leaders who, recognizing that fact, affected a certain condescension toward him. They failed to recognize that he was a phenomenally keen observer of life, and that deficiencies in formal scholarship were amply compensated for by an extensive knowledge of life and a deep, even profound, understanding of human nature. He was a great deal wiser than many more learned men. In his character there were blemishes that were not slight — personal weaknesses that were denounced by his foes and deplored by his friends-but there was never a question of his fundamental integrity as a leader; he was incorruptible. Though he was susceptible to flattery, his loyalty to his constituents, like his loyalty to his own convictions, was unimpeachable. When to these qualities we add his almost unlimited energy and powers of endurance, his oratorical ability and his adroitness in debate and parliamentary manipulation, we begin to understand the source of his great influence. It sprang from a remarkable union of talent and character.

When, at the age of thirty-one, he was elected to the presidency of the newly organized Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions of the United States and Canada, of which he was one of the principal founders, Gompers already had a creditable reputation as a courageous and sagacious leader. He had been notably successful as president of the local union of cigar-workers to which he belonged-Local 144 of the Cigar Workers' International Union—and at the conventions of the latter had distinguished himself by his skill in debate and his sturdy realism. He was, even at that early date, supremely confident that trade union methods would do far more for the wage earners of America than political organization and programmes could possibly do. At that time he was on friendly terms with the Socialist element in the Federation, who sought to use it as a field for propaganda, and was himself generally classed as a Socialist. There is a tradition that for a time he was actually a member of the Socialist organization in New York, but of that I have no positive evidence. He was non-committal when in conversation on one occasion I referred to the subject, hoping to satisfy my curiosity upon the point. What seems to me of great significance is the fact that forty-three years ago, when he was classified as a Rad

ical and a Socialist, his general conception of labor policy differed hardly at all from that which he so stoutly championed in later years.

From its formation, in November, 1881, he was president of the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions of the United States and Canada. That organization lasted until 1886, when it was dissolved and the American Federation of Labor founded to take its place, with a new programme and radically different constitution. I believe that it is the simple truth that up to that time Gompers had not only not received one penny by way of remuneration for his services, but had paid most of his expenses out of his own earnings at the bench. Even during the first year of the Federation of Labor he fared little better. During the historic fight of 1886 for the eight-hour day he paid his own expenses as before. In those days he revealed that indifference to material wealth, and that incorruptible honesty in money matters, which characterized his entire career. From 1886 to 1924 he was annually reëlected to the presidency of the American Federation of Labor, with the exception of a single year — 1895 — when he was defeated by a curious combination of Socialists and reactionaries led by the former to the advantage of the latter. There could be no more eloquent testimony to the faith he inspired than this bald chronological outline.

It is not difficult to understand how and why, in the light of this record, his death has given rise to widespread anticipation of momentous consequences to organized labor. Long before the wearied old warrior of labor passed to his rest, evoking a demonstration by his countrymen that he would have been delighted to witness, there were many who felt that the event would certainly prove the close of an epoch and the beginning of a new one. "Perhaps now that Gompers is gone and the reins will be in the hands of some one of the younger men, the way for a genuine Labor Party like that of England will be opened up." Thus wrote a well-known Liberal a day or two after Mr. Gompers died. "Gompers is dead; now let us kill Gompersism!" cried a leading Communist, with the disregard of the amenities and decent usages of civilized men so characteristic of his kind. His exultation had its inspiration in a venomous hatred that the dead leader was

accustomed in his lifetime to regard as a high compliment. It was a compliment that was not wholly merited, however, for it exaggerated the importance of the man from the point of view of the life of the movement which he served. That is a mistake that is by no means peculiar to Communists.

II

From one point of view it is indeed almost impossible to exaggerate the importance of the life and work of Samuel Gompers in the development of the American labor movement. On the other hand, nothing is easier than to assume that he originated what he merely represented and what would have existed, to be represented by others, if he had not lived, or, living, had been quite unlike what he was. There is no diminution of the great respect due to his memory in the recognition of the fact that if his mentality shaped the movement, it is equally true that the movement shaped his mentality. He was no less created by the movement than he was the creator of it. To suppose otherwise it is necessary to approach the history of American labor in a spirit of romanticism bordering upon fantasy.

At all events, I cannot bring myself to the state of mind that I conceive to be necessary to the belief that the essential character of the American labor movement will be changed as a result of the death of its great leader. Changes there will doubtless be, but they will be only such changes as would have occurred if Mr. Gompers could have lived on indefinitely with undiminished, and even increasing, powers. I cannot entertain the view that the labor movement was at any time formless except as this one man gave it form, that it was like the shapeless mass of clay thrown on to the potter's wheel, without form or purpose save as the skill of the potter imparts it. I cannot see the labor movement as an inert plastic mass to which a single human intelligence and energy gave the shape, "Gompersism", in lieu of some other shape to which some other single human intelligence and energy might have contrived to mold it. Neither is it possible for me to believe that elements powerful enough to divert a great movement like organized labor into a new course, to change its character, were held back by the power and energy of one man, waiting only for

his death to exert themselves and achieve their ends. Such a view seems to me to be a close approach to mythology. It is easy to understand how the Communist comes to hold such a view: the explanation is that fantasy is the normal state of the Communist. It is not easy, however, to understand, how such a view finds acceptance by normal minds.

It in nowise detracts from my estimate of the high and honorable character of his leadership of the American Federation of Labor to say that, in my judgment, the fundamental character of the labor movement in this country would have been the same under any other leadership that could conceivably have been maintained. Another way of saying the same thing is that if Mr. Gompers had held other views and ideals and had attempted to realize them — if he had held the views and ideals of a Powderly, or a Haywood, for example he would have failed completely and would not have retained his leadership for so long. Of course with regard to particular episodes he not infrequently exercised a decisive determining influence, as any leader must do. His appeal sometimes turned the scale in a convention from rashness to moderation. His warning sometimes prevented a disastrous and unwarranted strike. Such influence is inseparable from the acknowledged leadership of a movement, whether it be large or small. We may also freely admit that this inevitable and inescapable influence Mr. Gompers exerted with remarkable wisdom, and with success far from ordinary. But when we have said so much it remains to be said that the basic character of the movement, its major policies, its course over any long period, are not to be attributed to any individual. These things can only be accounted for by taking cognizance of great and complex forces that are little related to the vision of any individual, or to his capacity or character. There never was a moment, in my judgment, when Mr. Gompers could have successfully transformed the American Federation of Labor into a counterpart of the British Labour Party, for example. Neither could he at any time have successfully directed it along the lines of the I. W. W. or of French Syndicalism. Gompers was what he was, and "Gompersism" is what it is, because the American labor movement was and is what it was and is. I had occasion to emphasize this at the Institute of Politics at

Williamstown last August. One of the speakers had charged that the opposition of the American Federation of Labor to Bolshevism and the Soviet Government of Russia was simply due to the petty political scheming of Mr. Gompers; that the workers affiliated to the Federation actually held no such views, and that what purported to be the will of organized labor in America was simply "Gompersism". On that occasion I pointed out that the laws of its own being compelled organized labor to be hostile to Bolshevism and Communism; that the genuine trade union movement of every country was in conflict with the forces of Bolshevism and Communism; that in Russia itself the trade unions were the chief resistance to the Bolshevist dictatorship in the cities; that, regardless of all the vicissitudes of its politics and policies, the American Federation of Labor had stoutly opposed every one of those revolutionary movements more or less akin to Bolshevism which have arisen from time to time, notably the Anarchist propaganda, the old Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance led by De Leon, the I. W. W., and Syndicalism. It is significant that the trade union movement in Great Britain and the principal industrial countries of Europe has consistently pursued an almost identical course toward these revolutionary movements. In view of these facts, and of others which will readily occur to the mind of the student of labor problems, it would seem to be definitely settled that this policy, at least, cannot be attributed to the influence of any leader or leaders. Explanation for it must be sought in the character of trade unionism itself, in the laws of its existence.

The vital and characteristic policies of the trade union movement are determined by the fundamental ideals by which the movement is inspired, by its history and traditions, by the character of the government and political institutions, by the prevailing social standards, by the general attitude of the employing class, and by the extent to which opportunity for individual advancement can be found within the economic system. When we seek an explanation of the fact that in England, for example, organized labor has formed itself into a political party, which the American movement has steadily refused to do - except for the adventurous episode of the last Presidential election, which need not be seriously estimated here and now we shall do well to