to a certain place where old John would motion to the roof and put his finger to his lips, meaning that the roof was in such dangerous condition that the sound of the human voice might bring the whole place down upon our ears. As they sang about the beauties of the red flag of revolution, little slivers of slate came down upon our own heads and shoulders, and I could not help but wonder whether Great Britian would be able to stand the tremendous strain to which it was being put-and, believe me, it is being put to an enormously greater strain now. I feel sure of this: If the roof of Great Britain ever cracks and gives under that strain, then the roof of America is in danger. It is a time of danger; and just because it is a time of danger, it seems to me tremendously important that we should realize that we do not get anywhere by saying to capital, "It is all your fault," or by saying to labor, "It is all your fault," or by capital or labor telling each other that it is the fault of the other. The public, of course says, "It is not our fault at all; it is just capital and labor." But I think every one of us is trying to duck the proposition of tackling the job of trying to give a larger measure of understanding and good will toward the other fellow.

You go down into the coal mining districts for a few days and see the men standing around idly; finally the great whistle gives one, two, three blasts; and before the echoes have died the men are saying, "Thank God, work tomorrow!" Because today in this country, even under normal and good conditions, men cannot possibly work full time. I could tell you of countless experiences of men in those regions, men who do not talk English perhaps, men who know what it means not to be able to hear that whistle blow. When they bear the whistle that tells them there will be no work tomorrow, knowing that they have their wives and families and their little children to take care of, they run their hands through their hair, and they say, "My God, what can I do? How can I live? No work, no work tomorrow!"

What these men want is regularity of employment, not unemployment or less employment. They say that if every man in the country should mine five days a week and six hours a day, they could produce not only as much coal as they produce now, but 35 per cent more. I have in mind a man who made an appeal from the very bottom of his heart, when he said, "For nine year I work in this country, all the time same place, all the time same job. Six months ago come no work, have no job. Every day go down plant, want job, and no job come. Wife sick; flu; doctor say she no can live; baby come; baby die; wife she going die; hospital she cost $40 a week; I got $1; no work here; make only $3 a week; I no can pay."

We ought to be ashamed of ourselves if we tried to get out of solving a problem of this sort. I remember one man on the London docks who said, "Wul, I'll sye this to yer. If 'arf of us wuz dogs 'twould be a better world than 'tis now, cuz dogs is true and men eyent." Their problems are our problems, and if we want to solve them and help the worker, we must go hand in hand with him, because his fight is ours, his God is our God, his danger is our danger, his roof is our roof.

In conclusion, the thought I desire to leave with you is this: that if we can, somehow or other, get a little more understanding, have a little clearer and cooler head, and a little warmer heart in our attitude toward the workman, then we will find in him a tremendous wealth of co-operation.

ORGANIZING IMMIGRANT AND UNSKILLED LABOR

Sidney Hillman, President, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America,
New York City

When the subject-matter of “Organizing Immigrant Workers" was assigned to me for discussion nearly a year ago, I felt rather ambitious to appear before you here tonight. The wisdom of Congress has since solved that problem. There are no more immigrants to come. It is true that the 3 per cent proportion may be as effective in solving the problem of immigration as the 2.75 per cent was effective in other legislation, but at least we have solved the problem for a few days. Those among organized labor, who have been praying for this kind of legislation are definitely assured that now there will be a job for everyone who seeks a job; that now there will be no more immigration. There is a grave danger, in my judgment, when remedies like these are proposed to solve problems that are confronting us and will continue to confront us unless we go deeply into the causes, boldly examine them, and then courageously try to find a solution. The easiest method for solving a problem is by giving it a name, and then finding fault with it. Everything that we do not like is the fault of the foreigners; it is the work of paid agents of the Bolsheviki.

The trouble with the leaders of organized labor is just that. I said once that if one or two or three men can make hundreds of thousands of people leave their jobs, there is something wrong with those jobs. Whether it is Foster or Gompers or any other man, there are no individuals with sufficient power to create those upheavals, if conditions do not exist, responsible for them. While there may be a question as to what in particular is bothering labor, what is on the mind and in the heart of labor, I think that one thing is definitely established: that labor refuses to go on under the present established rules of the game, and whether we like it or not is not of the greatest importance. After all, the function of industry is production. Some people have to do the work of the world. If labor refuses to go on with its function, and industry stops, it is idle and foolish to try to solve the problem by calling this or the other group "foreigners," "Bolsheviki," or what not. I feel that in the great struggle going on, none of us can afford to stand idly by. Too much is at stake. At times one feels that the very foundation of civilization is at stake, and it is the duty of everyone to examine the different proposals, and then help formulate a healthy public opinion, so that the proper courses of action may be followed.

Just a short while ago we had a tremendous struggle in the steel mills, and for some reason or other, most of the newspapers formulated public opinion. The public was brought to the help of the man controlling the destinies of the men and women in the mills. The critic found the twelve-hour day, and its evils responsible for the helplessness and hopelessness of the workers of the mills; I feel that the public has just as great a responsibility for the continuation of the twelve-hour day in the mills as have those who are in charge of the policies of the United States Steel Corporation.

And so I shall try, not to make a plea for organization, but to bring to you briefly some facts, that may be helpful to you in coming to a decision. We all know that evils exist. I believe especially you who come in daily contact with the housing problem and the undernourishment and other kinds of things all know that those things are ill. The question then is, by what means can we escape? I believe the facts brought out in the industry with which I have had the privilege to be connected and whose

men and women, organized and working in the industry I have the privilege to represent, are of the utmost importance.

The clothing industry has been known as the sweat-shop industry. The statistics gathered by the Labor Bureau for the year 1914 show that ten thousand women in the clothing industry at that time, when at work every day in the week, from fifty-two hours upward, were making less than $5.00 a week. If you take into consideration the fact that the clothing industry, like many other industries, was highly seasonal, and that eight months a year in some markets was a fairly reasonable period of work, you have the picture before you. I do not believe that we have to go very far to draw our conclusions. Ten thousand women making on the average throughout the year a little over $3.00 a week! With all the legislation, with all the investigations, we always found that the conditions remained about the same. These were conditions right at the bottom of the ditch. They could not go much below, because they had struck bottom. And there you have the question of hours of work, of housing conditions, of health, and of good education and citizenship.

I heard that one of our Senators in an investigation in the city of Pittsburgh was very much outraged against the lack of appreciation in this country of its institutions, when the worker, after slaving for twelve hours a day, did not go and find somewhere a night school after twelve o'clock midnight. You also understand that this status of the worker is completely dependent on this set formation, and at times comes very near the status of slavery.

Today the clothing industry is 90 per cent organized. Our last records show a total membership for our organization of 177,000 men and women in the men's clothing industry. The hours of work have been shortened to the eight-hour day, and half a holiday on Saturday. We have the forty-four hour week throughout the country. The status has been raised to a level where it at least permits the worker to earn a living wage while at work. The rule of equal distribution of work, so the workers know when there is work that they will all participate in it equally as little as there is, is recognized throughout the industry. And what is to my mind most important is that the workers through their organization have received a recognition in industry which approaches the status of citizenship in industry. I don't care how good jobs may be. While it is well that the jobs should be as good as they can be possibly made, no matter how high the compensation, how short the hours, I am convinced that labor will never accept a condition in industry less than citizenship.

Labor is a large part of industry. Labor has responsibility in industry. Because of that it demands, and rightly so, that with this responsibility, there be also rights, undeniable rights that cannot be taken away by the will and whim of the employer, rights that must be guaranteed by the power of an organization, and not left to depend on the good will of the employer. We have established in our industry what we call governmental agencies, government in industry. We do not claim that we have invented something new. We simply are trying to bring into our industry those institutions that have worked so well in our political life, institutions that even employers, who still hope to hold labor in subjection profess to believe in. We simply say if those institutions are good in political life, by all means let us bring them into industrial life as well. And so we brought in that legislation through joint conferences between the employers and the workers, and we have established executive branches to bring the legislation into life. We have established a permanent forum of every-day arbitra

tion that takes the place of the courts, not to make laws, but to interpret the legislation agreed upon by labor and the representatives of capital, by which not a single man or woman may lose his or her job unless there is cause for it. I do not believe that any man has the right to deprive his fellow-man of a job unless there is good cause for it. We have enacted this into our legislation, and every worker has a right to come with his or her complaint to the board of arbitration, to the trade boards. Formerly whenever there was trouble in the industry regardless of what the trouble or the cause of it was, some were called radicals and revolutionists and what not. I suppose that none of us understand what the two terms mean today (I heard someone suggest that even Gary is not quite sound and sane) and that now under the new efficiency it is a matter of relativity after all-nothing fundamental.

What happened to the industry since labor gained recognition, since the forum was organized? This: since the agreements have been made there has not been a single interruption of work wherever those agreements have prevailed; under th⚫ war conditions, and post-war conditions, there has not been a single strike in the clothing industry where there were agreements. And so when you try to examine it, it is highly important to find out which practice in industry is the most desirable from the point of view of the public-the Gary type, which has stopped the wheels of industry, which has made it possible for a few men to call off hundreds of thousands of people, or the other form of government in industry which has made it possible for men and women to go on and work and settle their differences in a way that may be called at least more civilized. Now, we have these two contending forces. One is the force of the old scheme that desires to give no recognition to labor, the force that recognizes the double standard, one standard for employers and the other standard for labor. I consider it a privilege to belong to the group that is termed labor.

We find that on occasions there is no law that may not be violated if it affects labor. The constitution, with all of its provisions, may be nullified by the first policeman, or even by a hired gangster, as long as it is against labor. Let me just for two seconds give you my experience. At least in certain quarters I am still considered fairly respectable, so that on occasions I receive invitations to address meetings. There happened to be a little strike in Utica, New York, and in my capacity as president of the organization, I went there to address the meeting. When I came into the city of Utica, three gentlemen said to me, "Are you Mr. Hillman?" I said, "Yes." "Oh, get out." They just took me by the arms as a sign of courtesy or something else, and carried me bodily into the train, and insisted that I have their company until the next station. There was no law. There was no question I could get into the city but in the meantime that particular strike might be broken. This is the status of labor.

And so I say there are these two forces-one trying to hold labor in place, which, in plain language, means at the bottom of the ditch, in the sweat-shop, which, at times, you would term the open-shop, and sometimes dignify by "the American plan." It is the same thing. It is the absolute autocratic power of the employer to dictate terms. The other is to fight for the recognition of the status of the men and women in industry as well as in politics, and that struggle will go on until it is settled, and settled right. All of us have to make up our minds which is in the direction of best public policy.

There should be no agencies for investigating poor housing conditions. After all who wants to live in a poor home? Why should people select those places without

velation air and Ight? Way saat we make them feel that another place is a better jace to live in?

Now, aloe's not meruty sleading for its cause. It is determined to fight for it. That I want to wys yn 's this: that in my judgment this ight is a igit in the went off the orbic.

In the doghing indsatry, after we spent all our energies for organization, and kept the whema of advtry morng, a won a the great industrial depression came, a large von d w mslogen von saried away by the open-shop movement. They all became (nterated in Americanizing the industry. The people who worked for them len your and year, the people whom they were instrumental in bringing over here, were no more good Americana, were not good enough for them, and a lockout was declared againat, our organization, a lockout involving at one time sirty-five to seventy thomand people, people who were out for months because of non-employment. In this lockout was a demonstration of the struzzle. Labor was fighting for what? Our demands were, "We want this system of law and order in industry, we want government in Indatry, we want legislation in place of dictation, we want to preserve the forty-four hour week, the living wage: we do not want a permit to bring back the sweat shop. The employers attacked the organization to destroy it, so that the old conditions might be brought back. What happened to the public? Here was a vital issue that the public was deeply interested in. Whether your associates have less or more work depended on the outcome of that lockout. What happened? Some of the newspapers could not say anything else but that this was an attempt of Lenine and Trotzky to bring in a soviet form of government in New York. It is to the credit of the newspapers in this struggle that the greatest number of them did not print this, and did not permit others to mislead them in the situation. What happened to the agencies representing the public-the courts? The employers went to the courts and prayed for injunctions. The courts did not bother at all about these. On purely technical interpretation, one judge, quoting the law of 1809, issued an injunction in 1921. Another judge went so far as to say that the courts must represent capital in its struggle against labor. About twelve injunctions, perhaps more, were issued against us. You understand that the courts were no more bystanders in the situation after they had authority delegated to them by the public for the public interests They went to the help of the employers in the fight for a sweat-shop. Now, it may be that this sweat-shop is good public policy.

The employers went to the courts and asked that we be dissolved, 177,000 people organized to promote our welfare and to get a living wage. They went to the courts and said, "You issue an edict dissolving the organization," and it may be done-not, however, that it can affect the life of an organization. It can dissolve the shell The will of a people to stand and fight for what is right cannot be dissolved. The workers in the industry have raised during the time of unemployment, nearly two million dollars to sustain that struggle-two million dollars from men and women who were out of work themselves, and tens of thousands of workers stayed out for six or seven months until the employers recognized that they would have to deal on a new basis in the clothing industry.

I believe that what has been accomplished by our organization is completely in the direction of the public will-the improvement in living conditions, the educational programs, and all the other activities that are directed to make better men and women,