dismiss from our minds the thought that Mr. Gompers prevented the American movement from following the British example. We shall rather see it in the differences in the social status of the workers in the respective countries. The British worker has the sense of being permanently fixed in a definite class to a far larger degree than the American worker, who, by reason of the larger opportunity for individual advancement in our economic system, does not think of himself and his children as being permanently fixed in a definite class, and has therefore less of the sense of class solidarity and class consciousness.

I do not in any degree belittle the great influence of Mr. Gompers, or detract from the admiration justly evoked by his leadership, when I assert the conviction that the policy of the American Federation of Labor during practically its entire existence would have been substantially the same if Mr. Gompers had not been in office. It would have conformed to the laws of its own being. Had John Mitchell, or Denis Hayes, or James Duncan, or James O'Connell, or Frank Morrison, or Thomas I. Kidd-to name half a dozen men almost at random — been called to the presidency of the Federation, there would have been no radical departure in policy. Any one of these men might have adopted an attitude different from that which Gompers would adopt in like circumstances, upon any one of the many administrative problems of the movement, but that is all that can be said with any truth. And there will be no radical departure in policy now that Mr. Gompers has passed away and Mr. Green has been chosen to fill his place. The new president will have a difficult task to maintain the standard set by his predecessor in certain respects. He is, however, a man of great ability and of high character, and those who know him best are most confident of his success.

It was not at all surprising, but, on the contrary, natural and logical, that at the first possible moment the new president issued a statement of assurance, making it quite clear that he contemplated no departure from the principles so long championed by Mr. Gompers and associated with his name. "It shall ever be my steadfast purpose to adhere to those fundamental principles of trade unionism so ably championed by Mr. Gompers, and upon

which the superstructure of organized labor rests," he declared immediately after his election. Those intellectuals upon the fringe of the labor movement who believed that it was only the ultra conservative, and even reactionary, influence of Gompers which for so long thwarted their efforts to lead the trade union movement of the country along new paths - into a political alliance like the British Labour Party, for example, or the "One Big Union" policy — will find that the passing of the older chieftain will make surprisingly little difference. Unless I am greatly mistaken, Mr. Green will be as resolute an opponent of all such adventures as ever Mr. Gompers was. As a matter of fact, Gompers was always fairly representative of the great mass, that is equally suspicious and distrustful of both extremes, the extreme right of Conservatism and the extreme left of Radicalism. In that lay the greatest source of his personal strength, and his successor has distinguished himself by similar characteristics.

III

I have already intimated that certain changes in the American labor movement are likely to occur; are, indeed, practically inevitable and irresistible. They are changes which would have been no less inevitable had Mr. Gompers lived. Whether or not he would have recognized the fact and accepted it, may be doubted by his closest friends and warmest admirers. Equally with youth, age will be served. In October, 1919, during the sessions of the First National Industrial Conference, of which I was a member, one of his close associates and friends remarked that Mr. Gompers no longer displayed the quick mental receptivity and elasticity which had so long characterized him, and which the speaker had observed in many important conferences with great admiration. The observation seemed to me entirely just.

New developments in our industrial life, an evolution presenting entirely new problems, he appeared to recognize vaguely at best. That was notably true of the bearing of shop organization upon the demand for collective bargaining, for example. He simply could not adjust his understanding of the demand for collective bargaining to admit that any other agency than the trade union could represent the workers in collective bargaining to de

termine wages, hours of labor, shop conditions, and the like. It had become quite apparent to students of our industrial problems that, in some of the principal industries, a great advance toward industrial democracy had been made in the form of thoroughly representative and democratic shop organizations, entirely free from control by the employers, and had come to hold an important place. The much discussed "Colorado Plan", the "Employees' Conference Plan" of the Procter and Gamble Company, and numerous arrangements of a more or less similar character definitely recognize the right of the workers to bargain collectively with their employers through the agency of representatives of their own free choice, and, beyond that, to share in the determination of questions not commonly regarded as being within the province of the trade union. In such organizations collective bargaining is achieved without the agency of the union, by representatives of the whole body of workers affected. This does not mean that the union is discriminated against. As a rule, it is specifically provided that the employees are free to belong to any union they please. There is nothing to prevent a shop organization of the best type from being wholly unionized in the sense that the employees all belong to the union or unions of their trade or trades, and in their election of representatives choose only trusted union men, and in every vote to determine shop policies reflect union aims and views.

But the agency through which the workers exercise the right to bargain collectively is that of the shop unit, not of the union through its officials. This is not the old anti-union arrangement misnamed "the open shop", but a sincere and intelligent approach to the application of the ideals of democracy to industry. The first great test of Mr. Green's quality as a successor to Mr. Gompers will be the manner in which he faces this development. Is he big enough to see that the end is more important than the means used, and that the union is only the means to attain those great fundamental requisites of industrial democracy, collective bargaining by the wage-earners through representatives of their own choosing, and the representation of labor equally with capital in those councils which determine the vital policies of industry? Can he see that if those ends can be more efficiently served than by

the traditional methods of trade unionism the task before the trade unions is to adjust their policies to the new conditions and methods? Gompers feared the new forms because he believed they would undermine trade unionism; will his successor see that in reality they open up new ways for trade unionism to develop and grow? Another question, closely related to the foregoing, has been steadily growing in importance during recent years. I refer to the question of the degree to which the trade unions are to be recognized in connection with public employment. The National Government, the several State governments, and the municipalities, are constantly increasing their importance as employers of labor. Supported as they are by public taxation, the income from which they pay wages being derived, as a rule, from taxation and not from ordinary trade, it is clear that these authorities are not, and cannot be, on the same footing as ordinary employers. A private individual, or an ordinary industrial corporation, may, for example, enter into an agreement with the representatives of certain trade unions that it will employ only members of those unions. In so doing, it may be entirely justified. It is fairly obvious, however, that no public authority supported by taxation ought to make such an agreement. Some unions have been known to close their books and decline to take in new members. Upon no justifiable ground of public policy could such a union expect to gain the assent of any public authority to such an agreement, or even to preferential treatment. One has only to think of a mechanic, a taxpayer, refused admission into the union on the one hand, and refused employment on the other upon the sole ground of non-membership in the union, to see how unjust such an agreement would be, violative of every principle of justice and civic right. Other unions have deliberately restricted their membership by prohibitive entrance fees and dues. Here, of course, the same principles apply. For cause regarded by its own members, acting under their own rules and laws, as sufficient, a union may expel a member. How can such expulsion be regarded as a cause for dismissal from public employment?

All such issues as these Mr. Gompers evaded. He went on to the end demanding that the unions be "recognized” by the public authorities. The term meant to him according the unions the

exclusive right to represent labor. The interests of trade unionism do not require anything of the sort. It is fairly certain that they would not be benefited thereby, but, on the contrary, weakened. "Recognition of the unions" in the case of public authorities must of necessity be restricted. There is only one possible basis for applying the principle of collective bargaining to public employees, namely, the principle of shop organization. The moment there is any attempt to get back of that, to accept any other organization as the sole representative of the employees of the public, a whole series of evil possibilities arise. For many years there were rival carpenters' unions. An individual employer or an ordinary industrial corporation, could "recognize" whichever he pleased, and could play the interests of one union against the other. But a Government department could not do that. The only basis upon which public authorities could give such recognition to the trade unions would be the incorporation of the unions and the establishment of such a measure of public control over them, including their rules of membership and their jurisdiction over their members, as would destroy the essential character of the unions. Mr. Gompers was never willing to face the logic of this situation. It is hardly possible for his successor to evade or ignore it.

Gompers saw in the trade union movement a militant force, the armament of the wage-earners in a ceaseless warfare against their employers. His reliance was upon the power to strike. It was not so much upon the actual strike as upon the power latent in the threat to strike. He very often prevented the occurrence of strikes, it is true, and not infrequently he discouraged those who would strike. In this he was precisely like the militarists who, while relying upon militarism, frequently discourage the resort to war. He could tolerate no suggestion that society must take effective measures to protect itself against the occurrence of strikes of a certain character. The "right to strike" was a sort of fetish to him, and he hurled his anathemas against whoever was bold enough to declare that the right was not absolute, but relative and conditional. His animus against President Coolidge for the stand he took when he was Governor of Massachusetts, in the police strike, scarcely knew any bounds.