principle of personal liberty - the right of every
man to work when, where, for whom, and for what he pleases.
Those who denounce labor organizations and their works use
this moral principle against you. Stated alone, it is their
strength and your weakness.
"But above the wrongs which strikes involve there is a
deeper, wider wrong, which must be recognized and asserted if
the labor movement is to obtain the moral strength that is its
due. It is the great denial of liberty to work which provokes
these small denials of liberty to work. It is the shutting up
by monopolization of the natural God-given opportunities for
work that compels men to struggle and fight for the
opportunity to work, as though the very chance of employment
were a prize and a boon.
"The key to the labor question is the land question. The
giant of monopolies is the monopoly of land. That which no man
made, that which the Almighty Father gives us, that which must
be used in all production, that which is the first material
essential of life itself must be made free to all."
There can be no blinking the facts. Labor and labor leaders
must constantly be conscious of their moral responsibility. To
employ tactics that violate the moral rights of any of the
parties concerned will expose the movement to devastating
attack. The right of every man to work when, where, for whom,
and for what he pleases, as George points out, is a fundamental
right that cannot be violated with impunity.
Likewise, it is a fundamental principle of sound morals that
the sanctity of rightful private property must be respected.
Therefore, when striking workers, in the prosecution of a
strike, feel called upon to violate the personal liberty of the
individual to work and the rights of owners of private property,
the cause of labor is due to suffer irreparable loss. Such
violations of fundamental rights are seized upon by the foes of
labor and exploited to discredit the movement. The emissaries of
privilege and those whose god is gold are ever alert to take
advantage of the mistakes of labor and labor leaders.
Under present economic conditions it may be a far cry to
implore strikers to observe religiously the rights of the owners
of private property and man's natural right to work. Strikers
and labor leaders may feel that under certain circumstances this
is impossible. Yet the personal liberty of the individual and
the sanctity of private property are of the very essence of
right and justice, and so it behooves strikers and labor leaders
alike to observe the ethics of the labor problem. They must
learn to think of the problem not so much in terms of strikes as
in its deeper meaning.
The equities are all on the side of labor. The stars in their
courses are in league with right and justice. This is the
strength of labor. If labor leaders will but hold aloft the
standard of eternal truth, all right-feeling and right-thinking
men will rally to their support.
It is regrettable that the labor problem in its aspects as to
poverty and unemployment, and the equitable distribution of
wealth does not command that degree of penetrating study and
analysis at the hands of labor leaders that its importance
merits. There is too much loose thinking concerning this
all-important problem. If that were not so, how could the
problem of unemployment and poverty so long remain? Almost half
a century has elapsed since the great railroad strike of 1894.
Labor and labor leaders, before and since have been milling and
mulling about, but to little or no avail. Today labor is the
victim of exploitation, the same as in the years gone by. This
is understandable only upon the theory that there is neither
intelligent action nor study in relation to the labor problem. A
copybook proverb reminds us that "The recognition of one's
own ignorance is the forerunner of knowledge."
This applies with equal force to the cause of labor. Labor is
bound to fail in its struggle for freedom and justice as long as
it remains ignorant of the root cause of its miseries and
wrongs. As yet labor has no intelligent conception of the cause
of its woes and troubles. Henry George - than whom there is none
who had a greater insight and fundamental understanding of the
labor problem - depicts the stupidity of labor in one of his
noted books in these allegorical words:
"Near the window by which I write, a great
bull is tethered by a ring in his nose. Grazing round and
round, he has wound his rope about the stake until now he
stands a close prisoner, tantalized by rich grass he cannot
reach, unable even to toss his head to rid him of the flies
that cluster on his shoulders. Now and again he struggles
vainly, and then, after pitiful bellowings, relapses into
silent misery.
"This bull, a very type of massive strength, who,
because he has not wit enough to see how he might be free,
suffers want in sight of plenty, and is helplessly preyed upon
by weaker creatures, seems to me no unfit emblem of the
working masses."
The truth of the word picture of the condition of the laboring
masses is brought home to everyone who stops to think. Be it
said, however, to the credit of labor, that in this respect it
is no worse than the supposedly wise and learned. By way of
illustration, let it be known that Thomas Huxley, the great
English scientist, while contemplating the unhappy lot of the
working masses of the world, cried out in despair:
"I do not hesitate to express the opinion that
if there is no hope of a large improvement of the condition of
the greater part of the human family win the advance of
progress, I should hail the advent of some kindly comet which
would sweep the whole affair away as a desirable consummation."
A few years ago Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler, president of
Columbia University, asked this searching question:
"Why is it that with all the progress which
the world is making in so many directions - science, letters,
fine arts, every form of industry, commerce, transportation -
why is it that there still exists so much want, so much of all
that, which, for lack of a better name, may be summed up under
the word 'poverty'?"
And King Edward VIII, on a visit to Glasgow, after inspecting
the slums of that great industrial city and the Queen Mary as
she was about to embark on her maiden voyage across the
Atlantic, made this timely observation:
"How can you reconcile a world that can
produce such a mighty ship as the Queen Mary to the slums that
we have just visited?"
These incidents, coupled with the many fantastic proposals of
educators, lawmakers, and statesmen as to remedies for the
economic ills of society, indicate the confusion and
bewilderment concerning this most important of all problems. It
is quite true that movements and plans are sponsored by earnest
men and women in the hope of solving the puzzling problem of
poverty. Today labor leaders and governments are feverishly
engaged in efforts to find a remedy. Both labor leaders and
governments are seeking to improve the economic conditions of
the working people. They are anxious that labor receive a larger
share of the national income; that the fruits of their toil be
more fairly shared; that their condition be improved.
Much confusion, however, prevails as to methods. The thought is
common that, due to our highly mechanized and technical methods
of production, there must be a high degree of governmental
control of industry, especially in relation to wages, hours of
work, prices, unfair trade practices, etc. In the very nature of
things, such programs involve labor and industry in a mesh of
rules and regulations, restrictions and bureaucratic control
that are extremely irritating and well-nigh intolerable. Perhaps
a measure of supervision of labor and working conditions under
our modern intensive industrial methods may be helpful. But
before relying upon legislative regulations, might it not be the
part of wisdom for labor and labor leaders to intelligently
analyze the economic problem, in the hope of discovering a
solution that would be free from the irritation and annoyance
incident to Government regulation?
Tom L. Johnson, a noted industrialist and former Member of
Congress from Cleveland, Ohio, in discussing the economic
problems of his time, had occasion to say:
"The evils of which there is such loud
complaint (unfair trade practices, hard times, etc.) are due
to the restrictions created and the special privileges granted
by law. And the true remedy will be found in removing the
restrictions and in abolishing the special privileges."
The problem today is the same as in Johnson's day, and
therefore there is much in his observation for labor leaders to
think about. The prosperity of labor depends upon production. In
turn production depends upon amiable relations between labor and
capital, free and divorced from unwise restrictions and unjust
burdens. Labor and capital must have a free field in which to
function, and that implies that the first and primary factor in
production - namely land - must be accessible to these two
factors on terms of equity and justice.
This being a necessary condition of maximum production, is it
not foolish to impose conditions that harrass and impede the
full and free activity of industry? Restrictions that interfere
with the free and uninterrupted activities of labor and capital
result in smaller output. Do not the demands of labor for
regulation, in the face of these facts, simply confirm the truth
of the simile herein related and reveal its stupidity comparable
to that of the bull?
Labor's true destiny is freedom, and its leaders must be wise
enough to direct its movements so as to remove whatever
obstacles are in the way and to prevent further obstacles from
being put in the way of labor's true destiny. Today labor and
capital are in an unconscionable war, destroying each other's
power and usefulness in a stupid attempt to improve their
relative positions. This is the height of folly. There is no
natural basis for strife between capital and labor. The
efficiency of labor and capital to produce wealth is possible
only by working together in the spirit of comradeship and
cooperation. Any interference with the orderly relation that
naturally hinders the productive process, reduces the output,
and therefore diminishes the earnings of labor.
Labor produces its own wage fund. When this fact is borne in
mind, it becomes clear that every reduction in earnings, in the
final settlement of the account and the distribution of the
products among the three factors in production, namely, land,
labor, and capital, it (labor) must bear its share of the loss.
It is quite true that labor is illy paid and robbed of a large
share of the fruits of its toil. But the capital employed in the
productive process and used by labor is not the robber. On the
contrary, capital, in common with labor, is filched by the same
robber. Would it not be more to the point to hunt, run down, and
destroy, if possible, the robber responsible for the injustice
and wrong that labor suffers? It is only by doing this that
labor can ever hope to enjoy the full fruits of its toil and
those natural and God-given rights for which humanity has
struggled from time immemorial.
Who are the robbers? Obviously the restrictions created and the
special privileges granted by law, as pointed out by Tom
Johnson. They are the culprits. Until the craft of legal
exploitation is destroyed, no matter how diligent labor may be
in its efforts of organization, striking, picketing, and all the
rest, it will continue to be despoiled and robbed.
By way of illustrating the truth of the foregoing and the
assertion of Henry George that the great workshop which the
Almighty Father gave to the children of men must be opened up to
all on equal terms, please observe an interesting fact in
American history. The founding fathers, presumably for good and
sufficient reasons, located the seat of government of the infant
Republic in a little village on the banks of the Potomac. At the
time the District of Columbia was set apart as the seat of the
Federal Government it was an unimproved tract of land, with few
attractions, little value, and scarcely any inhabitants.
The selection of this tract of land as the seat of government
of a growing and promising Nation, however, gave the 10 square
miles of land in the District of Columbia unusual prominence and
importance. Not only the eyes of the youthful Nation, but the
eyes of the world, were directed toward the little plot of land
on the Potomac, and from that early and inauspicious beginning
to the present day it has been growing in wealth, beauty,
population, importance, interest, and, most of all, as a
profitable camping ground for land monopolists.
The increase in population and the city's magnificent
development have been accompanied by a social phenomenon that
labor leaders and statesmen cannot afford to overlook if they
expect their efforts in behalf of labor reform and social
justice to bear fruit. When it is recalled that those 10 square
miles of land in the District of Columbia at the inception of
the Government were practically valueless, and then note the
difference in value of the same 10 square miles due solely to
the labor and activities of the people and the services rendered
by Government, one begins to get a glimpse of the social
phenomenon responsible for the fabulous increase in the value of
the 10 square miles of land in the District of Columbia and the
relation of the labor problem to the land question.
What are the facts concerning the land and the labor question
of the District of Columbia?
First. The District contains 10 square miles, or 64,000 acres.
Second. At the time of the organization of the Government the
District was uninhabited and the land had little or no value.
Third. Today the District has a population of 600,000 and the
64,000 acres of land have a value of more than $1,000,000,000,
or substantially $20,000 an acre.
Fourth. The land value of the District is a social value due to
the presence and social activities of the people and services
rendered by the Government.
Fifth. The profits annually arising from the land values in the
District of Columbia are upward of $50,000,000.
Sixth. The profits thus arising are appropriated by the
landowners of the District and constitute a ransom exacted from
every worker in the District.
Bearing these facts in mind, what, may we ask, are the moral
implications of the problem and the effect upon the workers? Is
it not clear that the land value and the profits arising
therefrom are due to the presence and activities of the people
and the services rendered by Government, and therefore, as was
observed by Ramsay Macdonald, former Prime Minister of England,
that -
"These profits, being ground rent, are a toll,
not a payment for services. By it social values are
transferred from social pools into private pockets, and it
becomes the means of vast economic exploitation. Rent is
obviously a common resource. Differences in fertility and
value of site must be equalized by rent, but it ought to go to
a common fund and be spent in the common interest."
The failure on the part of labor leaders and lawmakers to
observe the phenomenon manifested in the increase of the value
of land with the increase of population and the administration
of orderly government is responsible for the slow and
unsatisfactory progress of the labor movement. The aim of the
labor leaders is to improve the condition of the working masses
by increasing their purchasing power. This is a laudable
ambition. We cannot have prosperity unless the buying power of
the working people will be increased. But the mere increase of
wages without protection from the exactions of monopoly will not
increase their buying power.
Suppose that in the District of Columbia, by act of Congress,
the wages and salaries of all Federal employees and public
officials were increased 100 percent. Who would ultimately reap
the benefits? Obviously the monopolists, of which the larger
group is the landowner.
Now, suppose it were possible, by virtue of favorable labor
legislation and every device of organized labor, that the wages
of the workers throughout the Nation would likewise be increased
100 percent. Would labor enjoy the increase? Obviously not. The
increased wages would be absorbed by the extra demands of the
monopolists, and the last estate of labor would be no better
than the first.
Is that not the fate of labor today? Increasing wages is always
followed by increase in rent and other monopoly exactions. Labor
leaders and well-meaning statesmen should not deceive
themselves. As long as land monopoly and other major monopolies
continue to thrive and flourish by the exercise of the
exploiting power that is inherent in monopolies, labor will
remain illy paid and poverty continue to stalk through the land.
Restriction and special privilege are the twin evils that
strangle industry and oppress and rob labor. For relief and
escape, why not hearken to the voice of Nature and Nature's God?
There are certain natural laws governing our national life. If
we would govern our lives according to these laws, we would
abolish poverty and secure prosperity and peace for all."
Thus wrote Filangieri more than 100 years ago in a treatise on
The Science of Legislation.
All that labor and labor leaders need for the achievement of
their ends is justice, and justice is the natural law. Let us
bear in bind that natural law can be trusted, where attempts to
order the world by human legislation are bound to go astray.
Labor has been exploited from the beginning of time. The
primary and fundamental reason of the unhappy lot of labor is
due to the fact that our economic system is saturated with legal
privilege. Privilege is the mother of monopoly, and monopoly is
the instrument by which the few exploit the many. As long as
monopoly remains in private hands labor will be exploited in
spite of the organization or unionization of labor, or
governmental control of industry.
There are many monopolies, but the major ones may be listed as
follows:
Land monopolies, public-utility monopolies, money and credit
monopolies, and patent monopolies.
It is estimated that the tribute exacted by those who control
these major monopolies amounts to more than one-third of the
national income. Inasmuch as the struggle of labor leaders is to
increase the buying power of those who toil, is it not clear
that if the exactions of these monopolies were abolished the
purchasing power of the laboring masses would be increased many
billions of dollars annually?
The exploitation of the privileged few can be abolished by the
simple process of shifting the incidence of taxation from the
products of labor and industry to privilege. This is the simple,
natural, and efficient way. It is eminently right and just. It
meets every demand of good morals. It is in accord with sound
economics. It is in harmony with the natural order. It would
remove the regulatory irritations and vexations from labor and
industry. It would free both labor and industry from the
ever-increasing burden of unjust taxation. It would promote
peace and concord between capital and labor. And for the first
time in all history labor would enjoy its rightful place in the
industrial world and receive its full rewards.
The grip of monopoly upon the economic life of the people is a
deadly cancer. This deadly disease cannot be removed by the
methods now generally employed and suggested either by labor
leaders or governments. Its roots and tentacles are too deeply
rooted in the very element upon which life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness depends. That element is land. As Henry
George pointed out in his Cooper Union speech almost 50 years
ago, the land must be made free to all.
What is involved in the land question?
First. Land is the basis of all production. There can be no
work, no human activity of any kind without access to land.
Second. Land is the factor in production that measures with
scientific exactitude the share of production that belongs to
society.
Third. To permit the share of production that properly and
rightfully belongs to society to be appropriated by private
individuals or corporations unbalances the natural economic
equilibrium.
Fourth. The disturbance of the economic equilibrium is
responsible for the concentration of the wealth in the hands of
the few and the consequent unemployment and poverty.
Fifth. Land is the element in the productive process which,
when free and accessible to all on equal terms, together with
the abolition of all other monopolies in private hands, will
regulate, naturally and normally, labor and industry, and
establish social justice in the Nation.
This is the great truth that labor and labor leaders must
recognize. The lot of the workers cannot be permanently improved
as long as the iniquity of private monopolies and special
privileges remain wherewith the favored few lay their heavy
hands of toll and tribute upon labor. Unless the power of
monopoly that holds in its grasp the economic life of the people
is destroyed and the rights of the people to their natural
God-given inheritance restored, there can be no permanent
solution of the labor problem.
The struggle for social justice has been weary and bitter, and
no doubt will continue so for many years to come. And therefore
every right-feeling person is in sympathy with the present
efforts of the labor leaders to improve, even if only
temporarily, the condition of labor. But labor leaders must not
be content with temporary advances. They must plan a long-range
program - a program that will include the fundamental reforms
herein suggested and bring about the abolition of legal
privilege in private hands.
Such a program will encounter bitter and stubborn opposition on
the part of the beneficiaries of privilege. But this fact makes
it all the more important that labor leaders find their
bearings. The working masses need, and have a right to expect,
intelligent direction on the part of their leaders.
"Social reforms", said Henry George, "are not
secured by noise and shouting, by complaints and denunciations,
by the formation of parties or the making of revolutions, but by
the awakening of thought, by the progress of ideas. Until there
is correct thinking, there cannot be right action, and when
there is correct thinking, right action will follow."
And so let it be repeated, that labor leaders must be sure of
their ground. They must have wisdom and understanding.
"Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom. And
with all thy getting, get understanding."
With kindest personal regards, I am,
Very sincerely yours,
Charles R. Eckert
|
|
