Full opinion text
HOPKINS, District Judge. The suit is one in equity testing legality of a contract whereby defendant railway undertook collection of dues owing to a company union by employees of defendant who were members of the company union. The contract provides for collection of the dues by means of pay roll deductions. The plan was first put in use in 1925 and the contract here involved was made effective in January, 1933. Legality of the contract is brought in question by reason of enactment by Congress in 1934 of an amendment "to the Railway Labor Act (section 2, as amended by Act June 21, 1934, § 2 [45 U.S.C.A. § 152]), making it unlawful for a carrier to deduct from wages of its employees dues payable to labor organizations. Because of penalties imposed by the act for violation of its terms, the railway notified the union that effective June 21, 1934, it would no longer comply with the contract. This suit was instituted July 12, 1934. Complainants (hereinafter referred to as the association) seek to enjoin the railway’s discontinuance of the contract and to enjoin the District Attorney from bringing proceedings to enforce the statute. The railway does not challenge the allegations of the complaint, but the District Attorney denies the allegations attacking the constitutionality of those provisions of which complaint is made, and denies that he was about to prosecute defendant or bring proceedings for violations, of (he statute. Following institution of the action July 12, 1934, a motion to dismiss was overruled and the government, on July 3, 1935, answered. On November 6, 1935, the parties filed stipulations covering the evidence and were given extension of time to file briefs. Briefs were filed and thereafter argument was had on December 23, 1935, The parties filed suggested findings of fact, and on January 5, 1936, the case was submitted for final decision. Findings of fact made by the court and an analysis of part of the evidence are separately filed. See, also, the note appended to this opinion, giving a brief historical review of the labor movement. A review of the facts so far as pertinent to the decision will follow later in this opinion. It may here be observed that forfnation of company unions was an outgrowth of the general strike in 1922 of the mechanical employees of practically all the railroads in the country. The striking employees were supplanted by others who were not members of labor organizations. They were without organization and had no representative for the purpose of dealing with their employer in matters relating to collective bargaining. On July 3, 1922, the United States Railroad Labor Board passed a resolution, the preamble to which recited that it was “desirable, if not a practical necessity, for the employees of each class on each carrier to form an organization or association to function in the representation of the employees before the railroad labor board.” The first paragraph of the resolution provided: “That it be communicated to the carriers and the' employees remaining in the service and the new employees succeeding those who have left the service to take steps as soon as practicable to perfect on each carrier such organizations as may be deemed necessary for the purposes above mentioned.” The officers of defendant company interpreted this as a suggestion or request and proceeded immediately to organize a company union, which grew into what is now the plaintiff association. The contract (in controversy) dated December 15, 1932, provides: “Whereas, The Association has requested the Railway Company, through the medium of pay roll deductions, to collect the monthly dues from members who have requested the Railway Company to do so, which Railway Company agrees to do upon following terms: “First: Railway Company will, so far 'as it can legally do so, comply with request of Association by deducting the monthly dues from the pay of those employes who have filed with the Railway Company a request in writing that such deductions be made, and shall, in each case, file with the Railway Company an order of assignment of such deduction to the Association. “Second: The Railway Company will make a monthly report * * * and * * * remit to the Association monthly at the time of making such report the full amount of such deductions, less three (3%) per cent of such deductions as hereinafter provided. “The Association agrees: “(1) That it will pay to the Railway Company a sum equal to three (3%) per cent of amount deducted monthly by the Railway Company, the said payment to be in compensation and indemnity for the labor of making the deductions specified and paying the same less three (3%) per cent of amount deducted and to be remitted by it to the Association as hereinbefore provided. * * * “That this agreement * * * shall remain in effect until it .shall be terminated at the option of either party hereto, which may be by either party giving to the other 30 days written notice of the option “of the moving party to terminate this contract, and at the expiration of such 30 days’ notice this contract shall terminate.” Section 2 of the Railway Labor Act, as amended June 21, 1934, § 2, so far as important here, reads as follows: “It shall be unlawful for any carrier to * * * deduct from the wages of employees any dues, fees, assessments, or other contributions payable to labor organizations, or to collect or to assist in the collection of any such dues, fees, assessments, or other contributions.” 48 Stat. 1186 (45 U.S.C.A. § 152). In a general sense, the constitutional validity of the foregoing provisions is the only issue in the case. Presumption of validity goes with the act. Courts always presume that the Legislature acts advisedly and with full knowledge of the situation, and its action must be accepted by the courts as that of a body having full power to act, and only acting when it has acquired sufficient information to justify its action. Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co. v. Manning, 186 U.S. 238, 245, 22 S.Ct. 881, 46 L.Ed. 1144. In considering validity of statutes as affected by the power of Congress, it has been said: “The scope of judicial inquiry in deciding the question of power is not to be confused with the scope of legislative considerations in dealing with the matter of policy. Whether the enactment is wise or unwise, whether it is based on sound economic theory, whether it is the best means to achieve the desired result, whether, in short, the legislative discretion within its prescribed limns should be exercised in a particular manner, are matters for the judgment of the legislature, and the earnest conflict of serious opinion does not suffice to bring them within the range of judicial cognizance.” Chicago, B. & O. R. Co. v. McGuire, 219 U.S. 549, at page 569, 31 S.Ct. 259, 263, 55 L.Ed. 328. In Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U.S. 197, 350, 24 S.Ct. 436, 462, 48 L.Ed. 679, it was said: “So long as Congress keeps within the limits of its authority as defined by the Constitution, infringing no rights recognized or secured by that instrument, its regulations of interstate and international commerce, whether founded in wisdom or not, must be submitted to by all.” The duty of courts to give effect to legislative enactments was emphasized in Wilson v. New, 243 U.S. 332, 358, 37 S.Ct. 298, 306, 61 L.Ed. 755, L.R.A.1917E, 938, Ann.Cas.1918A, 1024, in the following language: “While it is a truism to say that the duty to enforce the Constitution is paramount and abiding, it is also true that the very highest of judicial duties is to give effect to the legislative will, and in doing so to scrupulously abstain from permitting subjects which are exclusively within the field of legislative discretion to influence our opinion or to control judgment.” In support of its claim of invalidity of the act, the association argues several points. It points out in the first place, that valid contracts are property and protected under the Fifth Amendment against abrogation by act of Congress. This rule is subject, however, to the limitation that supervening' conditions may, warrant abrogation of contracts in exercise by Congress of its control over interstate commerce, or in its exercise of other powers specifically granted by the Constitution. In Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. McGuire, 219 U.S. 549, 567, 31 S.Ct. 259, 262, 55 L.Ed. 328, the Supreme Court said: “Freedom of contract is a qualified, and not an absolute, right. There is no absolute freedom to do as one wills or to contract as one chooses. The guaranty of liberty does not withdraw from legislative supervision that wide department of activity which consists of the making of contracts, or deny to government the power to provide restrictive safeguards. Liberty implies the absence of arbitrary restraint, not immunity from reasonable regulations and prohibitions imposed in the interests of the community. Crowley v. Christensen, 137 U.S. [86], 89, 11 S.Ct. 13, 34 L.Ed. 620; Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 25 S.Ct. 358, 49 L.Ed. 643, 3 Ann.Cas. 765.” In Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Riverside Mills, 219 U.S. 186, at page 202, 31 S.Ct. 164, 169, 55 L.Ed. 167, 31 L.R.A.(N.S.) 7, the court in considering constitutionality of the Carmack Amendment (49 U.S.C.A. § 20 (11, 12), as affecting contractual relations between railroad and shipper, said: “It is obvious, from the many decisions of this court, that there is no such tiling as absolúte freedom of contract. Contracts which contravene public policy cannot be lawfully made at all; and the power to make contracts may in all cases be regulated as to form, evidence, and validity as to third persons. The power of government extends to the denial of liberty of contract to the extent of forbidding or regulating every contract which is reasonably calculated to injuriously affept the public interests. Undoubtedly the United States is a government of limited and delegated powers, but in respect of those powers which have been expressly delegated, the power to regulate commerce between the states -being one of them, the power is absolute, except as limited by other provisions of the Constitution itself.” The association concedes these limitations to the rule, but contends that exercise of the commerce power by Congress in regulating the relations between the carriers and the employees to the extent of affecting existing contracts, is subject to the limitation of the Fifth Amendment to the extent that the particulars in which those relations are regulated must have a real or substantial connection with interstate commerce in which the carriers and the employees are engaged. The association concedes that Congress has the power to pass legislation insuring the employees the right to choose their representatives without influence, interference, or coercion by the employer, but contends that the instant coñtract for the collection of dues through the medium of pay roll deductions between the employees’ association and the railway company was voluntarily entered into by the company, the individual employees and the association, and being subject to cancellation by either party at any time, does not substantially affect interstate commerce, arguIng that the contract can in no way be used to constitute influence preventing freedom of choice by the employees or their representatives. The association contends further that although the contract might in isolated instances be used as a means of influence or tempt the use of influence, Congress cannot strike it down merely because the contract, growing out of normal relations, might be used as a means of influence or tempt the companies to exercise influence. That -Congress cannot prohibit the normal relationship, but can only prohibit its being used as coercion or influence constituting pressure in the employees’ freedom of choice. The association summarizes its contentions thus: The collection of dues under the plan here considered does not affect or relate to interstate commerce, and is therefore beyond the power of Congress; or, if related to interstate commerce at all, it does not affect it substantially, but .only indirectly, and, therefore, the contract is protected by the Fifth Amendment. Is there substantial connection between interstate commerce and a statute prohibiting collection of company union dues by means of pay roll deductions? Other features of this act than the one prohibiting pay roll deductions have been upheld by the Supreme Court, and it is definitely established that it is within the power of Congress to prohibit whatever may operate to interfere, influence, or coerce employees in choosing representatives who shall serve them in matters of collective bargaining. This was established by the case of Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Railway S. S. Clerks, 281 U.S. 548, 570, 50 S.Ct. 427, 433, 74 L.Ed. 1034, wherein the court, in construing the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.) prior to the amendment here involved, stated: “We entertain no doubt of the constitutional authority of Congress to enact the prohibition. The power to regulate commerce is the power to enact ‘all appropriate legislation’ for its ‘protection or advancement’ (The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall. 557, 564, 19 L.Ed. 999); to adopt measures ‘to promote its growth and insure its safety’ (County of Mobile v. Kimball, 102 U.S. 691, 696, 697, 26 L.Ed. 238); to ‘foster, protect, control, and restrain’ (Second Employers’ Liability Cases, 223 U.S. 1, 47, 32 S.Ct. 169, 174, 56 L.Ed. 327, 38 L.R.A.(N. S.) 44). Exercising this authority, Congress may facilitate the amicable settlements of disputes which threaten the service of the necessary agencies of interstate transportation. In shaping its legislation to this end, Congress was entitled to take cognizance of actual conditions and to address itself to practicable measures. The legality of collective action on the part of employees in order to safeguard their proper interests is not to be disputed. It has long been recognized that employees are entitled to organize for the purpose of securing the redress of grievances and to promote agreements with employers relating to rates of pay and conditions of work. American Steel Foundaries v. Tri-City Central Trades Council, 257 U.S. 184, 209, 42 S.Ct. 72, 66 L.Ed. 189, 27 A.L.R. 360. Congress was not required to ignore this right of the employees but could safeguard it and seek tq make their appropriate collective action an instrument of peace rather than of strife. Such collective action would be a mockery if representation were made futile by interferences with freedom of choice. Thus the prohibition by Congress of interference with the selection of representatives for the purpose of negotiation and conference between employers and employees, instead of being an invasion of the constitutional right of either, was based on the recognition of the rights of both.” The association concedes that “insofar as Congress’ real purpose was to insure that representatives for the purpose of the Act, shall be designated by the respective •parties without interference, influence or coercion exercised by either party over self-organization or designation of representatives by the other, the validity of the act cannot be disputed.” The specific issue then simmers down to whether or not the means selected- — prohibition of pay roll deductions as means of collecting dues payable to labor organizations — is reasonably calculated to prevent influence, interference, and coercion in relationships of railway and its employees, and has a substantial relation to the objects sought to be attained by the act as a whole. The purposes of the act are many and among which is to forbid any limitation upon freedom of association or any denial of the right of employees to join a labor organization, and to provide for the “complete independence of carriers and of employees in the matter of self-organization.” Railway Labor Act § 2, as amended, 45 U.S.C.A. § 151a. In determining the specific issue, as above stated, an objective view of the actual operation of the pay roll deduction plan must be had. The facts must be considered. Following the strike in 1922, the employees then in service were inexperienced in railroading and in collective bargaining. The President of die Rock Island (and the Gulf) issued a statement in which he said: “These companies are not negotiating a settlement of the shopmen’s strike with the officers of the shop craft organization. “An association of Rock Island Employees is being formed by those now in the service with which all future negotiations will be conducted.” Petitions were prepared by the officers of the company for circulation among the employees for the formation of the association. The petitions made provision for the manner in which committee members were to be selected, and elections were to be held. The company defrayed expenses of employee representatives incurred in attending a meeting at Chicago, Ill., for the purpose of perfecting the organization and adopting a constitution and by-laws. The original by-laws were prepared by the officers of the company, who also authorized and supervised the enactment of subsequent amendments. Originally various requirements were exacted of employees entering the service of the company, which in the passing of the years have been abandoned. For instance, the original by-laws, article VIII, § 5, provided: “It shall be the duty of the secrelary-treasurer to make reports to the master mechanic or superintendent of shops once each month, posting on the bulletin boards the names of employees who at any time cease to be members of the Association.” This section remained in force until October 17, 1933, after the passage of the Emergency Railroad Transportation Act, 1933 (49 U.S.C.A. §§ 5, 5a, 15a, 15b, 19a, 250-267). The original by-laws, Article IX, § 5, provided: “It is hereby mutually agreed between the members of this Association, that during the period of their employment by the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company, the Chicago Rock Island and Gulf Railway Company, that they will not join any other trade union, association or like organization covering same kind of work as that performed by members of this Association, where such association, or organization’s obligations is in any conflict with these by-laws.” This section remained in force until March 1, 1927. Article IX, § 6 of the original by-laws provides: “It is agreed that the Association of the Rock Island Mechanical and Power Plant Employees will not as a whole, affiliate themselves with any other organization, fraternal, political, religious, labor, or of any other nature whatsoever that in any way interferes with the principles of this Association. Neither will this Association lend its name to any publication, advertising matter, merchandise, correspondence schools, souvenirs, or any matter whatsoever.” This section remained in force until October 29, 1934. Employees were required to execute a contract containing the following provisions: “I agree that during the entire period of my employment by the Rock Island Lines I will neither directly or indirectly become a member of, or in any manner associate with any other trade union, association, or organization the members of which are principally engaged in the mechanical work of the kind or character performed by me, and I further agree that any act on my part in becoming a member of, or in any manner associating myself with any other such trade union, association, or organization may be considered by the hiring officer as my resignation from the employ of the Railway Company. This declaration to be filed with my regular application.” This provision was not abandoned until after the passage of the Emergency Railroad Transportation Act, 1933. Employees, if any, entering the services of the company for the first time after April 26, 1924, were not required to sign such contract, but all employees who previously signed (which covered most of those heading the seniority list) continued to be bound thereby until 1933. The contract for collection of dues from the employees provided for a compensation to the company of 3 per cent, of the amount collected. The company assigned an officer with the title of “Supervisor of Welfare” to keep in close contact with the affairs and activities of the association. This official encouraged and counseled the officers of the association, and regularly attended their official meetings. In one of his let-, ters, the following was stated: “Now, another matter, which, while we may not have lost sight of altogether, has been pigeon-holed temporarily, so to speak, in view of the fact that we have been getting along so remarkably well and with little or no indication of any disturbance at any point over the railroad. I refer to the activities of the America^ Federation of Labor. I do not want to sound an undue note of alarm, but I am just as confident as I can be that there are men on and off the railroad who, if they had the slightest opportunity would do anything and resort to any measure in order to disturb and oppose our present organization. “We cannot, afford to allow this to happen and rtiay I urge that each member of the System Committee be on the alert constantly and that a reliable point of contact be established and maintained at all points where such contacts are possible to the end that all such unfriendly activities be nipped in the bud.” (Ex. 21.) The association points out that the foregoing practices have been discontinued and urges that the pay roll deduction plan, as now exercised by it, is not iniquitous and should not be subjected to the ban of the statute. The answer is that validity of the statute is not to be determined wholly from its application to past situations and circumstances. The act looks as well to the future. In Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. United States, 231 U.S. 363, at page 370, 34 S.Ct. 65, 67, 58 L.Ed. 269, it was said: “The courts are not concerned with the question as to whether, in a particular case, there had been any discrimination against shippers or harm to other dealers. The statute is general, and applies not only to those particular instances in which the carrier did use its power to the prejudice of the shipper, but to all shipments which, however innocent in themselves, come within the scope and probability of the evil to be prevented.” The association’s contention the pay roll deduction plan is not attended with the objectionable elements of influence, interference or coercion, impeaches the congressional conclusion to the contrary. Congress investigated the subject before enacting the disputed provision. It appears that among other things, Mr. Joseph B. Eastman, member of the Interstate Commerce Commission and Federal Co-ordinator of Transportation, testified before the Senate Committee that “The reason is that a railroad is thus given information as to whether or not employees are paying dues in an association. It is very easy for the railroad to create the impression, or for the employees to get it in some other way, that the fact they do or do not pay dues will have some influence upon their record with the railroád company. It would seem to me that is a thing that the labor organization ought to handle for itself. I do not see why the railroads should mix in it.” Hrgs. before Sen. Comm. on Interstate Comm. on S. 3266, April 10, 1934, p: 23. Mr. Eastman also appeared before a House Committee at the time the amendments to the Railway Labor Act were be-' ing considered. Speaking of influence inherent in certain company union arrangements, he said: “You must realize the influence which a company is able to exert over its employees, if it cares to use it, particularly in a time when jobs are not to be had for the asking. It is like the power of life and death, for it means the power to deprive a man of the very means of subsistence. The influence may be exerted at a time when a man wants a job, by making him agree to limit his freedom of choice in the matter of labor organizations, or it may be exerted after he becomes an employee, by instilling in him the fear that if he does not do as the company wishes, he may lose his job. Bear in mind that there are any number of plausible reasons which may be conjured up for demotion, or dismissal, and that the real reason need not be brought out into the open. In addition to this use of fear, which is a most potent instrument of influence and easy to imply, there is the hope of gain. This is utilized by paying the salaries of officers or in other ways meeting or helping to meet the expenses of favored organizations and extending concessions of this sort to them which would not be extended to other organizations which are not favored. “In the investigations which my staff have made, I have gone rather exhaustively into this matter, and I entertain no doubt whatsoever that the chief reason why railroad managements prefer so-called ‘company unions’ is because they can more readily influence their policies and management than would be the case with national organizations. I do not mean necessarily any sinister influence. They may feel, and I suppose they do, that they know what is for their employees’ own good. However, they ought not to be the ones to decide what is for their good.” Hrgs. before House Comm, on lilt, and For.Comm., H. R. 7652, May 22, 1934, p. 23. In further speaking before the Senate Committee on the same topic, Mr. Eastman stated: “The influence of employee against employee. What constitutes such undue influence P When employees are dealing with employees, the situation is quite different from what it is when companies are dealing with employees. Companies have power over the means of livelihood of employees, and that is where the danger lies. Advice from a boss may easily become coercion, if the impression is in any wa.y conveyed that failure to follow the advice may threaten the standing of the employee with the company. It is like advice from a man with a six-shooter pointing at your head. “Employees have no such power over each other. When it comes to the organization of employees, it is entirely appropriate and proper that argument and electioneering should be allowed. Contending factions may misrepresent in their arguments, just as Republicans and Democrats do, but each side may be relied upon to expose the misrepresentations of the other. Hrgs. before Sen.Comm., S. 3266, April 19, 1934, pp. 148, 149. A contention that the pay roll deduction plan “is attended with no element of interference, coercion or influence,” is answered by defendants in directing attention to a letter entitled “Important Instructions,” which Mr. McConnell, secretary and treasurer of the association, issued to the several local secretaries of the association at the time the plan was put into operation. In enumerating the virtues of the plan, Mr. McConnell states, among other things, that “it saves the Secretary the time and trouble of selling the member the Organization each time he goes to collect from him, which is the case in some localities.” Defendants argue that this statement reasonably justifies Ihc inference that some members were not wholeheartedly “sold” with the association, and when read in the light of the context, it justifies the further mfex'ence and claim that the entire plan is a subtle device to influence the working men to retain membership in the association. The latter described in detail the manner in which pay roll deduction shall be made. Mr. McConnell’s assertion that “the management is cooperating with us in this new plan” appears to be borne out by his later statement: “As a prize in this contest, the System committee is going to write a letter to Mr. J. E. Gorman, the President of the Railroad, telling him of the zeal which has been displayed by the first Local becoming 100% under the plan. Likewise a letter will be sent for the first Division Local becoming 100% under the deduction plan. Also a letter will be sent him calling his attention to the first entire Division which is 100% under this plan. In these three letters, we propose to call his attention to the zeal which has been displayed, both on the part of Officials governing the respective jurisdictions and the Local Officials of the Railway governing these jurisdictions in their cooperation with the Local Officers of our Organization; also calling his attention to the attitude displayed by the membership. This, we feel, will be a distinction for the Local, Division Local or Division to try for. If you wish to get into the race, order your deduction slips today and start to work on it.” The pay roll deduction plan requires for its successful operation that subordinate officials of 'the management be apprised of the names of employees who have accepted the plan. These subordinate officials were informed in the following manner: “As soon as these forms are signed, turn them to your Master Mechanic or if you are located where there is no Master Mechanic, turn them over to your General Foreman, who will in turn send them to your Master Mechanic. Your Master Mechanic will then make a record of these deduction slips and forward them to the System General Headquarters at Topeka, and we will make such notations in our files as has been arranged by the System Committee and the management, and the System Secretary-Treasurer will in turn forward the deduction orders to the Sub-District Time Accountant under whose jurisdiction your local is, with reference to the accounting.” The association contends that the plan is the result of voluntary action on the part of the employees and that the latter are not obligated to participate therein, and, therefore, the plan cannot involve the exercise of unwarranted interference or influence. Congress took another view of the plan, no doubt finding it difficult to reconcile such assertions with the state of affairs portrayed in a letter which bluntly states that the president of the railroad is to be kept informed of the “zeal” of the men in subscribing to the plan. A reasonable process of reasoning would undoubtedly cause a working man who aspired to retain his job to do the bidding of his employer, even in matters not related to his duties as an employee and respecting which his personal preferences might be different; and he will do the employer’s bidding with more alacrity and less protestation when he knows the employer will be advised of the “zeal” with which he responds. I am of the opinion the letter fully sustains the apprehension- of Congress which prompted the prohibition of pay roll deductions on the ground that the plan was a subtle and insidious method of exercising influence over working men in order to insure their continued membership in company unions, even though they were not “sold” with the virtues of such unions. In an election conducted by the National Mediation Board, pursuant to section 2, Ninth, of the Railway Labor Act, as added by Act June 21, 1934, § 2 (45 U. S.C.A. § 152 (9), a majority of employees, by secret ballot expressing their choice of representative, did not vote for the association. This fact alone strongly points to the influence exerted by the check-off system. The foregoing evidence, viewed in its entirety, depicting the plan of the company in organizing the association and the manner of execution, establishes, in my opinion, a continuous, persistent form of influence, interference, and coercion, destroying that freedom of thought and action guaranteed by the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.) in matters of negotiation and bargaining between the railway and its employees. I conclude that the provisions of the Railway Labor Act in question do not violate the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, that the enactment constitutes a proper exercise of power by Congress, and there is no basis in fact or law for enjoining the United States Attorney from enforcing the provisions of the act, or from prosecuting the defendant trustees for violations thereof. A proper decree may be drawn dissolving the temporary injunction heretofore issued and dismissing the bill of complaint. Note. Brief Summary of Labor Movement. From the beginning of time man has-been confronted with his labor problems. Always and ever he has fought for food and shelter for himself and his family. Always he has been confronted with the question of his next purpose. Wearied with his day’s labor, he has been too willing to permit others to do his thinking and to blindly follow those who have assumed leadership. Nearly all his toil has been drudgery to him. With the march of his intellect, his desires have required constantly increasing effort. He has continually struggled to reduce the amount of labor needed for gratification of his increasing wants. From his earliest period, when original man obtained his needs from nature, he was even then endeavoring to have his work done for him by others. Usually that other person was his wife. His effort to reduce the amount of his labor continued, and usually improved his status. It sometimes, however, resulted in the development of slavery and serfdom. Man had his migratory stage and his pastoral stage, and while keeping his flocks, had no labor troubles. In the agricultural period of the. Middle Ages, the human race became divided into classes, one group represented by the lords, the other by the serfs and slaves. There originated free towns to which serfs could flee and become citizens. This eventually broke up the relation of lord and vassal and in the towns the workers’ condition was vastly bettered. There was the “handicraft period” during which the family manufactured what it needed. There was no employer, no employee. During this period was marked the real beginning of civilization. He who made good blades made nothing else. Each individual or family centered effort in the making of a single product. What they made in excess of their needs they exchanged, creating a system of buying and selling under control of merchant guilds. Eventually craftsmen also organized guilds which regulated quality, quantity, and relationship between guilds. When Elizabeth went to the English: throne (1558), craft guilds had lost power. Homecraft work, with agricultural labor, returned to freemen of the soil. During this time marketing was carried on by middlemen who sold the finished, product. During the period of the Renaissance,. laws were enacted in England which later were to affect labor conditions. An epidemic from 1348 to 1350 brought death to more than half of the British workers and caused a scarcity of labor (the Black Death). Increased wages were demanded. Then followed passage of laws which forced workers to accept employment at rates scheduled by law. These were the “Statutes of Labourers,” enacted from the fourteenth to the eighteenth century. In 3345), King’s Council proclaimed the Ordinance of Labourers to assure sufficient labor at the wage rate usual before the epidemic. Under penalty of imprisonment for conspiracy, persons able to toil were required to accept offers of employment. Nearly all governments have required citizens to perform certain services. Forced labor in the form of military conscription still is in existence in most countries. Roman citizens were required to work on public projects. Egyptian irrigation canals were kept by forced labor. Indians were apportioned in America in 3189 among Spanish settlers and required to work. Slavery began in the United Slates when twenty negroes were landed in Jamestown in 1019. In some of our own states able-bodied men still are required to work on the roads a definite number of days (poll tax). In the American colonies few workers were available for the arduous tasks which confronted the pioneers. Unceasing toil was required to prepare the land for cultivation, build roads, houses, and beat back the attacking Indians. The owners of the small farms in the North fared somewhat better with the labor problem inasmuch as they had the help of the family to cultivate the land. Occasionally others were hired. Southern colonies, largely composed of huge plantations, faced a constantly increasing need of laborers. The few immigrants who came to the colonies and hired themselves out as free laborers were insufficient for the need. Other workers were indented servants and slaves. The indented servants were voluntary and involuntary. The voluntary servants contracted with an individual or company for a definite period of service in return for payment of their transportation and maintenance during their periods of service. Such servants were free persons who came to the colonies to improve their condi! ions. Those brought here before 1050 usually were bound for periods of seven to ten years. Later, the periods of service were reduced to four years. At the end of his contract, the voluntary servant often became an independent proprietor and highly respected citizen. Involuntary servants, classified as “loose and disorderly persons,” vagrants, criminals, or paupers, were sent to the colonies by court sentence or royal order. Mirny of such persons were guilty of nothing more than debt, an offense in those days punishable by imprisonment. In the colonial period, wage earners largely were artificers, mechanics, and similar skilled workers. Independence of the colonies made slight difference in their status. The unskilled laborers worked from sunrise to sunset, obtaining scarcely nothing beyond the bare necessities. MeMaster, depicting the home and garments of a worker of the period of about 1790, relates “Sand sprinkled on the floor did duty as a carpet. There was no china in his cupboard, no prints on his wall. He was unacquainted with stores, coal or matches. He rarely tasted fresh meat and paid for it at a price much higher than his posterity. * * * If the food of an artizan would now be thought coarse, his clothes would be thought abominable. A pair of yellow buckskin or leathern britches, a red flannel jacket, a checked shirt, a rusty felt hat. cocked up at the corners, shoes of neat’s skin se,t off by huge buckles of brass, and a leathern apron comprised his scanty wardrobe. He smeared the leather with grease to keep it soft and flexible.” The worker of the early colonial period had few rights and feeble protection of thorn. Irregularly paid, he was unable to secure his wage by a lien on the product of his labor. If he incurred indebtedness, he could be put into prison and held until the debt was paid. Unless he possessed property he had no right to vote or hold office. Printers, one of the most intelligent groups of skilled craftsmen, appear to have been the first of the organized workers in this country, 1786. Shoemakers were organized eight years later. In 3827, according to labor historians, there was a general movement by all branches of labor, but all such organizations were confined to skilled workers. The unskilled worker continued without voice or organization. In this period labor had no influence upon legislation. Consideration of workers as a whole involves a definition of the word “labor” to determine the structure of that assembly of society designated in the use of this term. Varied attempts have been made to define it. F. W. Taussig in “American Labor Legislation Iieview” has made these classifications : (1) Unskilled workers, casual labor. (2) Semiskilled workers including the growing list of machine tenders. (3) Skilled craftsmen, e. g., building tradesmen, typesetters, railroad employees, and machinists. (4) “White-collar” workers including office employees, bookkeepers, stenographers, salesmen, and clerks. (5) Self-employed or high-salaried officials intrusted with great business responsibility — the business executives of the day. Taussig defines two classes of workers.' One class made up of three groups which he calls the “hardhanded” type; the other class consisting of two groups which he describes as the “soft-handed” type. The “hard-handed” workers represent the common conception of laborers and labor. An exact definition of labor is difficult. The idea of labor might be made clearer by consideration of common attributes usually found in the laboring group. Labor is made up of men, women, and children who are: (1) Gainfully employed in the wealth creating processes of modern society. (2) Generally, but not always, using tools and equipment furnished them by others. (3) Selling their services, mental as well as manual, for wages, i. e., definite time or piece payments provided by their employers who usually advance these payments sometime before the products reach consumers. Though- this classification may be a somewhat narrow conception of labor, it corresponds with popular usage. The group known as “agricultural labor” has . received special attention. Members of it usually are considered as those who are employed by owners or renters of land. Frequently this group is not included in the common idea of labor, perhaps due to their isolation from other workers and nonparticipation in any labor organization and their frequent change into and out of the class of renters. Women’s toil drew no general public attention until the development of factory machines. From its conception our country has attracted the wanderers, the discontented, the ambitious, the oppressed; some seeking freedom from irksome regulations of the old world, some for political ambition, some for profit. To virtually all of them their newly adopted country was home. Those pioneers soon evolved definite standards of equality and labor. Labor historians apparently agree that unionism did not originate in the craft guild of the middle ages. “Modern trade unionism,” says Commons, “as an industrial and political force, began with the coming together of previously existing societies from several trades to form a central body'on the representative principal.” American labor organizations are the result of conditions brought about by the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution’s main features — the factory system and the use of power-driven machinery — performed operations formerly done by hand. Consequently, employers sought wage reductions. Workers then formed the first true labor organization in this country — the printers in 1786 and the shoemakers in 1794; both unions in Philadelphia. The period of local craft unions has been designated as between 1792 and 1826. However, there were loose organizations of craftsmen before those dates. One of the first “understandings” between craft-workers was among journeymen printers in New York City in 1776 when a demand for an increase of wages was made by them, and refused by their employers. A strike was called. The printers’ demands appear to have been complied with. In Philadelphia in 1786, an attempt was made by employing printers to reduce wages to $5.83 a week. Craftsmen held a meeting May 31, 1788, adopted resolutions to the effect that they would “not engage to work for any printing establishment in this city or eounty under the sum of $6.00 per week,” and would “support such of our brethren as shall be thrown out of employment on account of their refusing to work for less than $6.00 per week.” The resolution was signed by twenty-six printers. There are indications that the struggle with their employers lasted some time. As in the previous decade, the organization of the craftsmen disintegrated after winning its objectives. Although the carpenters are credited with organizing the first union (1791), their united efforts appear to have continued no further after a strike in that year. Other craft unions organized in the first years of the new century (ISOO), were local units. There was yet no real competition among workers from the different cities. These local unions sought collective bargaining, apprenticeship regulations, shops closed to workers who refused to join their organization, and freedom from prosecution for conspiracy. The first wage scale offered in this country was prepared in 1800 by unionized printers of New York. Political activity of trade unions became definite in the decade between 1S27 and 1837, when widening of markets through better transportation made uniform wages aDd hours more important to workers. Rising prices — the result of money inflation — created more discontent, as did lack of educational opportunity and universal suffrage for men. Imprisonment for debt was common for workers. The result was local federations of craft unions, the first being formed in Philadelphia in 1827 and known as the Mechanics Union of Trade Associations. From that organisation a j ear later originated the first labor party, the Working Men’s Party, which predominated in New England and included mechanics, tradesmen, and farmers. The Working Men’s Party lasted about three years, but others appeared. Their aims included abolishment of imprisonment for debt, elimination of compulsory militia service, establishment of free schools, simplification of court procedure, taxation reforms and regulations of monopoly and credit institutions. Further efforts toward expansion and cooperation were halted by the panic of 1837. In this period of depression, many groups of workers gave heed to agitators and reformers. Politics divided union membership and brought about the breakdown of increased organization. In this period of political activity by unions (1827-1837), various labor parties were organized in almost every state to secure reforms by political action. Perhaps the most important of these was the National Trades’ Union, organized in August, 1834, in New York. The delegates were from trades’ unions of New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Brooklyn, Poughkeepsie, and Newark. In this organization, which lasted about three years, there appeared definite reaction against political activities. In the prolonged depression came a final Utopianism and humanitarianism that worked itself out in a universal failure of various imiiracticul documents and experiments. Workers turned to general reforms and improvements of labor as a whole. Even their there was a difference of opinion as to the nature of unionism. Craft unionism yielded to attempts to form broader ties among the workers. Industrial conventions and “working-class congresses” were called. All of them followed almost blindly the doctrines and panaceas offered by leaders who had not risen from their ranks. Professor Hoxie (R. F. Hoxie “Trade-Unionism in the United States”) describes this period (1840-1850), as “uplift unionism.” Perhaps the most conspicuous illustration of this uplift unionism was found in the Knights of Labor organized about twenty years later (Thanksgiving, 1889), by a tailor, Uriah Smith Stephens, who had been educated for the ministry. Innate level-headedness of American workmen weakened their faith in social panaceas. The pendulum swung back to more practical solutions of their problems. Discovery of gold in California began an industrial revival, and with increase of employment, unionism separated itself from Utopian theories and returned to the restrictive craft form. In this period (1850-1857) began the most important form of expansion of labor organization. That was the joining together in nation-wide organizations of local unions of one trade. Although 1he printers had organized nationally in 1838, that organization lasted scarcely two years. In a national convention of the printers, held in New York City in December, 1850, was established the National Typographical Union. Half a dozen other national organizations were formed before 1800. Recognition of the union and collective bargaining were their main issues. The panic of 1857 again shattered the labor movement but failed to destroy some of the national organizations. When war between the states was imminent, a small group of . organized workers sought compromise. In a labor convention in Philadelphia, Wm. H. Sylvis, president of the International Molders’ Union, spoke in favor of a compromise suggested by Congressman Crittenden of Kentucky, but when Fort Sumter was fired upon, labor gave its allegiance to the United States government. Many local unions enlisted on the call of President Lincoln. Thousands of workers left their tasks to take up arms. The period of the Civil War has been termed a second American Industrial Revolution. Although few labor organizations trace their history to the decade of the fifties, authorities state that the war between the states is responsible for industrial changes which made labor organizations permanent factors in this nation. Prosperity returned with the war’s demand for virtually every sort of manufactured product. So many workers had responded to the call of President Lincoln that the demand for labor could not be filled. The scarcity of workers was increased in 1802 when the Homestead Act was enacted (12 Stat. 392) causing many workers to become pioneer farmers. In 1864, the dearth of workers caused Congress to enact a law giving employers’ agents authority to go abroad and make contracts with workers to come to the United States. The workers paid for their ocean passage by their labor. Children, women, and convicts were employed and in their effort to keep up with production, employers turned to labor-saving machinery. The union movement, taking life in 1802-1883, had made noticeable gains by 3864 which continued for a few years. Eleven national unions were formed from 1863 to 1885. Enthusiasm for unionism definitely increased immediately after the close of the war between the states. A national labor congress was held in Baltimore in 1866. What appears to have been an outgrowth of that congress was the National Labor Union which held annual conventions from 1867 to 1872 inclusive. It was a somewhat feeble federation of local, state, and national unions which favored an eight-hour day for all workers. Sylvis, of the Iron Holders, was elected its president in 1868 but died the following year. A meeting held in 1872 was the final one of this union. Another labor leader of this period was Ira Steward, a self-taught machinist of Boston, from whose theories the eight-hour movement drew its inspiration. Steward believed that the amount of wages is determined by no other factor than the worker’s standard of living. The level for raising the standard of living was the eight-hour day. A couplet favored by labor speakers of that period ran thus: “Whether you work by the piece Or work by the day, Decreasing the hours Increases the pay.” Though the National Labor Union lasted only six years, it is historically significant (authorities state) because it reflected labor attitudes and aims of that period. It was a national federation of city assemblies which were made up of local craft bodies. National craft unions were affiliated but were not organic units. Other units included reform and radical organizations. Its membership was estimated at approximately 540,000. In general its original programs were practical, but under influence of idealistic and radical leaders, its original principles gradually were replaced by more socialistic theories. Its aspirations became so advanced — including proposals of organization of negro workers and exclusion of Chinese — that its proponents were unable to preserve it. Its decay did not end efforts toward national federation. National trade unions— withdrawn from the National Labor Union when that organization adopted politics — attempted development of a national federation. It was the first organization with characteristics of the American Federation of Labor. Fundamentally, it was economic, but included legislative demands. A call appeared in the Workingmen’s Advocate, published May 3, 1873, signed by officials of four international unions. “Let not the failures of the past deter us from making renewed efforts,” the plea urged. An invitation was extended to “every trade organization in the United States.” A convention in Cleveland July 15, 1873, was scheduled. The purpose of the signers of the call was stated that “the organization, when consummated, shall not, so far as in our power to prevent, ever deteriorate into a political party, or become the tail to the kite of any political party, or a refuge for played out politicians, but shall to all intents and purposes remain a purely industrial association, having for its sole and only object the securing to the producer his full share of all he produces.” Seventy delegates attended the convention. Six national trade unions were represented. Labor historians state that the proceedings were more like a convention of the American Federation of Labor today than a convention of the old National Labor Union. According to Commons, “had the industrial prosperity continued, the new federation undoubtedly would have attained an important place in the labor movement; but having been launched only two months before the panic and ensuing depression, it was doomed to failure.” Thus faded the “Industrial Brotherhood,” blood relative of the American Federation of Labor. The panic of 1873 initiated a bleak period for wage-earners that lasted half a dozen years and included violent strikes, terrorism in some localities, and marked reduction in the number of national craft unions, reducing the total number from about 32 to 8. The National Labor Union (1867-1872) succeeded the National Trades’ Union of the thirties and preceded the Knights of Labor and the American Federation of Labor. It imaged new problems evolved by railroads, telegraph, and paper money. What has been rated as “the largest labor union of the world,” during that period, was the Knights of St. Crispin, founded in 1867, a year after the organization of the National Labor Union. It was an association of shoemakers, organized principally to defend shoe craftsmen from the inroads of shoe machinery by preventing unskilled workmen being operators of shoe machinery. The organization grew rapidly. In its first national convention in 1S68, charters were issued to 600 chapters. Soon a membership of 40,000 was claimed. In 1872 the membership was listed as nearly 50,000. As were the printers and cigarmakers, the shoemakers were compelled to admit women in their locals. In 1869 the Daughters of St. Crispin was organized. Its members were women shoemakers. Labor historians classify Knights of St. Crispin as the “first great protest of American workmen against the abuse of the machine.” Tlie Knights of St. Crispin and auxiliary thrived but briefly and died in the panic of 1873. In the, six-year depression from 1873 to 3879 employers attempted to separate themselves from unionism. McNeill states: “A great deal of bitterness was evinced against trades union organizations. Men were blacklisted to an extent hardly ever equalled.” It became “very difficult to find earnest and active members who were willing to serve on committees.” As a consequence, “labor leaders met silently and secretly.” They advocated an organization “hedged about wiih the impenetrable veil of ritual, sign, grip, and password, so that no spy of the boss can find his way in the lodgeroom to betray his fellows.” Such was the pattern of the labor organization of the seventies. Of that type was the Knights of Labor which had originated as a local union of garment cutters. Organized in Philadelphia in 3869 by Uriah Smith Stevens (or Stephens), a tailor who had been educated for the Baptist ministry. Secrecy as to its membership and operations was maintained by the organization, which attracted no particular attention until the depression of 3873, and after, when so many national trade unions were dissolved. It has been cited as the best example of “one big union.” Craft lines were disregarded. Virtually every one except “bankers, lawyers, stockbrokers, gamblers and those making or selling intoxicants” was admitted. Unions that survived the panie found it to their advantage to join the Knights of Labor. Its membership was principally in factory cities of New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania and a few other states, but did not extend west of Pennsylvania. Railway strikes of 1877, and criminal acts of the Molly Maguires in Eastern Pennsylvania following defeat of an anthracite miners’ strike, created suspicion by the public against labor organizations that" dwelt in secrecy. So having nothing to conceal, the Knights of Labor discarded its cloak, adopted a new program and named it as its preamble. The preamble, adopted and announced in 1878, was idealistic, declaring that the organization stood for equal pay for equal work of both sexes, producers’ co-operation, enactment of a weekly pay law, education, a law against child labor, the eight-hour day and various other tenets that in that period were advanced in theory. General aims of the organization were the uplift of mankind; securing for workers more of the wealth they helped create; dependence upon political action, and producers’ co-operation, which became its chief plank. The Knights’ program was the broadest of its time. The sympathetic strike was its principal weapon, but to be used only as final recourse. Strength of skilled workers in bargaining was to be used as a fulcrum upon which the organizalion would rest its lever in elevating the condition of unskilled workers. That phase, and the theory that the interest of all employees were the same, were contributing factors of the disintegration of the Knights of Labor. But not until after it had attained powerful growth and was nationally regarded as a predominating factor in labor. In 1885 the New York Sun assigned one of its reporters to write a news account of the plans and membership of the Knights of Labor. The article was reprinted and commented upon by many newspapers and magazines, increasing the prominence of the organization. However, historians seem to agree that the Knights’ membership and power was overestimated; that its largest membership — about 750,000 in 1886 — lasted but a few years. With its political entanglements. failure of its exaggerated co-operative theories, loss of strikes in 1885-1886, its membership had decreased to approximately 100,000 in 1900 and a few years later it was only a memory. In the virtual disintegration of the union labor movement in the seventies another organization that, with the Knights of Labor, managed to retain its identity, was the Cigar Makers’ Union. Not so idealistic as the Knights, nor of such pure American strain, it was headed by a German, Adolph Strasser, and an Englishman, Samuel Gompers. Gompers then was head of the New York Cigar Makers’ Union; Strasser, a Socialist, had turned to trade unionism as a practical way to improve the workers’ condition. He was named president of the national organization of the cigarmakers in 1877 while a bitter strike was under way by New York cigarmakers against the tenement house system of manufacturing cigars. The strike failed and Strasser and Gompers reorganized the Cigarmakers’ Union, discarding their Socialistic ideas and accepting the capitalistic system. Their goal was to improve the workers’ status within that system. Their policy was unusual in that the Knights of Labor and most of the labor leaders looked toward co-operation as a substitute for the wage system, or even socialism in place of capitalism. The position of the cigarmakers set definite lines for a struggle that is not yet settled. Either labor should adopt an idealistic policy, fighting for the welfare of all workers, or be governed by circumstances; accepting conditions as they were and fighting for benefits for only those within its group. The labor mo