THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE BBSS sP 8 Wm 1 I M «'•■.;: Ill ," t '!.:''.' ■hi HI nans Ms® $ ■■'■;■■•■■■' . ./.. .■■>.. HI THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE BY Rev. DONALD ALEXANDER McLEAN, M.A.,|S.T.L. INTEODCCTIOX BY Rev. JOHN A. RTAN, DJ>. NEW YORK P. J. KENEDY & SONS 1921 ARTHURUS J. SCANLAN, S.T.D. Censor Librorum imprimatur: •^PATRITIUS J. HAYES, D.D. Archiepiscopus Neo-Eboracensis die 7, Aprilis, 1921 Coptrioht, 1921, Bt P. J. KENEDY & SONS PRINTED IN U. 8. A. INTRODUCTION By Rev. John A. Ryan, D.D., Professor of Moral Theology in the Catholic University of America The subject discussed in this book has been of considerable importance for more than a century and a half. During the last fifty years strikes in the United States have increased with great and almost continuous rapidity. The average for the last few years is estimated at ten per day. Every strike causes immediate hardship to the em- ployers and employees directly involved, and in the majority of cases to a greater or less number of other persons. Industrial hardship is almost always detrimental to human Welfare, inasmuch as men cannot live right and reasonable lives unless they pos- sess at least a fair degree of economic security and a fair amount of economic goods. This is entirely apart from the physical injuries to persons and property which the strike not infrequently entails. ! • 1 7 1 o;s vi INTRODUCTION Obviously, therefore, the strike involves questions of right and wrong, has important moral aspects. To discuss and evaluate these aspects is the object of the present vol- ume. There are three weighty reasons why Father McLean's book is greatly needed at the present time. The first is the general fact that a large proportion of the two con- flicting parties, employers and employees, either ignore entirely or inadequately esti- mate the moral side of strikes. Sometimes one and sometimes the other party regards the struggle as merely an economic contest. In the main this attitude is a legacy of the laissez-faire doctrine of free and unlimited competition. All economic actions that were free from fraud or physical force were held to be either outside the scope of morals or in conformity with good morals. More often one or the other party exaggerates the Tightness of its own position and the wrong- ness of the position occupied by its oppo- nent. Evidently strikes will neither de- crease to the extent that is feasible, nor, when they do occur, attain the maximum of just results, until both employers and em- INTRODUCTION vii pli yees are sufficiently instructed to con- sider and weigh all the important moral phase*. The second fact that makes the volume in hand helpful and timely is the increasing popular Conviction that strikes should be prohibited by law. This view has already been enacted into law in Kansas, and is there enforced by the Industrial Court. Last November the people of Nebraska adopted an amendment to their constitution which authorizes the enactment of similar legislation for that State. These are grave departures from previous practice in the United States. Of course, they raise im- portant questions of constitutional rights, as will as of industrial expediency. But they also involve the problem of moral rights. This problem can be solved only by a study of all the moral aspects of the situation. In the third place. Father McLean's hook is valuable because it discusses the subject more thoroughly and more fundamentally than does any existing work in the English language. We have many magazine arti- cles and pamphlets which cover the field in outline; but none of these productions comes viii INTRODUCTION as near to presenting all the phases of the subject or to treating them all adequately as does the present volume. Moreover, the book evinces a greater knowledge and gives a better presentation of the pertinent eco- nomic conditions and relations than is to be found in any other English publication on the moral side of industrial disputes. This is not the least of the merits of the volume ; for we cannot arrive at correct moral judg- ments on any phase of the strike problem until we know all the underlying economic facts. For example, many persons regard the sympathetic strike as in all circum- stances wrong, and compulsory arbitration as always desirable ; a larger knowledge and view of the facts of industry and politics would compel a revision of this judgment. In a matter of such great complexity, and concerning which we have no official Church pronouncements as regards details, it is easily possible for any individual to be mis- taken in one or other of his ethical conclu- sions. Nevertheless, there is good reason to believe that the moral judgments set down in Father McLean's book will safely endure the test of any competent analysis. CONTENTS Introduction I. History of the Origin and DEVELOP- MENT OF THE STRIKE PROBLEM . II. The Morality of the Strike In- trinsically Considered . 1. In relation to the employer . 2. In relation to the workers 3. In relation to society . III. The Morality of the Strike in Its Relation to the End or Object Socoht 1. Just and unjust causes a. Working conditions . b. I lours of labor . c. Union recognition 2. Proportionate cause 3. Successful issue — well-founded hope of IV. The MORALITY 01 the Strike in Its B i \tion to tin: \l i ws Em- ployed to In rOBCI mi: DxiCANDS 1. Leaf drastic means unsuccessful . 2. Peaceful picketing . . . . 3. Physical violence r.v;E V 19 19 26 39 45 45 (56 67 72 77 87 91 91 97 103 CONTENTS PAGE V. The Morality of: 1. The Sympathetic Strike . . . HI a. Against the same employer . Ill b. Against different employers . 115 2. The General Strike .... 123 a. The general sympathetic strike 123 b. Syndicalism 125 c. The political strike. Direct ac- tion 129 VI. The Morality of State Action in Relation to Strike Prevention 136 1. General legal prohibition . . 140 a. Direct legislation .... 148 b. Compulsory arbitration . . 152 2. Indirect methods 160 VII. Bibliography Index 176 191 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE HISTORY OF THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE STRIKE PROBLEM THE strike may truly be said to be a problem peculiar to modern indus- trial life. Vet the struggle mani- fested in industrial life can itself hardly be called a modern one, as it already bears the marks of the wear and tear of ages. Its origin must be traced back far beyond the beginning of the present industrial system to remote antiquity — to the unhappy and degraded state of the first laboring class of history the slaves. "Ancient civilization comes before us with an economic regime founded upon the slavery of the industrial professions." 1 How and at what period »Dunoycr, De la Libcrte du Traviil, IJl>. IV, CIV, 1. 1 ft THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE this regime became established we have no knowledge. "In the oldest times, until when it is not evident, slavery did not pre- vail to any considerable extent but more use was made of free labor." 1 According to St. Thomas, "In the beginning freedom and equity prevailed" among the peoples, "the distinction of slavery being introduced not by nature but by reason." 2 In the Old Testament we find that, at the time of Abraham, slavery was already an estab- lished institution 3 as had been predicted long before by Noe. 4 It would seem that the industrial systems of almost, if not all nations, previous to the advent of Christian- ity, depended upon slavery. "It existed anciently among Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians, Hebrews, Persians, Phoeni- cians, Greeks, Romans, and in India, China and Africa." 5 Slavery is the first condition in which labor appears as a class in history. Cicero and Livy record the disappearance of a free 1 Mommsen, quoted by Niebor, Slavery as an Industrial System, p. 174. 8 Surama 1, 2 q. 94, a. 5, ad. 3. a Cf. Genesis XXI, 10. 4 Ibid., IX, 25-27. 6 New International Encyclopedia, 2nd edition, Vol. 21, Art. Slavery, New York, 1917. THi: MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 3 plcbs from the country districts of Italy and its replacement by gangs of slaves working on large estates. 1 Cato tells us the latter was preferable. 2 During the age of the An- tonines, as we are informed by Gibbon, there were as many slaves as freemen in the Roman Empire, 1 while Father Husslcin states that "the slave population of Rome in the early days of the Empire is estimated at 1,000,000 as against only 10,000 of the upper classes . . . there was no middle class." 4 According to the historian Ingram "in the year 309 B. C. the Athenian slaves num- bered from 188,000 to 200,000, while the freemen numbered 67,000. Of Spartans there were 8,200, of Helots 220,000." 5 Previous to the advent of Christianity the condition of the slaves was, with the ex- ception of those of the Hebrews, marked by great injustices and extreme cruelty. Among the Hebrews, slaves were protected from cruelty and from permanent bondage by the Old Testament laws.''' As St. «('f. Oc 11 (". Pull SO, Sl| l-iw V, XII. •Cf. v. i. •Cf. C'.ui/.ot, Vol. I, ]». * Democratic Industry, p * History of Slavery, pp. ' '■. '•. •Cf. Dent V, Hi; XVI. ll; Kx.ul. XXI. 2. 4> THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE Thomas remarks they were slaves secimdum quid not simpliciter "quasi mercenarius usque ad tempus." * The Egyptian Pharaohs made the ex- portation of slaves a regular and profitable trade. "An extensive slave trade with the Mediterranean islands, Asia Minor, Africa, or Southern Europe aided to fill Athens, Corinth, iEgina, and Italy with vast num- bers of slaves numbering often thrice the free men." 2 These "slaves were" accord- ing to Aristotle "the living working tools and possessions" 3 and they were generally treated as such. The master had complete power over the life and death of his slaves; a policy often practiced as more profitable than to provide properly and to care for the slave, was to wear him out in a few years. 4 No wonder then that there should be some outbursts of revolt against such treatment, although generally the continual threat of death held over slaves by their masters tended to suppress any such uprisings. As early as the year 413 B. C. we read of a l l; 2 qu. 105, a. 4, ad. 1, 4. 2 New International Encyclopedia, op. cit. 3 Polit. Bk. 7, C. 9. 4 Cf. Husslein, Democratic Industry, p. 32. New York, 1919. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 5 "revolt of the slaves in the silver mines at Laivium." ' The insurrection at Latinum and that headed by Spartacus are instances of other struggles of a similar nature. Although these revolutions can hardly be called strikes in the modern sense of the term, (hey are still the historical antecedents of the present labor struggles, their purpose being akin to that which is at the basis of present day industrial conflicts. They con- stituted a revolt of the workers against the Oppression and grave injustices of those for whom they labored, and represented the ex- pression of the general desire for personal liberty and relief from the industrial system of the time which ground them in both soul and body. Some historians ■ have endeavored to show that these uprisings were caused and di- rected by labor organizations and unions which, they claim, existed even at this early period. This opinion can hardly be main- tained in view of the conclusions of those who have made exhaustive studies of the subject. The Greek "Kranoi" were largely 'Time, iv lull,. Pdopea VII, - 1 :. •if. Osborne Ward, The Ancient Lowly, Vol. l, Cc. :*. l.'. 6 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE clubs or societies for convivial and religious purposes. To ascribe to them a character of mutual relief and benefit associations such as characterizes our modern labor unions is shown by Van Hoist to be incorrect. 1 Waltzing, in his work "Etude historique sur les corporations professionelles chez les Ro- mains," has shown conclusively that "the in- dustrial associations among the Romans un- doubtedly were not labor unions, nor com- mercial, nor co-operative unions." 2 These guilds "made no attempt to raise wages, to impose working conditions, to limit the number of apprentices, to develop skill and artistic taste in the craft, or to better the social or political position of the laborer. It was the need which their numbers felt for companionship, sympathy and help in the emergencies of life and the desire to give more meaning to their lives that drew them together." 3 Christianity exercised very great influ- ence in relieving the masses of the people from the galling yoke of slavery under which they labored at the beginning of our x Cf. Smith, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquity, Art. Eranoi. 2 Vol. II, p. 478. •Waltzing, Op. cit., pp. 221-222. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 7 era. Wherever the Church went she preached the dignity of man, the common brotherhood of all under the Fatherhood of God, etc. Such teaching was hound to have a great effect on the treatment of the labor- ing class by their masters especially those who became Christians. Even the socialist writer, Thomas Kirkup, hears testimony to the influence of the Church in bettering the condition of the laboring element of the times. "The Christian Church," he writes, "did much to soften and abolish slavery and serfdom." ■ The fall of the Roman Empire also contributed to their relief. Slavery gradually became toned down to a more hu- mane condition known as serfdom where they became attached to the household of their masters. According to Ashley, "serfdom remained the condition of the majority In the lower order of society from the sixth to the twelfth century. The system amounted to a modi- fied form of slavery. Personal ownership disappears, but the serf belongs in general to the land and is bound to the soil, or is obliged to give personal service. He must work a part of the week on his master's 1 History of Sodalina, 8th edition, p, 450. 8 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE land, help in the sowings and harvests, and make quarterly payments in money or kind, besides being subject to various fines." * This was a forward step in the betterment of the condition of the laboring class. Serf- dom itself was transitory, "with no other destination than leading the working popu- lation up to the state of entire freedom." 2 Serfs soon began to purchase their free- dom, many were liberated by their Christian masters, others fled to the growing towns and secured their freedom by avoiding being claimed by their masters for a year and a day. In this way by the fourteenth century serfdom had died out of England without any legislation against it. In Spain Ferdi- nand freed all serfs in 1486. In Germany serfdom continued until 1817 while in Russia it was finally abolished only in 1861. 3 The period which marks the decline of serfdom in England, and which corresponds to the period of the growth of craft guilds, saw great advancements in the condition of laboring classes. The period of the full de- 1 English Economic History, Vol. Ill, p. 9. a Op. cit., p. 86. •Cf. New International Encyclopedia, Vol. XXI, Art. Slavery. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 9 velopment of the system of craft guilds or the latter Middle Ages has heen called by- many the "golden era of labor." ' The guild legislation "kept steadily before itself the ideal of combining good quality and a price that was fair to the consumer with a fitting remuneration to the workmen."" Until the fourteenth century the period of serfdom was not disturbed by any serious labor trouble. The influence of the teach- ings of the Christian religion effected the removal of most of the injustices to which the laboring class had previously been sub- jected. In the year 1381, however, a revolt of considerable consequence occurred in England, but this was really social and po- litical rather than economic in character. A few years previous to this, in 1850, a dis- pute arose between the masters and the valets among the shearmen which closely resembled the modern strike as also that among the weavers in 1862.' On the conti- nent "we have reference to a strike in Ger- many among the girdle makers as early as ■Rogers, Work .-mil Wages, p. S08] Potter, Development of English Thought, p. K i »Cf. Asl.l.v, op. lit.. Vol. II. p. 1G9. ■Ibid., p. 108. 10 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 1329, and in 1349 the tanners of Paris struck for an increase of wages." * The advent of the sixteenth century "Re- formation" produced a great change in the condition of labor. Largely through the influence of the Catholic Church, the masses of the laboring classes had been raised from the condition which, according to the old Roman and Germanic law, placed them "on a level with cattle and other mobilia," to one which has been frequently termed by impartial historians "the golden age of la- bor." This condition was soon overturned, and within the space of a few decades the laboring classes were again reduced to a condition of degradation not much better than that which existed under ancient slavery. "The Reformation," says Bruno Schoenlank, a great non-Catholic authority on this subject, "was drawing its social con- clusions, the golden age of the laborer was coming to an end, capitalism began to bestir itself." 2 In his History of Agricultural Prices in England, J. E. T. Rogers de- clares that "the masses of the people were 1 Adams and Summer, Labor Problems, p. 177. New York, 1915. a Sociale Kampfe vor 300 Jaren, p. 51. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 11 the Losers by the Reformation." As early as the period "between 1.341 and 1601 it was necessary to pass twelve acts of Parlia- ment with the distinct object of providing relief against destitution." 1 Sonic idea of the degradation to which the laboring class sank under the individualistic, "laissez faire" policy generated by the Re- formation can he gathered from the state- ment of Professor Hayes of Columbia Uni- versity. Even children could no longer be counted as free. "There was a law by which pauper children could he forced to work, and under this law thousands of poor children, five and six years old, were taken from homes, sent from parish to parish to work in factories, and bought and sold in gangs like slaves. In factories they were set to work without pay. If they refused to work irons were put around their ankles, and they were chained to the machine, and at night they were locked up in the sleep- ing huts. The working day was long — from five or six in the morning until nine or ten at night. Often the children felt their arms ache with fatigue and their eye- lids grow heavy with sleep, but they were 1 Vol i, p. 10. 12 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE kept awake by the whip of the overseer. Many of the little children died of over- work, and others were carried off by dis- eases which were bred by filth, fatigue, and insufficient food." * Anti-slavery orators dilated eloquently upon the miseries of the negroes, while the children of Englishmen at home, as Sir Robert Peel said in 1816, "torn from their beds were compelled to work, at the age of six years, from early morn till late at night a space of perhaps fifteen or sixteen hours under lashes of even more heartless slave-masters. Such was the institution that had replaced the apprentice- ship system of the Catholic guilds of the Middle Ages." 2 In Germany about 1650 the Nurnberg City Council commanded the silk weavers' journeymen to "observe the fear of God and a fifteen-hour work-day." 3 With the passing of the medieval guilds, "labor became a commodity like all other commodities. It must enter into com- petition upon the open market." 4 With the removal of guild restrictions "the way 1 Hayes, Carlton J. H., A Political and Social History of Europe, Vol. II, pp. 85, 86. 1 Husslein, Democratic Industry, p. 217. • Schoenla.uk, op. cit., p. 146. 4 Lewis, The Rise of the American Proletariat, p. 27. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 13 was now open for political autocracy and for individual capitalism. What followed is too well known to call for description. The domestic system, the factory system, and the industrial revolution are successive milestones. With each step forward towards a loudly acclaimed national pros- pi trity the toiling masses were ground more helplessly beneath the feet of that merciless idol of modern commercialism to which the Reformation had surrendered them." 1 Tennyson could describe the England of his day in the following lines: '•Then- among the glooming alleys Progress halts on palsied feet, Crime and hunger cast our maidens By tin' t housands on the b1 reet. "There the master scrimps his haggard sempstress Of her daily bread, There a single sordid at tie Holds the living and the dead."' Indeed it would not be very difficult to reduplicate this picture even in our own day. The Coal Commission of England in i ( .)i!> showed that "in one town alone 27>OO0 out of 88,000 people were living in one or two- 1 Husslcin, op. . I :'i. * Adiun.s and Summi r, l,.ii><>r Problems, p. 177. 16 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE strikes and lockouts in this country. 1 Dur- ing the quarter of a century succeeding this (1881-1906) the actual strikes and lockouts recorded give the number as 36,757, 2 while, notwithstanding the urgent request of the National War Labor Board "that there should be no strikes or lockouts during the war," 3 during the first two years of this country's participation in the Great War, no less than 8,644 strikes and lockouts were recorded. 4 During the year 1918-1919 the strikes and lockouts for the first nine months numbered 2,837, many of which were strikes of more than ordinary magni- tude, such as "the general strike of 367,000 steel workers beginning September 22, and involving most of the steel centers of this country, and the strike of 250,000 railway shopmen in August," etc. 5 The strike was an event comparatively rare half a century ago. The number in our days has increased so rapidly that they now in the United States average at least 1 Cf. Adams and Summer, op. cit. 2 21st Annual Report of the Commissioner of Labor, Strikes and Lockouts, 1906. 3 The Forum, Vol. 60, p. 331. *Cf. Monthly Labor Review, U. S. Dept. of Labor, June, 1919, p. 308. 6 Monthly Labor Review, Dec, 1919, p. 369. Till: MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 17 ten a day. with some of them of such magni- tude and so far reaching in their evil effects that not a few sober-minded persons have been considering seriously the question whether strikes can be defended at all, or if they can be defended in particular in- stances, whether they should not, on account of their frequent and general tendency to occasion an almost continual disturbance of the social and industrial relations, be con- demned as constituting a real menace to society. Such would seem to be the opinion expressed by no less a person than the late President of Harvard University. In a full page article in the Sunday issue of the New York Times, entitled "Why the Public lias Lost Sympathy with Strikes/' Dr. Eliot states that "until recently the mass of the American people has usually felt a general sympathy with the workinginen and women who have struck" . . . but "within the last six years the opinion and sentiments of the mass of American people about strikes have been undergoing a remarkable change, slowly at first hut later rapidly." ' Some would even go so far as to say that strikes 'March 7, 1P20. 18 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE constitute such a serious menace to society as to call for Federal and State prohibitory- legislation, if not on the score of their being intrinsically immoral, at least as a necessary measure for the promotion of the common welfare of the State. II THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE INTRINSICALLY CONSIDERED IN the broad and general sense of the term a strike may be defined as a cessa- tion from work by a number of em- ployees, but in the narrower and more tech- nical sense a strike is an organized cessation of work on the part of a number of workmen in an industry for the purpose of enforcing certain demands from the employer. There are, it would seem, three essential elements in any strike: first, there is the cessation from work of at least a considerable number of the employees of an industry; secondly, tin's cessation of work is a combined and or- ganized movement,- any number of persons might relinquish their positions in a particu- lar employment at the same time, but unless there is concerted action there is no strike; thirdly, the organized cessation of work on the part of the laborers is for a definite pur- 19 20 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE pose bearing on their relations with the em- ployer. The purpose of a strike is to secure certain demands which those who strike endeavor to obtain through a suspension of work, both by refusing to work themselves, and by endeavoring to prevent others from occupying the positions temporarily vacated. It is hardly ever the intention of the strikers in quitting work to seek employment else- where, but to get back their old jobs when they shall have secured the advantage sought. The employer, too, usually desires that the strikers return to work for him, even if the strike has been long and violent. To have to take on an entirely new staff of laborers would be a real loss to him. He, therefore, endeavors to utilize whatever means are available to compel the men to return to work without his having granted their demands. In determining the lawfulness or unlaw- fulness of any action a fundamental con- sideration is the morality of the act inse/i. e., its intrinsic morality. If an action can be condemned on that score, no purpose, how- ever lofty, nor circumstances, however un- usual, can justify the placing of such action. If the strike, then, can be condemned on the TIIK MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 21 ground that it is intrinsically immoral — if any of its essential elements can be con- demned on the score that they involve the violation of necessary relations, then there is no further necessity of entering into a detailed consideration of the various ele- ments that might enter into a particular case. If a strike is intrinsically immoral, no modifying conditions of methods, time, place, or other circumstances can render it morally justifiable. Are the acts which necessarily enter into the constitution of a strike immoral? Can either of the three essential elements of a strike be condemned as immoral in se? In answer to these questions it may be stated in the first place that strikes are no- where declared to be intrinsically immoral, neither in the Encyclical Rcrum Novarwm of Pope Leo XIII, — which may be consid- ered as the official formulation of the Church's teachings on the moral issues involved in the labor and other economic problems, — nor in the writings of Catholic moralists. This fact, while not justifying us in concluding that strikes are not intrinsi- cally immoral, does furnish a strong pre- sumption in favor of such a contention. In 22 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE fact the Encyclical in its treatment of the strike and labor problems implicitly assumes that such a contention is a true and valid one, while all moralists, who deal with the strike question, not only assume the validity of such a contention, but even lay down certain conditions under which they declare a strike to be licit. As there exists "no positive divine or ecclesiastical law against strikes" 1 nor any general civil law, they can only be con- demned as intrinsically immoral because they necessarily involve some violation of the natural law. Such a claim, however, can in no way be substantiated. Under certain conditions or in particular instances, it is true, such a violation may occur, but the cause of this violation must be laid to extrinsic relations, rather than to the intrin- sic nature of the strike itself. The first element of the strike — the cessa- tion of work — scarcely requires a formal justification, for every man has a full and clear right to resign his employment at any time he wishes, provided he does not violate any other person's right in so doing. Many 1 Macksey, Argumenta Sociologica, p. 128. Rome, 1918. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 23 theologians ' would contend that, apart from the obligation based on contract between employer and employed, a man has the un- restricted right to decide for himself when and under what conditions he will work and consequently they are of the opinion that he has the full and clear right to quit his work whenever he chooses. According to such authorities a man's natural right to quit his job is so extensive that he could never, apart from the violation of valid contracts between himself and an employer, violate justice in so doing. "At most an obligation might arise in charity not to leave off work where the cessation of labor would put a master to great loss and expense." a This is a matter for the individual laborer to determine, as it is for the employer to say whom and how long he will employ a particular person or whether he will employ anyone at all. Such a view of the relations existing be- tween the employer and the laborer would seem to be untenable. "The employer and the employee are too intimately dependent upon each other in the realization of their natural rights to make arbitrary severance 1 Vermeersch, Qaaestionea de .lust., a. 474-l>. Cronin, The Science of Ethics, Vol II, p. :<■"><', N V., ism. 'Cronin, op. oit.. Vol. II. p. So". 24 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE of their relations consistent with justice." 1 It can be no argument to say that, as there is no contract compelling the em- ployer to retain the laborer, both are conse- quently free from all obligations in the matter, any more than the absence of an agreement to pay a living wage can free him from his strict obligation in justice in this matter. Man's abstract right to a decent living from the goods of the earth, and his concrete right to wages by which he actual- izes this general right is not properly and reasonably safeguarded, unless it includes the further right to continue in the employ- ment and receive wages from a particular employer for whom he is performing his tasks efficiently, as long as the employer is able to pay him and continues operations. Relationship and environment create special obligations which bind not merely in charity but also in justice. 2 It is certain that an employer can discharge a man for a reason- able cause. A reasonable cause will remove the binding force of the obligation which his special relation to his employer created. It seems equally true that in the absence of a 1 Ryan, The Church and Socialism, p. 116. 3 Cf. Ryan, op. cit., p. 111. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 2fi reasonable cause the employee's right to a decent living, which he can only actualize by the exercise of his labor at a particular job, should not be interfered with by his being dismissed at the arbitrary will of the employer. The conclusion seems reasonable that "men who are performing tasks efficiently and to whom discharge will bring grave inconvenience, have a right to their jobs that differ only in degree from the right to a living wage and the right to first occu- pancy." On the other hand and for the same reasons "the employer has a cor- responding right to the services of his em- ployees as long as he treats them justly. They do him an injustice if they leave him without a reasonable cause." 1 So it would seem that the theory, that "employees have not only a legal right but a moral right to quit work whenever they choose and that the employer enjoys the corresponding right to arbitrarily dismiss his employees," is quite untenable. "Striking workmen have some moral tie, if not technical or legal rights in their general position towards their recent employer. The 'cash' nexus is not the only one. When that has been broken and wages 1 Op. cit, p. 1 1 9. 26 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE are no longer paid and received, there is still a bond of some sort. So they feel and society substantially agrees with them. . . . Even the employer is likely to speak of them as his workmen, implying that there is yet a tie of some kind between them." x No matter which theory we hold, it remains true that the individual has the right to quit work for any reasonable cause. This is particularly true if the conditions are unjust or if the employer refuses to accede to his reasonable demands. "A man is by nature free to give or withhold his labor. He is justified in withdrawing the labor he has been furnishing when he suffers a wrong in some condition of his work." 2 He has the right to stipulate as a condition of his returning to work that the unsatisfactory conditions be remedied or the injustice be removed. This being so, there is nothing in the nature of the case that would constitute a violation of justice or render the act immoral should several or all of the individ- uals in the employ exercise their right to quit work when conditions are not satisfac- 1 Gilman, Methods of Industrial Peace, p. 252, N. Y., 1904. a Parkinson, A Primer of Social Science, p. 129, N. Y„ 1913. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE *7 tory or for some other reasonable cause. Nor can it be said that, by entering unto an agreement among themselves to do so, they thereby render their action immoral. For "if eaeli man has a right against his employer to refuse to work except on his own condi- tions, he has a right to refuse to work except on conditions to which he and his fellow- workers have agreed. The fact of entering into an agreement cannot of itself be a viola- tion of any right, if every party to the agreement has a right to do that to which he commits himself by agreement." ' It is true that there is a great difference between men singly refusing to work and combining to refuse to work, and to prevent others from filling the positions vacated. Hut the difference is one of effect rather than one affecting the essential relations between the employer and the workmen. "There is no difference as far as justice is concerned, unless there is some species of injustice implied in the means of combination or in the influence brought to bear on others." ' With regard to the first of these, VIZ,', the use of organization to effect their purpose, 1 Kelleber, Irian Theol. Quart, Vol 7, p. 6. 1 Kellt'lit r, n|t. fit., p. I J. 28 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE we may say that of itself it involves no immorality. It is but a manifestation of the natural right of association. "To enter society of this kind is the natural right of man. . . . The experience of his own weak- ness urges man to call for help from with- out." 1 Man's nature as well as the experi- ence of ages teaches him that "he cannot effectively pursue happiness nor attain to a reasonable degree of self-perfection unless he unites his energies with those of his fellows." 2 In the religious, moral, political, intellectual, and purely social departments of life the dependence of man upon his fellow beings and the need of association is evidenced by the innumerable types and forms of societies which have, as it were, spontaneously, sprung into being. They re- spond to a fundamental need of man's nature in the working out of his destiny. In the economic order the need of associa- tion is equally urgent and in accordance with man's nature. "Since the individual is dependent upon so many other individuals for many of these material goods that are indispensable to him, he must frequently 1 Leo XIII, On the Condition of Labor. 3 Op. cit. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 29 combine with those of his neighbors who are similarly placed if he would successfully resist the tendency of modern forces to over- look and override the mere individual." l Association is not only in accordance with nature, but it would seem to be a necessary means of safeguarding the individual work- man against injustice. It is not too much to say thai "nature has dictated 'association' as a means of safeguarding the human race. Thereby strength is acquired, means are provided for living in greater security, enjoying tranquillity and happiness while facilities which are conducive to well-being are at hand." a We may safely conclude, therefore, that "laborers have a moral right to unite to obtain better terms from their employers, if this action would involve no injustice to either the employer or the con- sumer." '■'■ Nor can it be said that the strike is immoral on the score that it necessarily vio- lates the natural right of the employer to "freedom of contract'' with other laborers. 1 Hyan, The Church ud Socialism, p. 101. Wash., D. C, 1919. •O'Herby, C m. The I ibor Problem, Irish Bed Ree. 'Ryan, The Church and Socialism, p. 101. Wash, D. C, 1919. 30 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE As long as the workers have a just cause for striking the attempt on the part of the strikers to dissuade others from taking up the positions temporarily vacated violates no strict right of the employer as long as the methods used are justifiable. Although the strikers have stopped working they have not severed all connection with their em- ployers or their work. It is their intention to resume the jobs vacated as soon as their demands are granted. And if these demands are just in themselves there can be, in the nature of the case, no valid reason why the strikers should not be permitted to use means that are licit in themselves for the attainment of their end. "The employ- ers certainly cannot have a strict right that the men abstain from such attempts at dis- suasion," 1 as may induce others to refrain from accepting employment from one who refuses just terms to his laborers. Surely when men are striving for a just share in the proceeds of an industry, or for condi- tions of employment that are reasonable, it cannot be said that, by pointing out that interference on the part of others would work hardship on themselves and involve a 1 Kelleher, op. cit., p. 4. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 31 setback to the .just cause of labor, or that by urging these and similar motives to dis- suade others from taking- the vacated posi- tions, they violate any strict right of the employer. It may be objected that such action on the part of the strikers violates the em- ployer's natural right to freedom of con- tract and consequently thai justice forbids the use of persuasion to prevent others from working for the employer against whom they happen to be striking. This argument, plausible as it may seem, is not a valid one. In the first place as the term is popularly understood "the rule of free contract is unjust" botli because "many labor contracts are not free in any genuine sense" and lie- cause "it takes no account of the moral claims or needs . . . which constitute the primary title or claim to material goods." 1 Besides in its genuine and valid sense "'free- dom of contract" does not mean that no interference at all is permitted, that by legitimate means such as advice, persuasion, just fear, etc., one may not for some good reason, endeavor to induce either party not to enter into an agreement, or that one may 'Ryan. Dlstrib. .lusL. pp. S3Q-331, S.57, N. Y., IMA 32 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE not diminish the opportunities for entering into that contract. It is hard to see how acts which are licit in themselves can become immoral or unjust merely because they interfere with the exercise of freedom of contract, for that natural right imposes no further obligations on others than that they should refrain from any action which would unjustly interfere with the opportunities of others from entering into favorable con- tract. In the case of strikes where persuasive methods are used to prevent fellow-workers from continuing work or others from filling the positions vacated, although the employ- er's freedom of contract may be seriously curtailed, and although it generally is the intention of the strikers that such should be the effect, still "there is no violation of a strict right provided there be nothing unjust in any of the different acts by which the restriction of freedom is brought about." * It might happen in a particular instance, owing to peculiar or exceptional circum- stances, that such acts would involve a viola- 1 Kelleher, op. cit, p. 5; Noldin, Theol. Mor., Vol. II, N. 306 (3), N. Y., 1914. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 88 tioii of charity. In such a case the con- demnation of the use of persuasion arises from special external relations, and not on the ground of intrinsic morality. To refuse to continue to work, to agree among them- selves to do so, and to use their powers of persuasion to induce others to refrain from working, arc acts perfectly moral in them- selves and perfectly just for the workmen, provided they do not thereby violate any strict right of either the employer or the general public. The employer can have no such strict right unless the laborers have entered into a valid contract with him. Where such con- tracts exist the laborers' natural right to stop work when they please is suspended for the time being and as long as the \ :i lid con- tract endures. All just contracts between the employer and employee must he fulfilled. Not only does justice demand this, hut the general good of the laboring class is best obtained and safeguarded by the punctual and complete fulfillment of all valid con- tracts. The general welfare of society also demands that contractual relationship be preserved. As long as such a contract exists and perseveres, the laborers can in no way 34 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE be justified in striking. Employers, as well as employees, have a strict right that all just contracts expressed or implied between themselves be scrupulously carried out. No strike can be morally countenanced which violates a just contract that has been freely entered into by both parties and whose terms are carefully carried out by the employer. To declare a strike while such a contract endures is to inflict a manifest injustice on the employer. 1 "For religion teaches the workmen to carry out honestly and well all equitable agreements freely made." 2 So the strike of the printers and longshoremen in New York and of the street railway employees in Chicago during the summer of 1919 were morally indefensible, although their demands may not have been unjust, because such strikes involved the violation of contracts and agreements which "were freely and honestly made" and therefore, "morally binding." 3 But it may sometimes happen that where a contract exists, the workmen are not 1 Cf. Vermeersch, Quaest. de Just., n. 474 (a) ; Pottier, De Just, et Jure, n. 176; Noldin, op. cit, n. 306 (2); Genicot, Theol. Moral., Vol. II, n. 22; Tanquerey, Theol. Moral., Vol. II, n. 844. 2 Leo XIII, On the Condition of Labor. 3 Cath. Char. Rev., Editorial, Nov., 1919, p. 263. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 35 morally bound to observe its terms either because it never bad any morally binding force on account of some defect or because it bas lost its original binding force. Tbe contract between the employer and tbe laborers may have been invalid from tbe be- ginning, either on account of error in tbe real terms of the contract, or because the agreement contains some clause or clauses that are unjust. An example of this would be when men are morally forced by fear of going without employment to agree to work for a wage or under conditions which are manifestly unjust. Full consent of the will may not have been present because they were drawn by force or fraud or the exigen- cies of their economic position into a bargain unjust to themselves. "The laborer who, from fear of a worse evil, enters a contract to work for starvation wages cannot be regarded as transferring to the employer the full moral right to tbe services which he agrees to render. Like a wayfarer he merely submits to superior force. . . . His consent is vitiated to a substantial extent by the element of fear when he is compelled by dire necessity to aeeept a wage that is insuf- ficient for a decent livelihood. The agree- 36 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE ment to which he submits in these circum- stances is no more free than the contract by which the helpless wayfarer gives up his purse to escape the pistol of the robber." * As necessity compelled them to accept con- ditions that were manifestly unjust they are not morally bound by the terms of such a contract. It may happen, too, that a contract which was valid originally becomes invalid and loses its binding force because the employer fails to fulfil his part of the contract. "His failure to carry out the obligations imposed upon him by the agreement relieves the workers from any further obligation in jus- tice as far as the contract is concerned." 2 Even where the employer fulfils all the terms of the contract but fails to treat his men justly in some other particular, e. g., compelling them to work under conditions which are gravely dangerous to health or life, the men may be morally justified in striking, 3 for as Lehmkuhl remarks, "one may refuse service due in justice to another in order to force him to desist from acting 1 Ryan, Distrib. Just., pp. 329-30. 2 Garriguet, Regime du Travail, p. 133. s Cf. Vermeersch, op. cit., n. 474 (a). THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 37 unjustly towards him." In these cases and where, as stated above, the contract was invalid from the beginning, the laborers "can without violating justice go on strike" 1 in order to enforce their just demands. According to Fr. Kelleher "it is only rarely that strikes can be said to violate contracts," ' which are morally binding in justice. Generally there is no such contract existing or where such an agreement lias been entered into, it very often is devoid of real moral force begetting an obligation in justice. If, as statistics seem to indicate, a "considerable majority of both male and female laborers fail to obtain living wages" and, according to Nearing and Grant, four- fifths of the workers belong to this class, being compelled by economic necessity to labor at a wage below the minimum of jus- tice, it may be questioned whether the majority of contracts beget any really mora] obligation of justice on the pari of the labor- ers. Therefore, it seems quite safe to Bay ■Op. dt, p. 133. •Op. dt, p. :i. 'Ryan, Dutrlb. Just., p. 380] cf. Xcirinir, Income, p. LOG; Grant, Fair Play t'<>r the Workers, p. 36 j Catnonc Bishops' Reconstruction Program. 38 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE that many of the wage contracts are devoid of really moral binding force. Yet where such agreement exists between the employer and the laborers it must always be pre- sumed to be valid. It is up to the workmen to show that the contract is clearly unjust or invalid from the beginning, or if valid originally, that the failure of the employer to live up to his part of the contract or sub- sequent changes made arbitrarily by the employer in the agreement now render it null and void. Against the overwhelming presumption in favor of the binding char- acter of a contract entered into between laborers and an employer, only clear and conclusive evidence to the contrary can relieve the laborers from their obligations. "Both morality and expediency dictate that labor should always regard its contracts, agreements, and engagements as sacredly obligatory.". 1 But apart from valid con- tracts there is nothing in the nature of the case by which the laborer's act of severance of his relations with his employer must necessarily be characterized as immoral or unjust as violating a strict right of the em- ^ath. Char. Rev., Editorial, Not., 1919, p. 263. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE :39 ployer. While it may be true that "they do him an injustice if they leave him without a reasonable cause" ! it is also certain that the "corresponding right (of the employer) to the services of his employees lasts only as long as he treats them justly." 2 Where his treatment of his laborers involves an injus- tice, all obligations, whether of charity or justice, which might bind the laborer to con- tinue working for such an employer, are ab- rogated. So that if he ceases work or strikes to enforce what is due him in justice he does not violate any strict right of his employer. Nor can it be held that the strikers violate any strict right of the general public or so- ciety in their cessation from labor. It may be said that the strikers violate the rights of society because the increased remunera- tion, which the strikers in a particular strike seek, will have to be paid largely by the gen- eral public in their capacity as consumers, or because the dislocation of industry, which every strike more or less occasions, inflicts considerable loss and injury on the public. Only in these two eases could a strike be con- 1 Hv.ui, The Chord) and Socialism, p. Hi, Wash* D. c. 1919. 'Op. cit 40 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE ceived as violating a strict right of the public. Now while both of the above contentions may be partly or wholly true it does not follow that the workers are bound in strict justice to refrain from striking solely on that account. In the first place, it does not follow that the increased remuneration which the laborers seek will have to be paid largely by the general public, for "higher wages will often give the workers both the physical capacity and the spirit that makes possible a larger output. Thus they could themselves equivalently provide a part at least of the additional remuneration." * Then increased managerial and mechanical efficiency can help considerably, as is seen in the tailoring industry in England, where "the increased costs of production have on the whole been met by better organization and better machinery." 2 This is also shown in the case of the Packard Piano Co., Fort Wayne, Ind., in the William Demuth & Co. pipe factory, New York; Sydney Blumen- thal & Co. weaving mills, Shelton, Conn., 1 Ryan, Distrib. Just., p. 409. 2 Tawney, Minimum Rates in the Tailoring Industry, p. 161. Till: MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 41 etc. 1 Besides, a part of the increase 1 wage cust could be defrayed out of the enormous profits which at times the capitalist has been allowed to amass, often much to the detri- ment of society. Should these sources be unable to provide for the "increased remuneration which the strikers seek," it could happen that the gen- eral public would have to be called upon to bear a portion of the burden of providing a just wage for the laborer, as well as to suffer considerable inconvenience as to the result of the strike, yet in either case it is difficult to show that labor is thereby guilty of an injustice to the public. Society or the con- sumer has on the other hand obligations to the workmen which are all too often disre- garded and "consumers who buy an article that was made under unjust conditions co- operate in this injustice . . . by receiving the goods, by furnishing the means for com- mitting the injustice, and by urging such production by financial support: and since the social necessity of getting a living wage IS beyond contradiction, the Consuming class who benefit especially by tlu- labor of these *Cf. John Ldtch, Man to Man, The Story of Industrial Democracy, Chaps. Ill, IV, V. 42 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE workmen are especially bound to see that these rights are obtained." * According to Fr. Cuthbert, the consumers "who patronize such labor contribute to the sin," and are at times more responsible for the injustice done the laborers than the employers for "the in- satiable yearning to buy cheap without any thought how the cheapness is obtained, this is the incentive which tempts men to buy cheap labor and underpay workmen. Were people in general not willing accomplices there would be no sweating system, no un- fair competition. The sin falls not on the few (manufacturers) but on the many (patrons) who too readily condone the sin of the few for the sake of the resultant ad- vantage to themselves. They pay half a penny less for a pound of sugar, a shilling or two less for a ton of coal. What does the public care that the shop assistant or the miner is unable to get a human wage?" 2 What right, then, has the public to de- mand that the laborers continue to suffer manifest injustice in order that it be not inconvenienced or that it may not be called upon to bear the burdens that might rightly 1 Ross, Consumers and Wage Earners, pp. 27, 30. N. Y., 1912. 'Catholic Ideals in Social Life, p. 311. N. Y., 1914. [E MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 10 and justly fall to its share? "The public has DO tight that he (the worker) should labor in order that it should be convenienced, Dor that he should forego the use of any of his just powers of securing favorable terms from the capitalist in order that its interests should not suffer. We hear a great deal about the suffering which strikes indict on the innocent public, but we must remember that the public has no right to demand that the workmen abstain from the acts to which these sufferings are attributed. If these sufferings resulted merely from the spon- taneous and simultaneous cessation from work on the part of a large section of work- ers . . . there should be no shadow of foun- dation for the charge of injustice against these men. Neither can these sufferings prove injustice when they are due to a course which the men are otherwise perfectly jus- tified in pursuing." ! The public has no more right than the immediate employers to demand that the laborers work for unjust wages, no more than they have a right to de- mand that the laborers refrain from striking, if that lie necessary, to enforce (heir claim, provided the demand in itself be a just and 1 KaUcher, op. cit, pp, n-i.- 1 . 44 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE reasonable one, and that the means em- ployed in carrying on the strike be moral in themselves. Here it is presupposed that the demands to be enforced are of such a grave character that the good to be obtained will offset any injuries that the general public may be called upon to endure in consequence of the strike, and that no other less drastic method for the enforcement of the claims is avail- able. The bearing which each of these con- ditions has on the morality of the strike will be shown further on in the development of the subject. The third element in the constitution of a strike — the enforcing of certain demands — is by its very nature morally indifferent. Whether such demands are moral or not, licit or illicit, will depend on the nature of the demands enforced by any particular strike. They may be morally good or evil, just or unjust. How the character of the demands may affect the morality of a strike we shall now proceed to set forth. Ill THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE IN ITS RELATION TO THE END OR OBJECT SOUGHT 1. JUST AND UNJUST CAUSES IN justifying or condemning any par- ticular strike, the object or end aimed at or desired by the strikers must be given primary consideration. For unless the object of the strike be morally good and one to which the laborers have some right in justice, they cannot be justified either in demanding that their claims be granted or in enforcing them by any means whatever, DO matter how harmless. The laborers haw- no right to "all that they can get" it' that term is to be taken to mean, as it generally is by the worker, that justice sets no limits to what he may demand or take, provided he can enforce such demands. The theory advanced by socialists that 45 46 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE "the laborer has a right to the whole prod- uct," * is not only a "radically incomplete" theory of wage justice, but "it is confronted by the final objection that its realization would involve greater evils and injustices than those it seeks to abolish." 2 Socialists forget that labor is but one of the necessary factors in production. Labor cannot get along without capital any more than capital can dispense with labor. Furthermore, they are bound together not only by mutual needs or interest, but also by mutual obligations. The claim of labor to "all that it can get, and this only limited by what it produces," as set forth in the New York Socialist Call is altogether unjust and such a claim may not be enforced by peaceful, much less by drastic, strike methods. Such a theory, in the minds of the radical workman, means "that there is no limit to what they may demand short, perhaps, of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs, though Socialism would not hesitate at that," 3 and is no more justifiable than the claim of the capitalist to 'Win. Godwin, Enquiry Concerning Political Justice; Wm. Thompson, An Inquiry into the Principles of the Dis- tribution of Wealth Most Conducive to Human Happiness. 2 Rvan, Distrib. Just., p. 3-16. "Husslein, The World Problem, p. 113, New York, 1918. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 47 "all that he can get." Disregarding the principles -if justice, the modern capitalist, acting on the same principle of seeking and taking all that he can get, lias forced wages down to the minimum of expediency or necessity, while at the same time he has forced prices up to the maximum of eco- nomic e tpediency or possibility, and in this way "'a small number of very rich men have been able to lay upon the masses a yoke little better than slavery." ' The doctrine of "laissez faire" and the "fret- u. : ■ contract" are no Longer regarded as pos tin- sacredness formerly at- tributed to them. "There is in progress a very general reaction from this immoral doe- trine and almost all men admit that there i^ a fair price and an unfair price for labor as well as for other goods that men buy and sill." So, also, as then- is a just wage, there are conditions of labor, hours, etc., which ;i 'e just, and which labor may demand without inflicting an Injustice either on tin employ* r r on the general public. The cause for which men generally strike may be e ther to obtain better terms of em- 1 BncycL On the Condition of Ijil><>r. • Hy.ui, DnHrib. .hi>t., p. 108, 48 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE ployment as regards wages, length of work- ing days or some other condition of work, to retain present advantages which the em- ployer seeks to curtail, or to obtain recogni- tion of union and union principles. Assum- ing that the end sought is morally good in itself, the action of the men in striking can- not be justifiable except on the condition that they have, as against either the employ- ers or the consumers a right to the object sought. It is clearly evident that no strike is justifiable that seeks to enforce unjust demands. Of the justice of the cause of those who strike for a minimum wage there can be no question. "The right of Labor to a living wage with decent maintenance for the pres- ent and provisions for the future is generally recognized. The right of Capital to a fair day's work, for a fair wage is equally plain." x Such is the teaching voiced by Pope Leo XIII almost thirty years ago. "There is," says the Encyclical, "a dictate of natural justice more imperious than any bargain between man and man, namely that the remuneration should be sufficient to 1 Pastoral Letter of the Hierarchy of the United States, February, 1920. Till: MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 49 maintain the wage earner in reasonable and frugal comfort." ' The principle of a living wage is expressly embodied in the Church Law, Canon 1524 of the New Code (Codex Juris Canonici), which states that "All per- sons . . . should, in employing labor, pay the workers a fair and just wage." This duty of the employer of labor is based on the fact that he "has obligations of justice not merely as a receiver of a valuable thing through an onerous contract but as the dis- tributor of the common heritage of nature. His duty is not merely contractual but social. . . . Unless lie perforins this social and distributive function in accordance with justice he does not adequately discharge his obligation of the Wage Contract. A strike will always be just per $6 which seeks to raise a wage that is less than this minimum of wage justice up to at least the minimum. This the employer cannot or- dinarily refuse without violating justice-. In ease an employer cannot pay a living wage, his obligation of justice is suspended, while charity would seem to urge that the Laborers refrain from enforcing their claims. They 1 On the Condition <>f Labor. 'Ryan, Distrik Jut, |>. STL 50 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE are not bound, however, to continue laboring for such an employer, for "if the industry cannot pay a living wage the workmen will be justified in leaving such an industry to die out." x Fr. Lehmkuhl in discussing the question of the just causes of strikes, distinguishes between what he calls self-defense (not- wehr) and self-help (selDsthilfe). "Self- defense," he says, "is always self-help but not vice versa"; the concept of "self-help" is wider. It does not of necessity suppose that strict injustice has been committed by the other party, but extends to the effective maintenance of whatever the workers may demand and strive for, without committing an injustice themselves. "To enable one to decide whether, in a particular case, a strike is justified or not, it is of great importance to know whether it has or has not this char- acter of self-defense. . . . Workers are never bound to continue for a single day to work under unjust conditions, even though these should be part of the contract which in this respect would have no binding force. . . . Should the employers, however, be guilty of no act of injustice against the em- 1 Lehmkuhl, Arbeitersvertrag und Strike, p. 57. Till: MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 51 ployed, the latter must observe the condi- tions of any just contract they may have entered into until this expires. They may, indeed, ask for more favorable conditions, but they may not enforce the demand. Pro- vided, however, they have given the notice prescribed in the contract, or, at the expira- tion of the term agreed upon, the workmen can take combined action to enforce a much more extensive claim; they have a right to set a higher value on their labor; and even though these further demands be unwise . . . they cannot on that account alone be accused of strict injustice." ' While the quotation is, in general, a correct statement of the case, yet the claim that the laborers "have a right to set a higher value on their labor, etc.," necessarily calls for some re- strictive qualification. The laborers have a right to set a higher value on their labor and demand such higher wage, provided such de- mands are not unjust, that is, do not exceed what they may demand in justice. Father Vermeersch's statement would be a more exact presentation Of the ease when he states that "strikes, which arc called for the pur- pose of enforcing a higher wage, as long as 1 Arbettenvertrag and strike, pp, 66, '><<, B9, 52 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE it is just, even though it be the 'summum justum' or the maximum just wage, are not to be adjudged on this account unjust." 1 So if the wages are below that which justice requires the employer to pay his workmen, that is, if they are below the minimum of wage justice, which employers may not withhold without committing an injustice, the workers are justified in demanding a higher wage, even though a contract should exist, and in striking to enforce such a de- mand if this be necessary. Such action will constitute an act of self-defense against real injustice inflicted on them by their em- ployer. But not only may they strike against treatment which constitutes a real injustice, but they may also demand the "summum justum" wage, and if no valid contract exists, they may, without violating strict justice, strike to enforce a wage, even in excess of a living wage, provided such wage demanded be not in excess of the "summum justum" wage. "If, however, the demands of the strikers call for a wage which is beyond the 'summum justum' or for un- reasonable conditions of labor, the strike 1 Quaest. de Just., n. 473, b. THE MORALITY OP THE STRIKE 68 will involve a Violation of strict justice." 1 A demand for a wage in excess of the maximum just price or the highest just wage which one's laboi is entitled to, would he to demand more than the commodity of lahor was worth and SO a strike to enforce such a demand would he unjust. .And if through a strike the employer is compelled to grant demands which force him to commit an in- justice on the consumer by charging more than the "just price" for the product in or- der to meet part of any unjust demand, then the laborers are plainly guilty of a double injustice. But "between the 'pretium suiu- mum' and the 'pretium infimunf the work- man may take any wage he can, even the 'pretium summum 1 if he can bargain for it. He can refuse t<> work unless he gets it and can combine with Others for the purpose, — in a word, he can strike for it. as far as jus- tice is concerned." ' Such action might, however, involve a violation of legal justice or of charity. In order to he ahle to state definitely when a strike i-^ unjust by reason of excessive de- mands, it would be accessary to know just 1 v. rmeerech, Qaaest. <1<- Just., n. ! M ir.-imii. iri.-ii TheoL Quart, Vol. I, p. U5. 54 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE what is the "summum justum" wage, condi- tions of labor, etc., in the various employ- ments. As yet these have not been definitely determined. The perpetual fluctuations of economic conditions make this determina- tion extremely difficult or practically impos- sible. We may be able to determine within reasonable limits what is the "infimum jus- tum" or the minimum of wage justice, and at times it may be quite evident that a par- ticular wage demand is excessively unjust, but we cannot as yet point out definitely at what particular point injustice begins. We may be sure, however, that it is not "all that he can get" or 100% of the product, as the syndicalists would have it. According to the opinion of Dr. O'Donnell: "Perhaps if we said that the maximum wage meant all the profits remaining when the employer has been paid a full interest on the value of the capital involved and a full remuneration for individual service in the way of manage- ment and otherwise, we should be as near the truth as any others that have speculated with the problem. If the test is true it would employ a large margin of difference between the minimum and the maximum wage in the large and settled industries that THE MORALITY OF THE STRIK1 transform capitalists into millionaires and a yery Blight one, it' any at all, in the smaller branches, where the- risks of capital are #rcat, and the profit meagre and fluctu- ating." 1 Until We ran say what arc the and what arc the conditions of em- ployment which each workman would be un- just in seeking we cannot determine just when strikes would be unjust by reason of the greatness of the demands. When during the summer of 1919 the dock hands in New Fork struck for a wage of one dollar an hour, it was thought by many, and this opinion was fostered by the hitter criticism such demands w err subjected to by the daily press, that their wage de- mands were surely unjust. Yet a careful consideration of the case "would make an intelligent moralist reluctant to declare that the laborer who demands and receives a Wage of oik dollar an hour, is clearly guilty of injustice.* 1 ■ Still it would not he correct to state that the strike did not involve a vio- lation of justice. ( )ther factors call for seri- ous consideration before rendering a de- ; , Record, 191 1 -IS, ; •Cat'h. llur K.-t, BdltorUl, Oct.. 1919, p. «8. WuL, D l 56 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE cision, such as their violation of contract, and their disregard of the orders of the supreme officers of their union. These factors would seem to justify at least one prominent mor- alist * in condemning the strike as "not morally justifiable." Although it happens occasionally that strikes are called which involve a violation of justice, still it may safely be stated that the cause for which labor is striking and seeking to secure, viz., the remedying of the evils and injustices of the present social and economic condition, is in general a just one. This contention is admitted by most of the present-day economic and moral writers. "The organized struggle of the laboring classes," says John Graham Brooks in his work, The Social Unrest, "assumes that the present competitive wage system does not bring full justice to labor." 2 And he adds that "our society is full of extremely influ- ential persons who say point blank that labor's protest is in the main a righteous one and should prevail." To support his con- tention he quotes the statements of a large number of "influential persons," beginning x Op. cit., Nov., 1919, p. 228. 3 P. 154. THE IfORALITI 01 THE STRIKE 57 with Wagner and (.•ruling with Pope Leo XIII. The great demand that is at the bear! of the struggle of honest labor is thai justice should prevail in the distribution of the goods of the earth, that the common wel- fare rather than the welfare of a privflegi 'I f< m should be consulted in this and in all tilings. Ft. Plater terms this effort to estab- lish the reign of justice in the industrial field "suppressed Catholicism." 1 In his mind "the working class of this country are suffer- ing from suppressed Catholicism. The <>Id pre-Reformation instincts for freedom and security have broken the husk of an un- christian economic theory and practice." It is a revolt against the selfish spirit of rationalistic capitalism that sprang into be- after the Reformation, when the Guild in was replaced by a "system which per- mitted the accumulation of mountain fortunes by a few clevei and often highly unscrupulous financiers who h< Id in their hands the fate of millions of their fellow- men." - It is the spirit of justice, the spirit of "suppressed Catholicism,* 1 that is at the 1 Tin- Pried in So I Ad New York. 1014 Mlu.. 1. in. The World Probfc m, p, l. 58 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE heart of the labor movement, "struggling for liberation beneath the crackling, breaking, bursting shell of an unnatural and un- Chris- tian social order." x The "general convic- tion" underlying the great social struggle, "that the present competitive wage system does not bring justice to labor and that labor's protest is in the main a righteous one and should prevail ... is undoubtedly cor- rect." 2 For the most part this sense of in- justice manifests itself in the low rumblings of discontent, the constant shiftlessness manifested in the industrial field — and at times the spirit of justice, which, like the ghost of Banquo, "will not down," rises and asserts itself in the form of a strike. "The strike may foment class hatred on the part of the employers ; but primarily it expresses a sense of injustice on the part of the em- ployed, which is present whether the strike breaks out or not." 3 The magnitude of the injustice done to labor, by forcing between two-thirds and three-fourths of the great body of the working public to accept a wage *Op. cit., p. 5. a Ryan, The Church and Socialism, p. 103. ' Parkinson, A Primer of Social Science, p. 131. N. Y., 1913. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 59 below the level of minimum justice, 1 be- comes somewhat evident when we consider that "shortly before the Great War i ■ of tin- population of England held 90 of all the wealth of the country. In the United States 60 Of the wealth was owned by 2 of the people, while at the other extreme of the social scale, 65' of the population, rep- uting the labor element, possessed no more than .V. of tlu- total riches of the laud." ' The Constant friction in the indus- trial world, the angry pressure of organized labor, the revolt of the strike, stand for a protest against the injustice.' done to the laboring class. According to the Manley report, before the war, between two-thirds and three-fourths of the adult male laborers of the United States received a wage less than $750.00 a year,' a sum which certainly could nut he considered as an excessive liv- ing wage. As the increase in wages in gen- era] has not kept pace with the increased cosi of living, it is quite safe to say that the posi- tion of the laborer in relation to the mini- 'Cf N'.irin.'. Income, p, |06{ Grant, Pair Play t.> the Workers, p • Husslein, The World Problem. ; upMiks, Social (Jurat, p. 164 •Cf. Ryan, DUtrib. Just, p. 60 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE mum wage or minimum cost of living, has not materially improved. So it is hardly an exaggeration to say that at the present day "a considerable majority of both male and female laborers fail to obtain living wages. We are still very far from having actualized even the minimum of wage justice." 1 In view of these facts we may reasonably conclude that the "considerable majority" of the workers of the United States would cer- tainly be justified in striking for a salary which would be equivalent to the concrete estimate of the ethical minimum as com- puted by reputable economists. Of the jus- tice of such a cause there can be no question. Nor are the laborers limited to the minimum, although it is up to the minimum that the action of the strikers may be considered as an act of self-defense against the injustice of their employers. But besides this they may lawfully demand, and strike for a wage up to the maximum value of their labor, at least as far as the strict justice of the case is concerned, although their action might be contrary to legal justice or to charity in a particular case. A question of considerable importance in 1 Ryan, op. cit, p. 380. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 81 determining the morality of a strike to en- force a •! dm for an increase of wage is whether or not the minimum or Living r means a family wage. For it' the minimum wage means a family wage, then the workers without violating justice can. even where a contract exists, strike for the enforcement of such a wage. On the other ham!, if the living wage means only an individual wage, tlie content of such a wage being much less, to strike for a family wage, where a contract exists to work for a lesser wage, if above the minimum, woirld constitute ;i violation of natural justice and render the strike unjust. The more gi neral opinion of theologians and economists is that, "the claim to a family wage is one of strict justice, while the minority would put it under the head of legal justice or natural equity or charity. The ditl'< bet w( en their \ icw s are Dot so important as the agreements, for all Catholic Writers maintain that the worker's claim is strictly moral in its nature and the corre- sponding ibligation upon the employer is The statement of Cathrein would seem to 1 Kvmii. : I l.i.t., pp, 177-78 Cf. H\ tn. A I.ninj; i i 62 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE make the payment of a family wage not a matter of strict justice. "To effect any dis- crimination," he writes, "in favor of unmar- ried men, which might arise were the living wage due to them less than that which mar- ried men should receive, an amount equiva- lent to a family wage is considered the minimum for all adult males." * While it is clear that there can be no question of the moral obligation of the employer to pay a family living wage, and while it matters little on what virtue or species of justice such obligation is based as far as the employer's duty is concerned, still it is of considerable consequence when viewed in relation to strikes and the possible violation of con- tracts. However, as most moralists are agreed that a living wage means a family wage, laborers may, without a violation of justice, strike for such a wage even where a contract to work for a lower wage exists. On the other hand, as some authorities are of the other opinion, we cannot say with cer- tainty that an employer, who fails to pay a family wage, yet pays to all his employees an individual living wage, is guilty of a vio- lation of commutative justice. 1 Phil. Moral., n. 413. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 6S To the further question, just what is the money equivalent of such a living wage, it is not easy to give an exact answer. It must necessarily fluctuate with the changes in the cost of living. While in 1906 "anything less than $600.00 per year would not be consid- ered a living wage in any of the cities of the United States" 1 and about $840.00 was necessary, according to the Bureau of Stand- ards, for a family of five in New York in 1915, such estimates are certainly far from constituting a living wage at the present day when "the cost of living has increased 83.1% during the past six years." 2 With the present very unsettled state of the markets, it is very nearly impossible to give anything like an accurate estimate. The divergence of the estimates given by authorities clearly shows this. According to the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, "a family of five needs $2,288.25" according to prices preva- lent in October, 1919, "to live in decent com- fort in Washington, D. C." 3 This "budget level adopted," the Review adds, "is in no way intended as an ideal budget. It was 1 Ryan, A Living Wage, p. 150. 'Monthly Labor Review, U. S. Dept. of Labor, Jan., 1920, p. 98. "Ibid., Dec., 1919, p. 23. 64 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE intended to establish a bottom level of health and decency, below which a family cannot go without danger of physical health and moral deterioration." In 1918 Professor William F. Ogburn, Examiner for the National War Labor Board, estimated the minimum cost of decent subsistence for this country as $1,386. 00. * Making the necessary allow- ance for the increase in cost of living since that date would bring this estimate up to about $1,550.00 or $1,600.00 for the begin- ning of the present year. According to Dr. Ryan, "the minimum cost of decent living for a man and wife and three children in the United States today (October, 1919) varies from $1,400.00 to $1,500.00." 2 This last figure is considerably lower than the estimate of most economists. According to the findings of the investigations con- ducted by the Bureau of Municipal Re- search of Philadelphia, a family of five "can- not maintain a fair standard of living at current prices (autumn, 1918) on less than $1,636.79 a year." 3 1 Memorandum printed for the use of the National War Labor Board, p. 13. 2 A Living Wage, p. 107, 1920 Edition. 3 Beyer, Davis, and Thwing, Workingruen's Standard in Philadelphia, p. 5. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 65 The National War Labor Board in June, 1918, estimated that the cost of a "minimum of comfort" budget for a family of five in the five larger eastern cities was $1,760.00 per year. 1 Allowing for the increase in cost of living since 1918 would bring both of these figures up to the vicinity of $1,900.00 and $2,000.00 at the beginning of 1920. Professor Ogburn of the University of Columbia, "who was requested by the United Mine Workers of America to prepare an annual budget of expense for the average American family of five persons, shows that the average family required $2,243.94 a year for support on an American standard of reasonable health and comfort." 2 The minimum cost of a living budget for a family of five given by the Canadian Civil Service Report, a "budget based on a study of prices made by the departments of Labor of Canada and the LTnited States, and by the United States Shipping Board, the New York Factory Investigating Commission, the New York Bureau of Standards, the Massachusetts and Minnesota Minimum *Cf. op. cit., p. 7. 2 Bittner, Van. H., Miners' Union Statistician's statement before the President's Cost Commission, Wash. Star, Jan. 29, 1920. 66 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE Wage Commission and other bodies," places "the necessary annual expenditures for a man and wife and three children at $1,558.00." 1 As the average cost of living in Canada is somewhat less than in this coun- try, it seems to be quite safe to say that a general estimate of $1,000.00 as the mini- mum family wage is quite conservative for at least the great majority of cities in the United States. a. Working Conditions Another frequent cause of industrial con- flicts has been the question of working con- ditions. Laborers have demanded, and rightly so, that they not only be given an adequate wage, but that they be not forced to earn that wage under conditions which might imperil their health, life, or morals. Whether such demands are just will depend upon the reasonableness of improvements demanded. There is no definite standard available to determine precisely at what point such demands would be unreasonable. One thing would seem certain — workers may, in some employments, still demand 1 The Canadian Labor Gazette, August, 1919, p. 862. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 67 further improvements in the conditions of labor without violating justice. Adequate protection against moral evils as well as against accidents and disease may always be demanded where they are not enforced by law. Both justice and charity require that employers concede this much at least. This phase of the industrial question of late years has received more attention that any other on the part of the state legislators, with the result that many protective laws have been enacted safeguarding the health and lives of the workers. This fortunately lessens the necessity of resorting to strikes to enforce reasonable working conditions, and in time, the need of resorting to these measures in this regard will no longer be felt. b. Hours of Labor A demand for reasonable hours of labor may form a just cause for a strike. "Daily labor," says Pope Leo XIII, "must be so regulated that it may not be protracted dur- ing longer hours than the strength admits. How many and how long the intervals of rest should be, will depend upon the nature of the work, on the circumstances of time 68 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE and place, and on the health and strength of the workmen. Those who labor in mines and quarries should have shorter hours in proportion as their labor is more severe and trying to their health." 1 What precisely constitutes a reasonable length of hours for a working day? As the Encyclical points out, that will depend on several factors connected with the particular types of labor. "Eight hours would seem to be a fair average for most occupations, and sentiment in this country is crystallizing around that amount." 2 The statement of Fr. Noldin that "an eight-hour day cannot be denied by the employer without injus- tice" 3 would seem to demand some limita- tions. While the contention that eight hours is the maximum that employers can require in justice at indoor, irksome work of regular demand, would seem reasonable, 4 still it would be very difficult to prove that, for labor of less disagreeable type, a somewhat longer daily period would be unquestionably excessive and unjust. 1 On the Condition of Labor. 8 J. E. Ross, C. S. P. Christian Ethics, p. 346. New York, 1919. Cf. Florence Kelly, Some Ethical Gains Through Legislation. s Theol. Mor., Vol. II, n. 307-2b. 4 Cf. Nearing, Social Adjustment, pp. 181, seq. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 69 Would a demand for a shorter hour day be an unjust demand? The demand for a six -hour day is no longer merely a theoreti- cal problem. At the annual convention of Labor held in Atlantic City in the summer of 1919 the question of adopting a six-hour day was considered seriously by the major- ity of the delegates. One of the demands of the bituminous coal miners' strike was "a six-hour day and a five-day week." A similar demand "was formulated by the anthracite miners at their annual convention at Wilkes- Barre in August, 1919, and ratified by the national convention of the United Mine Workers of America in Cleveland in Sep- tember." This demand, with others relating to wages, "will be presented to the anthra- cite coal operators on March 9, 1920, by the union representatives of the hard coal dig- gers." * Without attempting to decide definitely as to the justice or injustice of such a de- mand, it may be stated that a general de- mand for a six-hour day throughout the industrial field would seem to be altogether unreasonable, for "it would seem that the 1 Washington Post, March 1, 1920, p. 1, col. 6. 70 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE eight-hour clay is not too long from the view- point of health and morals." 1 On the other hand if such a curtailing of the hours of labor were effected in any very considerable por- tion of the industrial field "the diminished production resulting therefrom would cause more hardships to the weaker sections of the laboring population than any other class in the community. The products of all the short-day and short-week industries would rise considerably in price, thereby injuring all persons who were too weak economically to obtain an increase in remuneration." 2 It is possible, however, that peculiar con- ditions of labor, excessive hardship, or the disagreeable or hazardous character of cer- tain employments, might justify a consider- able reduction in the length of the working day, so that in a particular employment even a demand for a six-hour day would be just. Whether such a demand would be justified in the case of the anthracite and bituminous coal miners, in view of the present uncer- tainty as to what constitutes an unjust de- mand in the less arduous and hazardous 1 Editorial Cath. Char. Rev., Oct., 1919, p. 230. s Op. cit., p. 263. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 71 employments, cannot be definitely stated. One thing is certain, however, as pointed out above by Pope Leo XIII: "Those who labor in mines and quarries should have shorter hours in proportion as their labor is more severe and trying to health." Now if a demand for an eight-hour day is a reason- able one for factories, workshops, etc., as most moralists and economists who treat of this question state, then it can hardly be said that the coal miners who demand a consid- erably shorter work-day are unreasonable. However, outside of these exceptional cases, it would seem that any considerable reduc- tion beyond the eight-hour day would be un- reasonable as it would be likely to reduce the volume of production in the various in- dustries to a really harmful extent. At present, what is needed is greater produc- tion, consequently, until our productive resources and means of production have been quite considerably increased, any re- duction of the eight-hour day would seem to work an unreasonable hardship upon the masses of the people, and so ordinarily such a claim could not constitute alone a just cause for a strike. 72 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE c. Union Recognition Of late years there has been a growing demand for union recognition and many strikes have been called to enforce this de- mand. Whether the claim for recognition of a particular union or union principles will constitute a just cause for a strike or not will depend on the character of the union and the nature of the principles advocated, as well as the relation of such principles to the other causes which may legitimately be enforced by the laborers. Unions are only means to an end. If the aim of a particu- lar union such as the Industrial Workers of the World 1 is morally unjustifiable, then no strike may be justly called which has as its chief aim the recognition of such a union. But with the exception of a few such unions, "the chief aim of the unions is morally jus- tified." 2 So it may be stated that, in gen- eral, the demand for union recognition is a just one, being one which is vitally con- nected with the welfare of the working class, 1 Cf . P. F. Bressenden, The I. W. W., A Study of Ameri- can Syndicalism. 2 Cf. Cath. Ency., Vol. VIII, Art. Moral Aspects of Labor Unions, p. 724. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 73 for "it is only as a large united organization that the workers can secure their demands as to hours of labor, etc." * In his Encycli- cal, Pope Leo XIII recommends the "Workingmen's Unions" as an instrument to "safeguard the interests of the wage- earners" and in this endorsement he neces- sarily includes its vital principles— the right to bargain collectively, for, as John Mitchell points out, "the fundamental reason for the existence of the trade union is that by it and through it workmen may be enabled to deal collectively with their employers." 2 The recognition of labor unions and the principles of collective bargaining furnishes, therefore, a cause which may justly be advo- cated by the laborers. In order that labor may realize its just aims "the labor union is not only justified but indispensable." 3 Laborers may, therefore, lawfully demand that their employer recognize these prin- ciples, for it may happen that the enforce- ment of the more vital principles of union- ism such as "collective bargaining," etc., is the only means by which the workmen can 1 Cathrein, Moral Phil., Vol. II, p. 628. 2 Organized Labor, p. 4. 3 Ryan, The Church and Socialism, p. 103. 74 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE safeguard themselves against grave injus- tice on the part of the employer. So inti- mate a connection has the recognition of the main principles of unionism to the welfare of both the laboring classes and the general public that, according to Fr. Pesch, "the hope of industry for peace rests in the col- lective bargaining between the entrepreneur and the worker." ' But even though labor's struggle is in the main a righteous one, it does not follow that each and every particular end advocated by labor and enforced by strikes has always been just. The intermingling of false prin- ciples and false philosophies with the prin- ciples and philosophy of Christianity, which stands for the observance of law and order and the meting out of justice to all, has at times led the workingmen astray from the true course along which justice and the com- mon welfare of society alone are to be found. The revolt of radical socialists against all constituted authority as well as the agitation for the violent abolition of the institution of private ownership of property, are evidences of this. The Soviets would "discard the parliamentary processes established by our 1 Stimmen aus Maria Laach, 1907, Vol. 72, p. 130. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 75 government" and adopt the general strike as a means "for overthrowing the Government of the United States." "Strikes are to be broadened and deepened, making them gen- eral and militant, and efforts made to de- velop their revolutionary implications. The strike is to be used not simply as a means to secure redress for economic wrongs but as a means through which the Government may be conquered and destroyed." * As it is a general principle that no strike is licit unless it be for the attainment of a grave and just cause, such strikes merit our unqualified condemnation, for a cause could hardly be more unjust, both in se and in the extension of the injustice which would be committed. Such causes are in direct oppo- sition to legal, as well as to commutative justice. Authority is essential both for individual welfare and for the common good. Man has a personal end in existence, but his nature is so constituted that he must work out that end as a member of society. For the full exercise and development of his faculties and for the complete attainment of his 1 The Communist Manifesto, p. 10, quoted by the Wash- ington Post, Jan. 25, 1920. 76 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE natural aspirations, society is essential. But "without authority there can be no society, for society means the harmonizing of mani- fold interests, the direction of many indi- vidual efforts away from purely personal ends and a constant life of 'give and take' for the common good. Now, as we know it, human nature is more prone to take than to give, more prone to ignore than to respect the rights of others when personal aggran- dizement is sought. Hence, the need of an external power calls authority to control the selfishness of the individual, to compel him to submit to restraint." * Therefore, to aim at the destruction of authority through a strike is to make a vital thrust at the best interests of the community, and so merits unconditional condemnation. Nor can the abolition of the institution of private property be considered as a just cause for a strike. In the Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, we are told that these pro- posals of the socialists are "manifestly against justice," that the right of private property in land is "granted to man by nature," that it is derived "from nature, not 'Cathrein, Phil. Moral., n. 428; cf. Kelleher, Private Own- ership, p. 65. New York, 1911. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 77 from man, and the State has the right to control its use in the interest of the public good alone, but by no means to abolish it altogether." What the State may not un- dertake, not even by peaceful means, it goes without saying that no private association such as a body of laborers, no matter how numerous they may be, can be justified in attempting to accomplish by the revolution- ary methods of a general strike. The over- throw of an institution which "under present conditions is necessary for individual and social welfare" certainly can not furnish a just cause for a strike. To undertake a strike for the purpose of destroying any in- dividual right to private property, as it would involve a violation of commutative justice, must be condemned as unlawful under any circumstances. 2. PROPORTIONATE CAUSE BUT every just cause or right to which the workers may lay claim will not on that account alone be a cause justifying a strike. There must in every case be some proportion between the end sought and the evils which are likely to 78 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE result directly or indirectly from the strike. As the "paralyzing of labor not only affects the masters and their workpeople alike, but it is extremely injurious to trade and the general interests of the public, and, more- over, on such occasions violence and disor- der are generally not very far distant and thus frequently it happens that the public peace is imperiled," 1 so the cause of the strike must not only be reasonable, that is, just, but it must also be of sufficient gravity to justify so great disturbance in the eco- nomic and social relations. If the evils are sure to outweigh the good effects to be obtained, the strike can under no considera- tion be justified. On this score the Boston police strike of 1919 must surely be con- demned, no matter how just their claims may have been. In fact, "it may safely be ^asserted that no grievances are ever so great as to render morally lawful the strike of the city's police force in the United States." 2 ' Strikes are a "plague to society" and not unfrequently fail in the attainment of the object sought. Reason, therefore, demands *Leo XIII, On the Condition of Labor, 1891. 2 Catholic Charities Review, Editorial, November, 1919, p. 264. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 79 that they be not entered on for a trivial though just cause. To enter upon a strike for "slight reasons will certainly of- fend against legal justice as well as against charity." x The strike is bound to affect gravely the business of the employer, who by the action of the men is made to suffer "considerable loss and in many cases irreparable loss. Machines lie idle, expenses accumulate without corresponding returns, the normal relations with other firms are in- terrupted, contracts fail to be fulfilled; cus- tomers go away perhaps permanently and the stability of the firm is generally shaken. The bad effects are often perceptible even many years after the strike has been brought to an end. . . . Then there are equally if not more grave consequences on the side of the employee, of his family and the public at large. Some of these evils are physical and mental (hunger, poverty, misery of mind ) , some are moral. The latter are prac- tically inseparable from the strike. A strike brings into exercise the most violent and terrible of human passions. Directly it in- volves a violation of charity. Incidentally 1 Vermeersch, Quaest. de Just., 475; cf. Cronin, The Science of Ethics, Vol. II, p. 263. 80 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE yet almost invariably it involves drunken- ness, irreligion, loss of self-respect both on the part of women and men, particularly the former. In times of strikes reason seems to lose its sway over the most normal minds and the best and most circumspect of per- sons tend to become lowered and demoral- ized." x Now it would be an exaggeration to say that all the evils described above are to be found connected with every strike. It would, moreover, be untrue to state that the reports generally found in the daily press present an accurate account of the actual conditions attending strikes, for "concern- ing the prevalence of the former practice (violence) there is a great deal of exaggera- tion in the public press and especially in the statements of some of the employers." 2 According to John Mitchell, the amount of violence in strikes is infinitesimal when com- pared with that which attends the ordinary course of life. "During the five months of the anthracite strike eight men were killed, three or four of these deaths being caused by men on strike or claiming to be in sympathy ^ronin, op. cit., pp. 356-362. 2 Ryan, The Church and Socialism, p. 106. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 81 with the union ; while if the mines had been operated during this period and had main- tained the average number of accidents, two hundred men would have been killed and six hundred seriously maimed or injured." * Even after making due allowance for exaggerations and deliberate misrepresen- tations of the amount of violence found con- nected with strikes, still the evils of which the strike is either the occasion or the cause are sufficiently grave to call for serious con- sideration, threatening, as they do at times, hot only the prosperity but the very exist- ence of industry, while at the same time in- flicting grave injuries on individual and social welfare. It might be argued that, whatever might be the justification of the strike in the ab- stract, in view of these evils which are all too frequently the accompaniment of strikes, they must in general be considered immoral. Now while it is true that there are many and grave evils to be found connected with most, if not all, strikes, we must re- member that, "the incidental abuses for which the directors of the strike are not re- sponsible" and which are frequently of very 1 Organized Labor, p. 322. 82 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE grave character, "cannot affect the justice of the strike. Responsibility for them rests upon their instigators. As to those evils which are directly caused by the strike they are not of such a nature as cannot be per- mitted for the higher good aimed at in these industrial battles," * for in this as in other cases "it is always permitted to place a good or indifferent cause from which a two-fold effect follows, provided that the end of the agent be just, that there be a sufficiently grave reason, and that the good effect flow no less immediately from the action than the bad." 2 Besides we must not forget that many of "these abuses and anti-social conse- quences are not essential to strikes" 3 and that after all, the acute hardships attendant upon strikes are but temporary, and the loss to trade and commerce ceases to be very noticeable when things have got time to adjust themselves. On the other hand, a successful strike may have the effect of lift- ing a large class of the community perma- nently above the marginal line of destitu- tion. As a matter of fact, as economists tes- 1 Lehmkuhl, Arbeitersvertrag und Strike, Die Sociale Frasje, 1895, p. 55. ' Genicot, Theol. Moral., Vol. I, p. 23. 'Kelleher, op. cit., p. 16. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 83 tify, "it is certain that the frequent exercise of the strike has resulted in raising the standard of many people." 1 Neither is there any doubt but that it has conferred considerable moral benefits on the com- munity in removing gravely unjust condi- tions and immoral surroundings. Furthermore, in instituting a comparison between the good to be secured and the evils attendant upon a strike we must not lose sight of the very grave evils that the laborers, who themselves form a portion of society, are called upon to suffer by being denied the right to a just wage or by being forced to labor under conditions gravely in- jurious to physical, intellectual, and moral life. These workmen should count man for man as much as that of any other section of the community. Besides, we must not neg- lect the fact that society is bound as a whole to suffer injury also from any grave injus- tice inflicted on any section of the laboring class. The festering sore of squalid poverty caused by the inhuman treatment to which many employees are subjected breeds enor- mous demoralization in the general social body. A strike which would attempt to 1 Nearing and Watson, Economics, p. 394. 84 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE ameliorate such conditions by securing just treatment for the oppressed workers, like the knife of the surgeon removing the ulcer- ous growth, is bound to inflict considerable, it may be intense, suffering, yet who would bid the surgeon stay his stroke did he real- ize that in such action alone lay hope of re- lief? Yet, as major surgical operations are resorted to only in case of very serious malady, so also a strike, being a drastic remedy, can only be resorted to where the grievance under which the laborers suffer is a correspondingly grave one. It is a well established principle of ethics "that so many and such great evils" as a strike occasions "can only be permitted for some very grave and proportionate reason." * Applying this principle, Fr. Marshall would hold, in view of the many evils that follow strikes from one cause or another, that "if the laborer is getting a fair wage, it would not be lawful to enforce a higher wage by a strike." 2 It would seem that such a gen- eral conclusion could hardly be warranted 1 Tanquerey, Theologia Moralis, Vol. Ill, p. 378. 2 "The Ethical Aspects of Boycotting" Irish Theological Quart, Col. 1, p. 445. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 85 unless Fr. Marshall has in mind, which is not likely, when he speaks of a "fair wage" one which approaches very near to the maxi- mum just wage. As a matter of fact such a simple situation as contemplated would sel- dom if ever arise. The cause for which strikes are called, generally, if not always, involves a complication of causes. And while it would be unreasonable were strikes indulged in frequently for the absolutely highest wage that could in justice be de- manded in connection with any particular labor, still it is possible to conceive an in- stance where conditions are such and the chances of success so certain that a strike, conducted by a well organized body of laborers, "might be lawful even though the wage demanded lies somewhat above the lowest limit and even in the region of the highest." ! Some economists have questioned on a different ground the wisdom of "strikes, for increases beyond what is normal in a given industry, provided the normal itself be a just maximum." 2 In their opinion such strikes, even though successful, "are of 1 Cronin, op. cit., p. 362. 2 Cf. Crosby, When to Strike and How to Strike, Chap. VIII; Portenar, Organized Labor, p. 86. 86 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE doubtful benefit either to the strikers them- selves or to the masses of laborers in gen- eral" as in the long run the purchasing power of wages will become no greater, if not less, than before, because of the trans- ference of the increased cost of wages to the cost of the article produced and all depend- ent goods. This contention is hardly borne out by an examination of the facts of the case. According to Sydney Webb, who has made quite a thorough study of the case, "such strikes are by no means useless, but they do in reality raise not only the money value but also the real value of wages." * It should be borne in mind that "a seem- ingly insignificant wrong may assume real importance as being the thin edge of a wage" 2 which, if allowed to penetrate un- checked, may cause very grave injustice to the laborers and so would constitute a truly serious cause for strike action. For as an incident, trifling in itself, may involve a principle important enough to justify the State in unchaining the horrors of war, so an incident in the industrial world, such as an 1 Journal of Political Economy, Feb., 1913, "Minimum Wage." 2 McDonald, The Ethical Aspects of Boycotting, Irish Theol. Quart., Vol. 1, p. 337. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 87 unjust dismissal, trifling in itself though it may seem to many, may involve a principle vital to the welfare of labor, such as the right to organize or the right to bargain collectively, which might constitute a suf- ficiently grave cause to justify recourse to the supreme arbitrament of a strike. 3. WELL-FOUNDED HOPE OF SUCCESSFUL ISSUE THE end sought by the strikers is the successful furtherance of the cause espoused. Should their claim be just and one commensurate with the evils involved, it does not necessarily follow that the laborers would, on that account, be jus- tified in letting loose the evils of industrial strife; for unless the strike is a successful one the second state of the laborers will surely be worse than the first. Besides the loss of wages they will have to bear the addi- tional burdens of the strike itself without being in any way compensated for the losses and hardships suffered. Besides, there will be fostered a chronic spirit of discontent and ill-will between the laborers and the em- ployer under whose hand they are forced to 88 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE bear with continued injustice. Violent and lawless outbreaks are more liable to occur where there is little hope of success, the men being goaded on to commit acts of violence by the thought of the continued injustice which they will be forced to suffer should their strike prove a failure. Such a strike is likely to involve very great anxiety and suffering to innocent women and children, while society itself is bound to suffer very grave disturbance and injury without being compensated in any way. Now just as a declaration of war, owing to the fearful calamities and sufferings which it is certain to entail, is unlawful whenever there is not a reasonable prospect of success, even though the cause be just, so any body of "laborers who without a well founded hope of success expose themselves, their families, and the general public to the certain suffer- ing and inconveniences of a strike, are acting unlawfully." 1 When industrial wars are frequent, especially if they are lightly en- tered upon with little thought of the possi- bilities of success, each new strike tends to increase greatly the chronic disorder of the social body. 1 McKenna, The Church and Labor, p. 92. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 89 It may happen that, although the labor- ers have a very grave cause which is at the same time unquestionably just, still, owing to certain circumstances, a strike .under- taken to remedy such injustice is certain to fail. Should the laborers in such a case still persist in calling a strike when pru- dence and sane reason would dictate "The bearing of present wrongs rather than flying to ills they know not of," their action would be clearly unwarranted. The conclusion is certain, then, that "a strike will offend against legal justice— be unjust — where there is no reasonable possibility of carrying it to a successful issue." 1 But it does not follow that a strike must be classed as un- successful on every occasion when the laborers are compelled to return to work without having their demands granted at that time. A strike, although apparently unsuccessful, may have the effect of com- pelling the employer to remedy the injus- tice, although not immediately. So if the workmen are made to suffer grave injus- tice, even though there be no hope of imme- diate success, they may strike provided there 'Vermeersch, op. cit., p. 475; Genicot, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 224. 90 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE is good reason for believing that they will benefit at a later date. Such is the opinion of Genicot 1 who also states that such condi- tions will not be infrequent, since the fear of strikes does much towards remedying abuses and improving the conditions of labor. As frequently it will not be very easy to judge with any degree of accuracy the possible outcome of strikes, such a con- clusion would seem reasonable, provided, however, in these cases, that the cause for such strikes be grave in proportion to the additional risks taken. 1 Moral. Theol., n. 22. IV THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE IN RELATION TO THE MEANS EMPLOYED TO ENFORCE THE DEMANDS 1. LESS DRASTIC MEANS UNSUCCESSFUL EVEN though the end or cause of the laborers be just in itself and of a sufficiently grave character to offset the many evils that flow directly or indirectly from a strike, it does not follow that therefore the strike is necessarily just. The justice of a cause may become vitiated through the use of immoral means used in its promotion. So in enforcing the just claims of the laborers no immoral means may be employed. The means or methods used in promoting a strike must not only involve no injustice but they must be rea- sonable as well. A strike is a drastic method of settling an industrial dispute, and like 91 92 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE all drastic remedies, can only be resorted to when peaceful or other less objectionable methods of securing justice have failed. The strike methods of settling the dif- ferences between the employer and the employees may only be resorted to as a last recourse. All moralists ' lay this down as one of the conditions necessary to be real- ized that the strike may be justified: "strikes, like wars and injurious acts of self- defence, are not to be accounted lawful be- cause they are not unjust in end or manner, but it is also required that there appear no other way of obtaining a sufficiently grave good but by the strike or lockout." 2 If it is possible through peaceful methods of "bargaining," arbitration, etc., to obtain the desired end, or if there is reasonable hope that a successful issue may be had by resort- ing to these means, then to resort to a strike "where less drastic measures will suffice will certainly offend against legal justice" 3 and generally will involve a violation of charity. ^ranquerey, Theol. Moral., Vol. Ill, n. 486; Genicot, Theol. Moral., n. 22; Noldin, Theol. Moral., n. 307; Ryan, The Church and Socialism, p. 106; Kelleher, Irish Theol. Quart., Vol. VII, p. 15; McKenna, The Church and Labor, p. 93. * Vermeersch, Quaest. de Just., n. 472. * Vermeersch, op. cit., n. 475. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 93 So in the industrial war between the United States Steel Corporation and its employees during 1919 "both parties to the dispute acted unreasonably" for while the employees had a just and grave grievance against the Corporation, still "the union leaders should never have called the strike. They ought to have acceded to the request of President Wilson to withhold such action until the assembling of the Industrial Con- ference of October," 1 when the differences might have been settled without resorting to industrial warfare. Even though many of their aims were legitimate, particularly their demand for the recognition of "collective bargaining," as the union leaders failed to wait until they had exhausted all peace- ful methods of redress, their action must be condemned. On the other hand "the posi- tion of the officials of the Steel Corporation was indefensible because it included a re- fusal to treat with the representatives of the union or of any other labor union." 2 While, generally, notice of the intended strike should be given to the employer, to 'The Catholic Charities Review, Editorial, December, 1919, p. 292. »Op. cit., p. 292. 94 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE require that the laborers always fulfil such condition would at times seem to work unreasonable hardship on the employees who are already subjected to injustice. Such a warning is usually equitable and demanded by charity in order to prevenl needless loss and injury to the employer, particularly where the employer is guilty of no real injus- tice towards the workers. Still the rule can- not be made absolutely genera] or binding on the employees. 1 )elay necessary for such previous notice might at times work grave hardships on the employees, while, on the other hand, swift action may under particu- lar circumstances prove the only way of vin- dicating a just claim. On the supposition that the employer is committing an injustice in not according the demands, he cannot claim a consideration he is not himself show- ing. "If the employer is acting unjustly and cannot be brought to observe his just obligations by peaceful methods of negotia- tions, etc., his employees may be justified in striking without further warning." 1 On the supposition that there exists a suf- ficiently grave cause and that the only hope of remedying the injustice of the employer 1 McKenna, op. cit., p. 93. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 95 in refusing to grant the demands of the workers is in a strike, then resort may be had to such measures which will be morally de- fensible provided the means used by the strikers for the enforcement of their claim be not evil, nor constitute the violation of any just right of others. A man can never be morally justified in violating the strict right of another. To seek to further a cause, no matter how just, by unjust or immoral means is never per- missible, and the employment of such means would be to submit the whole process to con- demnation as immoral. It can sometimes happen that a strike otherwise just may be rendered unjust through the employment of means or methods on the part of the strikers which violate the sacred rights of some other party. Such would be the case if the strik- ers endeavored to force their claims by means of fraud or by the unjust injury or destruction of the life or property of the employer 1 and where, as sometimes hap- pens, these methods "play a considerable part, strikes must be admitted to be unjust to the extent to which these unjust means 1 Cf. Vermeersch, op. cit., n. 474; Genicot, op. cit., p. 24. 96 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE are employed." * The fact that the employer has been guilty of injustice toward the em- ployees does not alter the case. Immoral means can no more be used in resisting injus- tice than in promoting any other good cause where no injustice is involved. 2 A good end never justifies the use of unjust means. "Religion teaches the laboring man and the artisan . . . never to injure the property nor to outrage the person of an employer, never to resort to violence in defending their own cause nor to engage in riot and dis- order." 3 Nor is there any suspension of the civic ob- ligations of those connected with the prose- cution of the industrial war. "It must be borne in mind (what seems to be forgotten by the actors on both sides of such contro- versies) that the controversy is not warfare in the sense that, for the time being, the usual rules of conduct are changed as in the case of an actual war between two countries. There is ... no change in the ordinary rules of society but these remain the same as before, commanding what was thereto- 1 Kelleher, op. cit., p, 5. *Cf. Tanquerey, op. cit., Vol. Ill, n. 847. 3 Leo XIII, On the Condition of Labor. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 97 fore right and prohibiting what was there- tofore wrong." * The laws of the State and the obligations of justice bind to the same extent morally as they did previous to the strike. If, as sometimes happens, the em- ployer should resort to illegal or irmnoral means to uphold his position, that will in no way justify the strikers in retaliating by the use of physical force, violence or other im- moral means, not even to mete out the punishment he may clearly deserve. "Pri- vate authority," — and strikes must be classed under that head no matter how many or numerous the men in a given strike may be, — "may not take the law in its own hands to mete out justice except it be the only defense at hand against an unjust aggres- sor." 2 This is demanded in the interests of the general welfare of society. 2. PEACEFUL PICKETING The means which may be lawfully utilized in the conduct of a strike may be classed under two heads: first, the cessation from work on the part of the employees ; and sec- 1 Groat, American Courts in Labor Cases, "Wilcutt vs. Bricklayer Unions," p. 72. 2 Pottier, De Jure et Justitia, n. 179, Liege, 1900. 98 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE ondly, the exercise of a certain degree of economic and moral compulsion bearing not only on the employer but also on other labor- ers to prevent them from taking the places vacated by the strikers. We have already seen that under certain conditions, which we assume are complied with, the first of these is lawful. It now remains for us to consider the second or the exercise of force to compel the granting of the lawful demands by the strikers, and under this head we shall have to consider, what is the crucial problem in the conduct of strikes — the matter of picket- ing, or the attempt on the part of the work- ers to turn away those who may wish to con- tinue working as well as those who attempt to fill the places vacated by the strikers. It is of extreme importance for the success of the strike that the employer be prevented from carrying on his business in a normal way. It is in accomplishing this that antag- onistic forces are most likely to clash and that outbursts of violence have most fre- quently occurred. It is frequently stated by people not in sympathy with the strikers as an unques- tionable fact that "whatever right the men may have to refuse to work themselves they THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 99 surely have no right to prevent others from working." We have seen above that the use of persuasion does not necessarily involve the violation of any right either of the em- ployer, or the general public, or of other laborers. If the strike be itself a just one, theologi- ans allow what is called "peaceful picket- ing" to dissuade others from taking their places, for "pressure even in combination brought to bear on one person to the detri- ment of another is not necessarily unfair or unjust provided there is a reasonable cause for applying it." * But it is never permitted to injure the employer or his property in the prosecution of a strike. So also the strikers are not permitted to attempt by fraud, lying, violence, or physical force either to compel those who may decide to continue working to join them in the strike, or to prevent others from taking the posi- tions vacated. 2 Such action would "involve a twofold violation of justice, a violation of the rights of the employer as well as of the other workers." 3 1 McDonald, Irish Theol. Quart., Vol. I, p. 340. a Cf. Tanquerey, op. cit., n. 847; Vertneersch, op. cit., n. 474 (b). s Noldin, op. cit., n. 306 (3). 100 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE But although the strikers have do right to use unjust means to prevent others from taking the places vacated, still there is do valid reason which one can urge to show why they should not he permitted to use every means that is not positively unjust to force the employer to aeeede to their reasonable demands. Were the strikers not morally justified in endeavoring to persuade others from continuing work or from taking the places vacated, the strikers would often have no means of vindicating their rights. 1 So although it is at this point that the greatest danger of injustice being committed by the strikers lies, still, as there is nothing unusual in endeavoring to get the assistance of others in enforcing just claims, there will conse- quently be no injustice in the act of picket- ing "unless the means adopted to induce w r orkers to join the strike and to prevent others from taking up vacant positions in the business against which the strike is de- clared are unjust in themselves." 2 It is conceded generally by moralists that per- suasion and arguments which do not partake of the nature of intimidation, may, in order *Cf. Tanquerev, op. cit., n. 847. 2 Kelleher, op. cit., p. 12. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 101 to induce others to join the strike, be ad- dressed to the workmen who do not wish to go on a strike as well as to those who might be inclined to fill the vacated positions. If the injustice of the employer is clearly evi- dent and such as gravely affects workers in general, it will not constitute an act of injus- tice against the employer for the strikers to use moral force to prevent him from carry- ing on a business in the prosecution of which the claims of justice are violated. To what extent moral pressure may be brought to bear on others will depend on the nature of the case to which it is applied. It must be remembered that one of the con- ditions under which pressure is legitimate is that it be "proportionate to the wrong, whether strict or merely equitable, which it is intended to avert or remedy." 1 Theolo- gians concede that the strikers have the right to exclude "scabs" or strike-breakers from the special marks of charity as well as from ordinary amenities and civilities of social life, but they will not allow a denial of those considerations which fundamental social relations demand, such as the selling of the 1 McDonald, op. cit., p. 445. 102 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE necessaries of life at a just price. 1 While the use of unjust fear in any form cannot be permitted, there is no ground for holding the persuasion would be unjust were it en- forced by a certain amount of just fear, as for instance, that whoever remained at work after a strike had been declared or whoever took up the work which the strikers laid down, should be ineligible for membership in a particular trade union. 2 It is difficult to fix minutely the limits of what would be just fear in this connection, but in general it may be said that men on strike can "justly endeavor to persuade others to join them by working through their fear of any losses they could justly inflict on them" 3 if that be necessary for the successful prose- cution of the strike against an employer who refuses to accede to demands for the removal of injustice against the workers. In such a case the strike-breakers may be regarded as cooperating with the employer to maintain the injustice, e. g., the payment of a wage or the continuance of working conditions x Cf. Genicot, op. cit., n. 22; Lehmkuhl, Theol. Moral., Vol. I, n. 1119. 2 Cf. Noldin, Theol. Moral., Vol. II, n. 306; Lehmkuhl, op. eit. 8 Kelleher, op. cit., p. 12. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 103 clearly unjust, and moral force may cer- tainly be used * to deter them from materi- ally cooperating in injuring their fellow workmen. Of course, cases may arise where material cooperation would be perfectly jus- tifiable, e. g., if the laborers are in grave need. In this and in the cases "where the wage is 'fair,' it is not lawful to use even moral force against them," 2 at least not to any great extent. The extent to which moral force is permissible will in all cases depend on the nature of the demands refused by the employer and on how far the laborer or strike-breaker is justified in cooperating with the employer in the refusal. When the strike is unjust, strike-breakers are justified in assisting the employer in suppressing the unjust action of the former employees. Their action will also be justified "when their own need outweighs the need of the strikers and cannot be better served by remaining idle." 3 3. PHYSICAL VIOLENCE A question of great importance in con- nection with the conduct of a strike, partic- 1 Cf . Lehmkuhl, Casus 278, n. 895. 3 McDonald, op. cit., p. 446. 3 Ross, Christian Ethics, p. 347. 104 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE ularly in relation to picketing, is whether the use of violence is ever permissible or justifi- able and, if so, under what conditions and to what extent. It is certain that the use of violence is never permitted in enforcing claims the denial of which by the employer would involve no real injustice to the work- ers. The use of violence to private individ- uals is not permissible except in case of self- defence against the injustice of another. Even where the employer is guilty of an act of injustice in refusing the demands "the workers may not injure his person or his property. Such acts involve grave injustice on the part of the strikers, being prohibited by the natural as well as by positive law." * But it may be objected in the case where the strikers are endeavoring to enforce their just claim to a living wage, or to other rea- sonable conditions of work, "are not those who refuse to strike to be considered e ser- vata proportione' as one who has snatched from your hand the only weapon whereby you may repel the unjust assailant of your life? May not those who are compelling their withdrawal be said to lack their 'blame- less defence' against an unjust aggressor? x Tanquerey, Theol. Moral., Vol. Ill, n. 847. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 105 It may be objected that the liberty of those who do not wish to withdraw is violated through compulsion. Cannot the reply be made that liberty ceases where it trans- gresses another right or impairs the com- mon good? Furthermore, those who do not withdraw take away the only means whereby all may repel force by force, and it is impor- tant to the common good that many of the working class be not without the only means of escape from unjust oppression." * To these objections Pottier gives no definite answer. If violence is ever permissible, it is only on the fulfillment of certain condi- tions which will rarely obtain in actual life. In the first place, there must be no other less objectionable means by which the same end could be secured; secondly, it must be cer- tain that the use of violence will prove effec- tive; and finally, the good effects to follow must not only be certain but they must be great in proportion to the evil effects. 2 To this same question as to the lawfulness of violence, Dr. Ross states that it is justi- fiable "against the employer or against strike-breakers only if the good effects ob- 1 Pottier, De Jure et Just., n. 180. 1 Cf . op. cit, p. 209. 106 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE tained are greater than the social disorder resulting from the use of force." He con- cludes that "this practically will never be so, and the loss of public good-will, frequently the determining factor in the success of strikes, usually offsets any gain by vio- lence." 1 According to the opinions of Pot- tier and Ross, it would seem that the use of violence in these cases would not be intrin- sically wrong, but is forbidden on account of the grave consequences to the general pub- lic which would seldom be offset by the good result obtained from the use of violence. Most theologians, however, hold that the "use of violence is prohibited both by the natural and the positive law, and conse- quently may never be permitted." 2 Those who maintain that the use of vio- lence as a means of defence against the in- justice of the professional strike-breakers and of the employer — who not only denies the workers what is theirs in justice, but often resorts to the use of unjust means to compel the strikers to accept the continuance of the injustice — is always immoral, base 1 Christian Ethics, pp. 347-48. 'Tanquerey, Theol. Moral., Vol. Ill, n. 847; Ver- meersch, op. cat., n. 474. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 107 their conclusions on the statement that "there are other means for safeguarding the rights of the laborers," a statement the truth of which would seem questionable. It is quite true that the State might supply such means, and it would seem also certain that as the State alone has the power to safe- guard the workers against manifest injustice it ought to exercise that power. It surely would be for the common good. But as a matter of fact, the State fails to provide the necessary means for safeguarding the labor- ers' rights to a decent living and reasonable conditions of work. Not only that, but in- directly, at least as it often appears to the strikers, the authority of the law aids the employer in defeating them. The employer realizes full well the advantage afforded by the presence of the officers of the law. It gives his side a decided moral advantage. So employers have at times been accused of having provoked violence in order to create a necessity for their presence. "Investiga- tions, reliable in themselves but not pub- lished until the trouble is over, have recently revealed more clearly to the public some of the methods of employers. Sheriff's posses or even State militia, often equipped and 108 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE paid by the employers, detective agencies, the successors to strike-breaking organiza- tions, furnish an element that is naturally lawless and easily excited." * In the shirt waist strike of New York in the winter of 1909-10, "women pickets were attacked by prostitutes paid high up for stirring up trouble with the pickets." 2 The laborers, who are aware of the actual facts of the case, justify their use of violence under the "fight the devil with fire" formula. They feel that it is at times the only method by which they can safeguard their rights, and it would be very difficult to prove that they are always wrong in their conviction, or that "there are always available other means of safeguarding their rights" against unjust violation. However, whether the use of violence is ever morally justifiable in se or not, evidence would tend to show that resort to violence can seldom be justifiable, inasmuch as the good results to be gained from such methods seldom if ever are sufficient to offset the evil 1 Groat, Organized Labor in America, pp. 193-4. New York, 1919. 2 Carlton, History and Problems of Organized Labor, p. 187, New York, 1911; Summer, The Survey, January 22, 1910, p. 553. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 109 results. The laborers themselves are begin- ning to recognize this full well and union- leaders experienced in strikes are themselves generally the vigorous opponents of vio- lence. John Mitchell, speaking of picketing and the use of violence, says: "Attempts must be made by peaceable methods to pre- vent the importation of new men and where this has already occurred efforts must be made to induce them or aid them to seek em- ployment elsewhere. Above and beyond all, the leader entrusted with the conduct of a strike must be alert and vigilant in the prevention of violence. The strikers must be made constantly aware of the imperative necessity of remaining peaceable. ... A single act of violence, while it may deter a strike-breaker or a score of them, inflicts much greater and more irreparable damage upon the party giving than upon the party receiving the blow. Violence invariably alienates the sympathy of the public no mat- ter how just the demands of the men; no matter how unreasonable and uncompromis- ing the attitude of the employer, the com- mission of acts of violence invariably puts the strikers in the wrong. In the long run 110 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE violence acts as a boomerang and defeats its own purpose." 1 Even if there are not available other means of redress, and if the use of violence were likely to prove successful, "the disor- ders that would follow any recognition of the claim that violence is lawful in justifiable strikes . . . would bring about a condition of veritable anarchy." And as the condi- tions created by the exactions of capital or the sufferings of labor "are not of sufficient gravity to justify rebellion against existing political institutions," so the "use of private violence to redress the grievances of labor cannot be too severely condemned." 2 Re- ligion as well as reason "teaches the laboring man and the workman . . . never to employ violence in representing his own cause, nor to engage in riot and disorder; and to have nothing to do with men of evil principles, who work upon the people with artful prom- ises, and raise foolish hopes which usually end in disaster and in repentance when too late." 3 1 Organized Labor, pp. 317-318. Philadelphia, 1903. 2 Ryan, The Church and Socialism, pp. 115, 116. 8 Leo XIII, On the Condition of Labor. THE MORALITY OF THE SYMPATHETIC STRIKE a. Against the Same Employer MODERN labor problems with their many conflicts between capi- tal and labor have brought into prominence a type of strike known as the "sympathetic strike." This kind of strike takes place "when laborers, without per- sonal cause against their employer, suspend work in approval and support of other workers who are striking." x Such strike can be directed against the employer of the original strikers or against some other em- ployer not directly concerned with the orig- inal dispute. As there is no personal griev- ance, the question naturally arises whether such a strike is ever justified and if so under what circumstances and to what extent? ^lusslein, The World Problem, p. 123. Ill 112 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE It is obvious that such a strike can never be justified when the original strike is un- just, for that would be cooperating in the injustice of the strikers. Nor is the sympa- thetic strike permitted when there exists be- tween the employer and the laborers a valid contract which obliges them to continue working. In this last case they may, if the cause of the strikers be a just one, exert any moral influence they may have with their employer to force him to grant the demands of the strikers, but they may not, to perform a duty of charity, violate an obligation of justice which the valid contract imposes upon them. But on the supposition that no obligation in justice binds them to continue working, are they ever justified in striking to assist their fellow-laborers in obtaining their just demands? We shall consider first the case where the employer of the sympathetic and original strikers is one and the same person or firm. In such a case "when a sympathetic strike affects only the employer concerned in the original strike it will sometimes be, not only licit, but laudable." 1 Clearly such a course could only be justifiable as a last 1 Ryan, The Church and Socialism, p. 117. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 113 resort. Not only would reasons of propor- tionately greater importance and gravity be required to justify such a strike, but it is also required that proportionately greater efforts be exerted to prevent it. If by bring- ing moral pressure to bear they could force their employer to grant the demands of the strikers, reason would require that the less drastic means be employed. A threat to strike might at times prove sufficient, par- ticularly when coming from the higher classed skilled workers of an industry. That failing, a sympathetic strike may be justi- fied when there is a well grounded hope that such action will be of considerable material assistance in winning the demands of the strikers. For while the employer has a right to the services of his employees as long as he treats them justly, even if there be no contract, still this right is valid "only as long as he does not use the advantage gained from their services for unreasonable ends." * Now in the case under consideration the con- tinuation at work of the skilled employees becomes a means of assisting their employer in his course of injustice towards their *Cath. Ency., Vol. VIII, Art. Moral Aspects of Labor Unions. 114 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE fellow-laborers — the unskilled employees. Clearly the obligation of the skilled mechan- ic in such a case yields to the claims of his weaker brethren who are being subjected to unjust treatment by their employer. On the principle that "righteous interference in the cause of the oppressed is justified" x a disin- terested spectator may come to the relief of a weak man who is being harshly treated by a stronger. So in this instance the sympa- thetic strike is justified, particularly in view of the fact that by remaining at work they lend material cooperation to the employer in his course of injustice. Furthermore, it often happens that the workers, and particu- larly organized union laborers, are united by a real and strong bond of trade interest, as well as union agreements which may bind them to act as a unit in enforcing the claims for the removal of injustice of any particu- lar section of the body of workers of the dif- ferent trades comprised in the union. In such a case a strike of all the employees of a particular firm or employer may be called to enforce the claims of a particular section of workers, viz., the unskilled employees. If the cause is a valid one "this action will 1 Husslein, The World Problem, p. 125. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 115 usually be lawful and frequently commend- able, for it is becoming more and more evi- dent that only by this means can the weaker laborers, the great army of unskilled, obtain adequate protection." 1 b. Against Different Employers In the case we have just considered the sympathetic strike was against the offending employer or firm, against which the original strike had been directed; we shall now con- sider an entirely different situation. The oppressed workers having but little hope of winning, appeal for help not only to men in different branches of the same firm, but to laborers of an entirely different firm, which may perhaps be a heavy buyer of the prod- uct manufactured by the original firm. Again, the second firm may have been fur- nishing the raw material necessary for the operation of the industry in which the strike has been called. In any case the object is to bring pressure to bear indirectly on the employer, who is guilty of unjust treatment of his employees, in order that he may be forced to grant their demands. Often in 1 Ryan, The Church and Socialism, p. 117. 116 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE actual practice such sympathetic strikes are extended to several firms. The question is: Are such strikes justifiable? Where a con- tract or some other grave obligation binds the workers to continue work such sympa- thetic strikes are never justifiable. On the supposition that there is no bond between the various employers, and that the laborers have no grievance against their own employ- ers, such strikes even where the- e exist no valid contracts binding the laborers to con- tinue, will, generally speaking, be contrary to both justice and charity. 1 By such a course the sympathetic strikers, without a sufficiently grave reason, inflict very great loss on innocent employers, who seldom if ever have it in their power to grant the de- mands of the strikers. Such action would constitute an unjust interference with their employers' right to pursue the advan- tages derived from the prosecution of indus- try without being unreasonably interfered with by others. By such action the sympa- thetic strikers often cause their employers to violate their contracts and subject them to many other inconveniences — loss of pos- sible contracts, etc. In such a case, as the 1 Cf. Ryan, The Church and Socialism, p. 113. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 117 sympathetic strikers have no just grievance against their employer, "the loss inflicted on the employer by this interruption of work will in itself constitute an act of injustice." * Furthermore, charity demands that the wel- fare of their innocent employer be consid- ered rather than that of the employees of another firm. "Propinquity creates for them special obligations, not merely of charity but of justice" 2 towards their own employer. It might happen, however, in a particular case, that charity would oblige both the laborers and the employer of another firm to assist the strikers in their attempt to secure justice by refraining from business relations with an employer who is guilty of grave in- justice. This, reason will surely demand, if they can do so without suffering any serious inconvenience themselves. But such cases are, according to the opinion of most au- thorities, rare. 3 While we should not seek lightly to jus- tify any extension of the sympathetic strike principle, yet it would seem that there is greater justification for this second type of 1 Ryan, op. cit., p. 113. 2 Op. cit., p. 111. 3 Op. cit., pp. 116-117. 118 ,THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE sympathetic strike than is generally con- ceded. Asa basis for the arguments against this kind of sympathetic strike it is generally supposed that the various employers have little or no interest in one another, other than those of ordinary business relations, and consequently that these outside firms have nothing to do directly with the continuance of the injustice that the employees of a par- ticular firm may be called upon to suffer as a result of the failure of their strike for just conditions of employment. In this moralists fail to consider the fact that very few of the larger industrial corporations are really in- dependent in any true sense of the word, for besides being united into many powerful combinations, such as partnerships, corpora- tions, trusts, etc., of various kinds, with their related and interwoven interests, the great majority of the great industrial and com- mercial corporations of this country have united in associations such as the "National Manufacturers Association," the "National Erectors Association," etc., with the purpose of assisting one another financially, as well as by moral and economic pressure in resist- ing the demands of labor. Within recent years, with the extension of THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 119 union organization, began also the organiza- tion of the employers, so that the American Federation of Labor now faces the National Manufacturers Association. "As long as the union alone was organized it succeeded. With the organization of the employer, the unions' efforts to secure an increase in the proportion of the products of industry have usually been frustrated. In many cases a rise in the rate of wages is at once offset by a corresponding increase in the price of the commodity. In other cases the unions were overwhelmed by a great array of funds sup- plied by manufacturers all through the coun- try. In case the wages are increased and the prices raised, the rank and file of the people of the country are forced to pay the bill. When force is resorted to, the unions suffer. It is during the last twenty years that the National Manufacturers Associa- tion, the Citizens Industrial Alliance, and the employers' associations in all sections of the country generally have been organized and put on a firm basis. The history of unionism during these decades has been a long succession of failures. Lost strikes, closed shops opened, injunctions of the most sweeping character, adverse court decisions, 120 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE and adverse legislative action have all helped to curtail union activity." * Realizing the immense value of the moral pressure wielded by public opinion in decid- ing the success or failure of a strike, "the National Manufacturers Association, repre- senting most of the prominent manufactur- ing interests in the United States," decided to enter upon a plan of campaign with a view of winning public opinion to their side in their fight against the demands of labor. Accordingly "in 1907 a fund of a million and a half dollars was agreed upon by the Asso- ciation as a requisite amount for expenditure during the next three years in 'education' of the public to see the detrimental results of trade-unionism." 2 "The National Asso- ciation of Merchant Tailors at their annual convention held recently at Atlantic City, N. J., passed a resolution to raise a fund of $500,000.00 for the purpose of combating the closed shop in the trade." 3 Nor are they always scrupulous as to the methods employed in carrying on their or- ganized campaign against labor. During iXearimr, Social Adjust., pp. 348-49. N. Y., 1916. 2 Op. cit., p. 349. 3 Central Blatt and Social Justice, Feb., 1920, p. 353. THE ArORALITY OF THE STRIKE 121 the strike against the United States Steel Corporation [1919], which the employees lost, a propaganda "deliberately fostered by the bourbon elements among the employing classes was carried on by the metropolitan dailies with a view to discredit the cause of labor and of progressive social and indus- trial movements generally," and although the position of the officials of the Steel Cor- poration was indefensible because it in- cluded a refusal to treat with the representa- tives of the union or any labor union, "yet the metropolitan dailies either defended the attitude of Mr. Gary (the head of the Steel Corporation) or pasrsed it over in complete silence," while they "deliberately and con- sistently sought to create the impression that it (the strike) was intended as the first step toward a revolution." In this way "the opinion of probably seven-tenths of the dis- interested public has been determined by the dishonest tactics and false statements of the metropolitan press." 1 Similar "propaganda was carried on by many daily papers in rela- tion to the strike in the coal fields," 2 and in this way the great force of public opinion 1 Edit. The Cath. ©har. Rev., Dec, 1919, pp. 292-93. 3 Op. eit. 122 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE was unjustly turned against the strikers. In view of these facts it would seem that many of the arguments adduced against any extension of the use of the sympathetic strike are not so well founded as might be sup- posed. Very few of the great industrial corporations of this country can be classed as "innocent" and "disinterested" parties in relation to a strike that may be in progress in some particular branch of industry. While the facts above recorded indicate that "the employers all over the country joined in defending the one company against which the strike was directed," x it can hardly be true that the various other companies, against which a sympathetic strike may be called, can be entirely exonerated from par- ticipation in the grave injustice to which we suppose the original strikers are subjected. It would seem, therefore, considering the united front presented by the great indus- trial concerns of this country and especially in view of the fact of the press campaign conducted so vigorously and with such little regard for truth against labor, that, unless allowance is made for some considerable ex- tension of the principle of sympathetic strike 1 Nearing, Social Adjust., p. 349. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 123 assistance, the laboring class is bereft, at least as long as the State fails to secure just treatment to labor, of the adequate means of protection against the grave injustices to which it is at present in many instances sub- jected and which capital seeks to perpetu- ate. The law of proportion will demand, how- ever, in such cases that, before rendering sympathetic assistance more than ordinary assurance as to the likelihood of a successful outcome be had, because as pointed out by Moore, so far at least "strikes in sympathy with strikers have been notoriously fail- ures,^ * and also because of the greater dis- turbance that such strikes are likely to cause. 2. THE GENERAL STRIEJE a. The General Sympathetic Strike ALTHOUGH it might be possible to justify some considerable exten- sion of the sympathetic strike in ex- treme cases, it will seldom happen that a general extension of the principle of the sympathetic strike will be warranted. The x The Law of Wages, p. 122. 124 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE evils to be feared from such a general strike are beyond calculation, so that the good to be obtained would have to be no less great in proportion, a condition that would seldom if ever be realized. Generally the harm inflicted upon countless helpless and innocent sufferers as well as the many moral disorders which such a strike would en- tail are likely to be out of all proportion to the good that would result. Besides, a general sympathetic strike would almost cer- tainly involve a violation of some just con- tracts, and, as we have seen above, no strike can be morally countenanced which violates a just contract freely entered into by both parties and where its terms are faithfully carried out by the employer. Furthermore, it would be most unreasonable to demand that the great body of employers and the general public be compelled to suffer such great hardships and injuries as such a strike would surely cause, in order that an offend- ing employer may be coerced into reasonable treatment of a small section of the com- munity. It would be a remedy out of all proportion # to the cure. As Dr. Hall points out, "it is an extension of injuries rather than of good. The point of diminishing re- THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 125 turns is quickly reached," and well organized labor unions are beginning to realize the fact that "beyond a certain point sympathetic assistance in the form of strikes ceases to assist." 1 In view of these facts, even though the cause of the original strike be just and the sympathetic strikes involve no violation of contracts, it is reasonable to conclude that "while we cannot be certain that a general strike is never justified, there is against it an overwhelming presumption." 2 So that while it may be true that "wholesale adop- tion of the sympathetic strike principle is wrong," it would seem to be going too far, as does Dr. Cronin, to maintain that it could "never be justified under any circum- stances." 3 b. Syndicalism IN order to put an immediate end to the grievances of labor the extreme or radical wing of the socialistic element advocate a policy known as syndicalism, 1 Hall, Sympathetic Strikes and Sympathetic Lockouts, P ' 2 Cath. Ency., Art. Moral Aspects of Labor Unions, Vol. VIII, p. 726. * The Science of Ethics, p. 3G8. 126 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE "which has for its object the destruction by force of existing organization and the trans- fer of industrial capital from its present possessor to syndicalists." * Believing that there is an irreconcilable conflict between the "classes" which constitute present-day so- ciety, they hold that only by a complete revolution of the industrial organization can justice and peace be brought about. They consequently "scorn reform or any compro- mises." The means by which their object is to be secured is the general strike. Strikes are to be extended from one trade to another until production is arrested all over the whole country. The final aim of the syndi- calists, as adopted by the joint congress of trade unionists and socialists held at Nantes is to make the general strike international and so bring about a cataclysm in which they see, or think they see, a rebirth of society and the emancipation of labor. 2 Syndicalism in this country is represented chiefly by the Syndicalist League of North America which "organized in New York City in October, 1912, the Syndicalist Edu- 1 Grant, Fair Play for the Workers, p. 272. New York, 1919. 2 Cf. Clay, Syndicalism and Labor, pp. 3, seq. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 127 cational League." * This, we are informed, "is an organization of active propagandists formed for the purpose of spreading the idea of syndicalism, direct action and the general strike among the organized and un- organized workers of America." 2 The Syndicalist League of North America is, however, a propaganda body rather than a labor organization. The Industrial Work- ers of the World, although generally re- garded as Syndicalists, are not really such. It was in opposition to the I. W. W. that the Syndicalist League was established. By association with French Syndicalists, the I. W. W. organization has adopted "certain characteristic strike tactics, a set of foggy philosophical concepts about the General Strike, the militant minority, etc. To this extent the I. W. W. is a syndicalist union." 3 The first attempt made by the I. W. W. to put into operation the syndicalist policy of a general strike took place in connection with the MacNamara trial in 1911. On May 2, 1911, the Industrial Worker car- 1 Brissenden, Paul Frederick, The I. W. W., A Study of Amer. Syn., p. 274. 'Mother Earth, Nov., 1912, Vol. VII, p. 307; Brissenden, op. cit., p. 275. 3 Brissenden, op. eit., pp. 273-274. 128 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE ried in capitals on its front page the follow- ing: "Official I. W. W. Proclamation. Arouse! Prepare to Defend Your Class. A general strike in all industries must be the answer of the workers to the challenge of the Master! Tie up all industries! Tie up all production! Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." * Modern up-to-date syndicalism or soviet- ism advocates the broadening and deepening of strikes so as to make them "general and militant." Through this means not only is "redress of economic wrongs" to be secured but even "the Government is to be conquered and destroyed." 2 With regard to the morality of such strikes it may be said "obviously such strikes are wholly immoral, wholly unjust." 3 It has been shown above that any strike which has for its end the destruction or abolition of authority or of the institution of private property must be condemned as immoral. No condition can ever arise that will justify resorting to such extreme and unusual measures. Even if we were certain that 1 Reprinted in Solidarity, May 20, 1911, p. 4. (Brissen- den, op. cit., p. 275.) * Corrfcniinist Manifesto, p. 10, Wash. Post, Jan. 25, 1920. 3 Cronin, The Science of Ethics, Vol. II, p. 310. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 129 the general condition of labor would be im- proved beyond the rosiest dreams of the visionary radicalist such methods could never be justified. Seldom, if ever, even where the cause of the original strikers is grave and just, and where only licit means are used, will the general sympathetic strike be justified. Where both the end and the means are intrinsically immoral a strike can never find justification. Such we have seen is the general character of the strike advo- cated by the syndicalists. c. The Political Strike, Direct Action ANEW type of general strike known as the "political strike" has recently come to the fore. Like syndical- ism, it is directed against the authorities or Government of the country. Its purpose, however, is not the destruction of authority, but by means of a strike to force the adop- tion by the government of a. certain politi- cal program of interest to the laborers. The threatened general strikes of the British coal miners and of the United* States railway em- ployees in March, 1920, afford instances of this type of strike. The question arises, are 130 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE the railroad employees justified in attempt- ing to enforce their demands for nationalism of the railroads of a country by means of a strike? Would it ever be justifiable for a certain section of the country such as the coal miners to endeavor to compel the Gov- ernment to adopt a certain political program or policy by means of a strike or by "direct action," as it is called? On March 10, 1920, the British "National Conference of Coal Miners declared in favor of a general strike as a means of enforc- ing the demand for nationalization of the mines." * However, "the trade union con- gress, which has a membership of 5,000,000, of which 700,000 are miners, on March 11, voted by a large majority (3,870,000 against 1,050,000) to reject the coal miners' decision for direct action as a means of forcing the Government to nationalize the coal mines." 2 Could such a strike, if called, be justified? A fundamental consideration, that any strike may be justified, is that the cause espoused be a just one. In the case in ques- tion have the railroad employees a just grievance against the Government of the 1 Washington Times, March 10. 2 Op. cit., March 11. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 131 country? Were the cause of the strike a demand for a higher wage it would seem that such claim might be just, for according to the Monthly Labor Review, the organ of the U. S. Department of Labor, out of a total of 1,894,287 railroad employees 716,830 were being paid a monthly wage of $95.13 or less, equivalent to an annual salary of $1,141.56, which is certainly quite consider- ably below a living wage, and 319,491 re- ceived $78.68, or less than $932.16 annually. 1 But the cause of the threatened railway strike was not a question of wages, at least not directly. It was a question of national policy which the railroad employees want the Government to adopt — the nationaliza- tion of the railroads of the country. Indi- rectly it might, it is true, affect them, as they feared that they might be less fairly treated were the roads returned to private control. But the real cause is a question of public policy which is of common interest to the whole country, and it being such "no par- ticular section of the community has a real grievance, such as could warrant a strike if it fails to bring the nation at large round to its point of view, or because the accredited * Cf. Monthly Labor Rev., Dec., 1919, p. 235. 132 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE representatives of the nation in the consti- tutional exercise of their authority refuse to accept its suggestion." * The public policy of a nation is the general welfare of the coun- try, and the interests of all the citizens as a whole, and not the particular interests of any section of the country, especially when these may seem to clash with the larger interests of the whole country. Were it permissible for a section of the community to veto the actions of the regularly constituted govern- ing body by such a process as a railroad strike or a strike in any of the great public utilities, the demoralization of the Govern- ment would result. Such action would be subversive of all law and order. It would be subordinating the welfare of the interests of the whole country to that of a section. Under such a policy the state must soon go to pieces and orderly government give way to chaos. Such would be the inevitable re- sult were any or every combination of indi- viduals allowed to bring the industry of a country to a standstill in order to force Con- gress or the country at large to its policy of Government ownership of the railroads. It is possible, however, to conceive in- 1 Irish Theol. Quart., Oct., 19*19, Vol. XIV, p. 370. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 133 stances where the workers or a section of the inhabitants of a nation would have a real grievance against the Government, viz., if the nation's representatives undertook to abolish the Catholic parochial school system or to disfranchise all members of the Ameri- can Federation of Labor. Here the strict rights of the affected would be invaded, and this would undoubtedly constitute a genuine grievance. So it is possible to have in the political order a grievance parallel to that which constitutes a just cause for a strike in the industrial order. But a labor union or body of workers will not have such a grievance simply because the Government refuses to adopt the political views which appear most beneficial to their interests. However, should the Government violate their rights as human beings or discriminate unjustly on a point of public policy or by special legislation, against the working class as a whole or against a particular section or trade union, then their grievance would be a just one. But even here there could hardly, if ever, be justification for strike ac- tion, in as much as there are less drastic methods available for redressing such griev- ances. Where the grievance is political in 134 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE character, the obvious remedy is the exercise of the political franchise. "Labor's oppor- tunity, as its principal leaders realize, lies in gaining control of the Government by or- derly constitutional processes and through the medium of existing parties." 1 Where such methods fail it is most unlikely that a strike would be any more successful. To ensure real hope of success it would be neces- sary to throw the whole nation into a state of great distress and disorder. So it would seem certain that no grievance on the part of a section of the community could jus- tify an action which would have such dire results for the whole community. "Be- cause of the great danger," says Fr. Koch, S.J., a leading economic authority in Ger- many, referring to the political strike, "which threatens the entire people, as well as the state itself, this form of strike appears to be altogether objectionable from the standpoint of morality." 2 It would seem, therefore, that the political strike would sel- dom, if ever, be justifiable. But as there can arise a condition such as might justify even a revolution against the abuse of au- 1 Washington Post, Feb. 25, p. 1, col. 1. 1 Quoted in The World Problem, Husslein, p. 128. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 135 thority by those in whose hands the welfare and government of the country have been entrusted, so in this, and even in a somewhat lesser grave condition of affairs, a political strike might be fully justified, 1 provided there are valid reasons to believe that through such measures the grave situation would be remedied. *Cf. Macksey, Argumenta Sociologica, pp. 150-151. Rome, 1918. VI THE MORALITY OF STATE ACTION IN RELATION TO STRIKE PREVENTION NATURE AND FUNCTION OF STATE AUTHORITY A MATTER of great importance in considering strikes is the question of their prevention, particularly the duty of the State in this regard; whether the State may prohibit them altogether, or how far it may go in this direction. Civil society exists for the sake of those composing it. The promotion of the com- mon weal is the end of its existence. "It is the province of the commonwealth to con- sult for the common good." 1 Hence the role of public authority in any state or so- ciety is none other than to direct it towards its end. "The first duty, therefore, of the rulers of the State," says the Encyclical, 'Leo XIII. On the Condition of Labor. 136 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 137 "should be to make sure that the laws and institutions, the general character and ad- ministration of the commonwealth, shall be such as to produce of themselves public well- being and private prosperity." In order that this end be secured the Government must "act with strict justice, with that jus- tice which is called in the Schools distribu- tive, towards each class." All have sacred claims, the consideration of which the Gov- ernment is bound to keep in mind in the ful- fillment of its duty, for "it would be most irrational to neglect one portion of the citi- zens and favor another." * The laborer forms an integral part of the living organism of society. He has, there- fore, social rights the defence of which con- stitute a part of the State's function. The laboring class undoubtedly constitute by far the greatest element within the common- wealth, the welfare of which it is the Gov- ernment's duty to promote. Industrially the prosperity of the entire community is in- separably and vitally connected with his daily toil. "It may be truly said that it is only by the labor of the working-man that 1 Op. cit. 138 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE States grow rich." * The public adminis- tration is, therefore, under an obligation not merely of charity but of strict justice to pro- vide for the welfare of its laboring classes and it is the duty of every Government duly and solicitously "to provide for the welfare and comfort of the working people" so that "they who contribute so largely to the advan- tage of the community may share in the benefits they create." 2 The Governments of the various nations have not always been scrupulously exact in the performance of this sacred duty. The result has been that the laboring class — the great bulk of the community — has at times, and particularly within the last two centu- ries, suffered greatly because of this neglect. The political "laissez-faire" policy, which removed from the economically weaker ele- ment of society all possible hope of redress or assistance from the State, has, as well as the later present century policy, subjected the laboring classes to grave injustices. When the need of the State interference in the economic field forced itself at last upon the Governments, the fatal mistake was 'Leo XIII. On the Condition of Labor. 2 Op. cit. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 139 made of identifying the existence and inter- ests of large fortunes with the industrial prosperity of the country. It was wrongly believed that the duty of the State demanded that these be safeguarded at all hazard, a policy which often meant the sacrifice of the economic welfare of the masses to the inter- est of the already economically powerful few. All recognize nowadays that the State authorities can no longer maintain a pas- sive attitude towards the struggles and differences that have arisen between labor- ers and employers. This principle has been laid down by Pope Leo XIII in the follow- ing terms, "Whenever the general interest of any particular class suffers or is threat- ened with evils which can in no other way be met, the public authority must step in to meet them." * It is clearly, then, the State's duty to take a hand in abolishing industrial strife which is proving so disastrous to so- ciety. How shall this best be accomplished? There is considerable divergence of opinion on this very important duty. Some would have the State repress all industrial strife by direct legislation. Others would find the 1 On the Condition of Labor. 140 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE solution in compulsory arbitration, while many claim that the question can be solved best indirectly by a combination of State and private effort, which, to be effective, must go back of the industrial strife and strike at and remove the causes operating in the in- dustrial field which produce present-day in- dustrial dissension. 1. GENERAL LEGAL PROHIBITION HOW far may the State go in pro- hibiting strikes? The State may always and should prohibit all strikes which are immoral in se. There can be no question as to the State's right to pro- hibit all strikes the direct aim of which is the destruction of all authority or those which certainly involve a grave violation of the sacred rights of others. Such strikes as those of the Syndicalists, which threaten the de- struction of the social order, are to be con- demned and should be prohibited by law. 1 Not only may such strikes be prohibited, but it might happen that under certain circum- stances industrial disturbances of any kind would constitute such a grave menace to the 1 Cf . Antoine, op. cit., p. 465. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 14-1 welfare of society or the nation as to justify the prohibition of all strikes for a time. Such a grave situation is very possible dur- ing a serious war, when there could be no question of the State's right to prohibit in- dustrial strife for the safety and promotion of higher interests. "For wartime condi- tions abnormal legislation is required." * Even under normal conditions it might be- come the duty of the State to prohibit a par- ticular strike, or even all strikes in a certain industry, as a part of its duty in safeguard- ing the higher rights of society against vio- lation. Such a situation might arise when the interruption of the work, brought about by the strike, very seriously interferes with the public good, as the strike of railroad employees and others engaged in public utilities, public officials, police, etc., or those entrusted in the provisioning of a city. Clearly in such cases it is the duty of the State to do all that lies within its power, at all times, to avert the disastrous conse- quences of a strike, for it has the obligation, as well as the authority, to safeguard the common good. In fact, "the conservation of the community and all its parts is so em- 1 Husslein, The World Problem, p. 14. 142 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE phatically the business of the supreme power that the safety of the commonwealth is not only the first law but it is the Government's whole reason of existence." 1 However, even in these cases the State will clearly fail in its duty if it prohibit strikes without mak- ing any provision whereby the sacred rights of the laborers to a decent and just wage will be safeguarded. If the State, in these cases, by prohibiting strikes, guarantees the inviolability of the employers' property and the general public from injury and at the same time "allows the owners of such indus- try to keep the wages of the laborers below the standard of a living wage, it is mani- festly doing but half its duty." 2 Fr. Antoine holds that if the State does forbid all strikes which interfere with the public service, such as railroad strikes, etc., "the State then owes the workers some compen- sation for the taking away of their rights." He suggests that, as a means of securing justice for the workers, the State establish a board of arbitration, "the decisions of which should be obligatory on both parties." 3 It 1 Leo XIII. On the Condition of Labor. 2 W. Moran, Irish Theol. Quart, Vol. XIV, April, 1919, p. 105. 3 Economie Soeiale, p. 465. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 143 is questionable if compulsory arbitration would prove an effective method of settling industrial difficulties. The experience of Australia, and other countries where such methods have been tried, gives us no such assurance. Unless the State undertakes by legislation to secure to the workers their right to a living wage and reasonable condi- tions of work, it is to be feared that any such State action might result in disastrous consequences. Even with such provision it is doubtful whether compulsory arbitration would prove effective in settling all difficul- ties. Owing to the fact that uninterrupted ser- vices in the great public and quasi-public services are immediately and absolutely necessary for the peace and well-being of the whole community, a greater responsi- bility undoubtedly rests on the employees of such industries. More than ordinary care and deliberation are incumbent on this class of laborers before they can be justified in striking. This being the case there can be no question but they "have a right to be com- pensated for the extra difficulties which the nature of the work places in the way of the 144 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE prosecution of their rights." 1 As it is the duty of the State to provide for the general good, and as the just and generous treat- ment of the employees in public services is very intimately connected with the general welfare of society, it would seem that the State is bound to provide the fullest machin- ery for permanently and effectively remov- ing the cause of strife in such services. Un- less the State does this it is hard to see how it can be justified in taking away from the employees the ordinaiy means of self- defence against injustice. In all cases the State has the right and duty to make use of its authority where dis- order, intimidation, violence, or riot super- vene, not indeed to put an end to the strike unless that be really necessary to prevent disastrous consequences, but to suppress the disorder. These are not essential to the strike. "When, however, the strikers make use of physical violence this must be pru- dently put down by the 'force majeure' of the State." 2 "The State has the right to intervene to repress and punish the abuses and violence of the strike," 3 although on 1 McKenna, The Church and Labor, p. 101. 8 Parkinson, op. cit., p. 132. s Antoine, op. cit., p. £65. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 145 that account alone it has not the right to prohibit the strike itself. How far the State may go will be determined by the nature and particular circumstances of each indi- vidual strike. "Should there be imminent danger of disturbance to the public peace" it is quite "right to call in the help of the au- thority of the law." The action of the State in such cases "must be determined by the nature of the occasion that calls for such in- terference." * If the use of violence can be controlled or prevented without interfering with the laborers' right to enforce their de- mands by reason of the strike, then this is obviously the limit of the State's jurisdiction in the matter. Should the use of violence, however, be so general that strikes become a real menace to society, the State has the right to forbid them by law, for the State has the right and duty to see that the rights and common welfare of society are safe- guarded. "Should strikes degenerate into an instrument of revolt or threaten the de- struction of the social order, in such and similar cases the State can and ought to sus- pend and even suppress the use of this means of defence. In these circumstances the 1 Leo XIII. On the Condition of Labor. 146 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE strike, being a real and grave menace to the social order, cannot be considered any longer as the exercise of a right." 1 It lacks one or more of the conditions necessary that the strike be considered just. The fundamental justification for the State's action in sup- pressing all such strikes is the fact that they are unjust, and "when strikes are unjust, because they lack one or more of the neces- sary conditions, then the State has the right to prohibit them." 2 But while it is the duty of the State to defend the natural rights of all its citizens, it is neither the duty nor the prerogative so to exaggerate the power of one as to destroy the natural rights of another. The State must, therefore, at all times and particularly when repressing any violence of the strikers, be especially careful not to lend its assistance morally or physically to the continuance of injustice. To the authorities of any State belongs the solemn duty of securing the im- partial administration of justice, and par- ticularly that of protecting the weak against a violation of their just and sacred rights. When the State officials, acting on principle, 1 Antoine, op. cit., p. 465. 2 Macksey, Argumenta Sociologies, Schol. 5, p. 136. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 147 as has often happened, array themselves on the side of the employer against whom a just strike has been called, they not only grossly neglect their most sacred duty, but they be- come gravely guilty of cooperating in the injustice of the employer. Such action as is recorded by Adele Shaw in the steel strike number of the Survey (Nov. 8) in connec- tion with the steel strike of 1919, cannot be defended on any score. In the town of Braddock where the people were on strike for the right to organize and bargain col- lectively, as well as against a twelve-hour day, the sacred rights of the laborers were violated by those whose duty it was to safe- guard them against invasion. Not only were the men forbidden by the sheriff of Allegheny County to hold any open-air or indoor meetings, but a warning was sent Father Kazinczy "direct from a high public official that, if he did not stop holding strikers' meetings under the guise of re- ligious services, his church would be closed." This threat failing, without any provocation on the part of the men, "as the congregation poured out of church ... it was beaten about by State Constabulary who rode up on the steps that led to its very doors." Later 148 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE his Sunday School children were clubbed as they left the church. Again a funeral pro- cession which could have easily been called off by an official proclamation, was rudely broken up. "The authorities waited until the procession was slowly making its long length down the street when the troopers rode into it and manhandled the partici- pants." * Such action, especially when con- trasted with the peaceful behavior of the strikers themselves, cannot be too strongly condemned, as "the first function of au- thority is to secure that our rights are re- spected," 2 rather than to lend itself to their violation. a. Direct Legislation MORALISTS generally are agreed that the State under the present industrial regime may not by gen- eral legislation take away from the laborers the right to strike. "A strike," says Fr. Antoine, "provided it is just, cannot be for- bidden absolutely by law," 3 for in such a J The Survey, November 8, 1919. 2 Card. Mer'eier, A Manual of Scholastic Philosophy, Vol II, p. 336. 3 Economic Sociale, p. 465. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 149 case the strikers are but using their natural right of self-defence against the injustice of their employer. Short of State assistance (which States do not supply) laborers have no other means of vindicating their rights. It is largely by organized resistance that they have been able up to the present to ob- tain the scanty measure of justice accorded them. "No entire class or industrial grade of laborers has ever secured or retained any important economic advantage except by its aggressiveness and its own power of resist- ance brought to bear upon the employer through the medium of force (economic) or fear." * The laborers, under the pressure of economic force, to which they are subjected at the hands of their employers and the gen- eral public in its function as consumer, are certain to be subjected to still greater injus- tices, unless they are able to oppose this pressure in some effective manner — either through State assistance or their own initia- tive action. As the State does not render the needed assistance, the only weapon left to the laborers to defend their rights against violation is their own action. But only by joint resistance can they effectually safe- 1 Ryan, The Church and Socialism-, p. 105. 150 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE guard themselves from grave injustice, or as Monsignor Parkinson states, "the civil authority has no power to annul the inherent right of the workmen to strike, for this is his natural means of defence." x Besides the State has the obligation to assist the laborers in the vindication of their rights. "Justice demands that the interests of the poorer peo- ple be carefully watched over by the admin- istration. . . . The first concern of all is to save the poor workers from the cruelty of grasping speculators who use human beings as mere instruments for making money." 2 Under the present condition of civil and industrial society it is clearly "the duty of civil authority to obviate the extreme conse- quences of economic advantages. However we may explain its power, it is an incontest- able fact that civil authority is bound to moderate the sway of superior economic strength. . . . Heretofore, indeed, civil au- thority has not only failed to restrain but, to a great extent, it has shown itself an ally of superior economic strength. Those who have been stronger economically have been stronger also politically and have not re- 1 A Primer of Social Science, p. 131. 1 Leo XIII. On the Condition of Labor. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 151 frained from using their two-fold oppor- tunity to crush their rivals." * It is largely because the State has failed in its duty towards the laboring classes that so many workers are subjected to the injus- tices that call for concerted resistance to vindicate their claims to justice. Inasmuch as the State, as mentioned above, has at times deprived the workmen of their natural rights in this matter, it must be held directly responsible, at least to a certain extent, for the injustice which in general a very large section of the working class is called on to bear. Should the State then, by absolutely prohibiting all strikes, remove from the laboring class their only means of defence against injustice, it would be doubly guilty. In the case of a just strike neither the em- ployer nor society's strict rights are violated. Were this so it would be the State's duty to safeguard them, even to the extent of pro- hibiting strikes, if that were necessary. But only the strikers' rights have been violated, and against such violation it is the State's duty to protect the laborers rather than wrest from them their only weapon of de- fence. To forbid absolutely such a strike 1 Kelleher, Irish Theol. Quart., Vol. VII, p. 3. 152 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE would constitute a violation of the sacred right of the laborers which the State has the solemn obligation to safeguard. b. Compulsory Arbitration MR. CRONIN and a few other mor- alists imagine they have found an adequate solution of the strike problem in compulsory arbitration tribunals, established by State authority, the decisions of which are to be made legally binding on both parties. "In every country," writes Fr. Cronin, "there should be set up special tri- bunals authorized to deal compulsorily with all questions concerning the nature and con- ditions of labor, and those tribunals being once set up, both the strike and the lockout should be strictly forbidden as at once unnecessary and opposed to the common good." * We can hardly subscribe to this opinion. In the first place it is a sound prin- ciple of ethics that State intervention should be resorted to only in grave matters and as a last recourse, where justice to individuals or the welfare of society cannot be secured by private means. "Only where the citizen x The Science of Ethics, p. 371. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 153 cannot help himself must the State come to his assistance," * and even here, as Fr. Husslein points out, the purpose should be wisely, "to help others to help themselves." Fr. Cronin would have these compulsory arbitration tribunals render authoritative de- cisions on "all questions concerning the nature and conditions of labor." Now there are many questions of minor importance bearing on the labor problem which un- doubtedly could be settled equitably without having recourse to such tribunals, and as Cardinal Mercier points out, "far from sup- pressing private action the State must en- courage and foster it in every way." 2 Besides there are questions of grave concern to both the employer and the laborers which do not admit of arbitration, such as the right of association, the right of the laborer to a living wage, etc. It is quite conceivable, with the great balance of economic force on the side of the employers, that they might, through some political influence, secure the setting up of anything but an impartial tri- bunal. This most of the laborers fear and apparently not without reason. Should such 1 Husslein, The World Problem; p. 136. a A Manual of Modern Schol. Phil., Vol. II, p. 337. 154 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE a tribunal render a decision forcing the laborers to accept a less than living wage, or to labor under unjust conditions, Fr. Cronin would impose on the laborers aff ected the moral obligation of abiding by such a decision, however unfair or unjust it might be to themselves. He would abrogate the laborers' natural right to strike in deference to such a tribunal on the plea of it being "unnecessary and opposed to the common good." We fail to see how the common good can be adequately safeguarded by a tribunal which might easily, under present or future economic and political conditions, become an instrument of injustice towards a very large portion of society. Since justice, as well as charity, are both compatible with every phase of industrial life, any proposed gen- eral remedy for industrial ills that fails to safeguard adequately the claims of both of these must be to that extent deficient as a complete solution of the industrial problem, and consequently should be condemned. Nor would such a tribunal, on the face of it, be likely to prove an adequate protection against the strike evil. Where the laborers feel that the decision rendered is unjust they are not always likely to abide by such a de- THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 155 cision. They will strike in defiance of these laws. This has been the experience in all countries where compulsory arbitration tri- bunals have been established. Even in Aus- tralia and New Zealand, where minimum wage and other beneficial labor legislation have removed many of the causes of indus- trial strife, the compulsory arbitration tri- bunal has not proved effective. "Since 1907 no year has passed in New Zealand without its quota of unlawful strikes. In October, 1913, a strike was started by the Waterside Workers Union at Wellington which threat- ened to be the largest in the history of the colony. . . . The conclusion that may legiti- mately be drawn from these strikes in New Zealand is that complete State regulation of the labor contract is far from being the uni- versal panacea for industrial disputes. . . . It is very difficult for the State to enforce laws to which a large and strongly organ- ized body of its citizens is opposed. ... It may be that compulsory arbitration has proved to be a two-edged sword ; that it has provided a remedy for many industrial dis- putes . . . but that at the same time it has given rise to a needless multiplication of dis- putes, and therefore to a State regulated 156 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE contract in many instances where it was alto- gether unnecessary." * The case of Australia is generally cited by the advocates of compulsory arbitration as conclusive evidence of the success of such a method in preventing strikes. Here, if any- where, conditions were favorable for proving the worth of such a measure. The labor party which fathered the measure had al- ways been strong politically and "since 1915 has been in control of the commonwealth." 2 The Government has been most active in passing much beneficent labor legislation and in this way removed many of the causes of industrial disputes. As early as "the year 1900 all of the States of Australia had made provision for the establishment of minimum wages." 3 Yet in spite of all this, and notwithstanding the fact that "arbitra- tion was begotten and conceived in the camp of labor," the experiment "has proved a gigantic failure in Australia." 4 While in 1 0'Grady, A Legal Minimum Wage, pp. 31-32. Cf. Aves, Report to Sec'y of Home Dept., on Wages, Board and Industrial Conciliation and Arnitration Acts in Aus- tralia and New Zealand, pp. 103-107; Commons and Andrews, Principles of Labor Legislation, pp. 146-156; Carlton, History of Organized Labor, p. 960. 3 Commons and Andrews, op. cit., p. 150. 3 Ryan, Distrib. Just., p. 401. 4 P. Airey, Arbitration in Australia, The National Re- view, January, 1920. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 157 the year 1914, 737° of the labor troubles in Australia were settled by direct negotiation between the employer and the employees; 71% in 1915; 63% in 1916; 35% in 1917; and 57% in 1918, arbitration utterly failed to settle the remaining disputes. "The per- centage settled by reference to the State and Federal Arbitration Courts was compara- tively small." ' Mr. Kibbs, the Australian statistician, in his Annual Report gives the number of strikes for the years 1914- 1918 to be 1,945, distributed as follows: 1914—337; 1915—358; 1916—508; 1917— 444 ; 1918 — 296. 2 Many of these were very large and not a few in direct defiance of the awards of the Arbitration Courts. At times Federal Government has been com- pelled by the strikers "in defiance of the arbi- tration law to override the Court and ap- point a 'special tribunal' to adjudicate" the differences. Not only this, but "Australia has enjoyed the spectacle of seeing the Gov- ernment departments 'pulled up' before the tribunal . . . and having to plead their case in the judicial court for Trades Disputa- tions, which they themselves had set up," 1 Airey, op. cit. •Annual Report of the Department of Labor, July, 1919. 158 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE and compelled to grant increase in wages although they pleaded "that the financial necessities of the country, drought, civil ca- lamities, and falling revenue would not al- low of the granting of such rises as the public servants demanded." 1 The testi- mony of the Australian statistician given above clearly shows the "land without strikes" is far from being such. After making a thorough study of the workings of the various legal methods pro- posed or adopted for the settlement of In- dustrial strife, the United States Commis- sion on Industrial Relations rendered the following report: "After considering all forms of Government compulsion in indus- trial disputes and even admitting their par- tial success in other countries, we conclude that on the whole, in this country, as much can be accomplished in the long run by strictly voluntary methods of avoiding strikes and lockouts. It cannot be expected that strikes and lockouts can be abolished altogether. Even countries with compul- sory systems have not succeeded in prevent- ing all of them." 2 Since this report was *Airey, op. cit. 2 Final Report of the Commission on Industrial Relations, 1915, p. 3T6. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 159 drawn up the failure of compulsory arbi- tration to solve the strike problem has become very much more apparent. Even had compulsory arbitration proved effective in preventing strikes, it would not, therefore, follow that the State would be justified in resorting to such extreme methods. Compulsory arbitration, through a general law prohibiting all strikes, could only be justified where the preservation of the welfare of society demanded such action, and where all less drastic methods have proved ineffective. Compulsory arbitration of itself carries no guarantee that justice will be secure either to the employers or to the laborers. If the State deprives the laborers of their right to enforce their claims to justice by means of a strike, without at the same time securing the establishment of justice in the industrial relationship between the employer and the employee, it is un- doubtedly transgressing the limits of its authority ! and any social system which is based on such a perversion of natural rights is wrong in principle, and a reaction accom- panied by disastrous consequences to society is bound to result. 1 Cf. Vermeersch, op. cit, n. 477 (5). 160 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 2. INDIRECT METHODS THERE can be no question of the State's right to diminish the causes of strikes or to promote the estab- lishment of institutions to which both parties to an industrial controversy may resort for a peaceful settlement of their differences. For as the Holy Father has stated, "Laws should be beforehand and prevent these troubles (strikes) from arising; they should lend their influence and authority to the re- moval in good time of the causes which lead to conflicts between masters and those they employ." * It is quite within the jurisdic- tion of the State to establish courts of con- ciliation and arbitration to which the em- ployer and employees may resort for the adjusting of their differences. 2 It would seem, in fact, that the State has an obliga- tion in this respect, for it is the duty of the State to do all that lies within its power to avert these disasters, and experience has shown that in this way many strikes can easily be prevented. Generally where such tribunals are available, laborers are bound 1 Leo XIII. On the Condition of Labor. 2 Cf. Garriguet, Regime du Travail, p. 141. THE MORxYLITY OF THE STRIKE 161 to have recourse to them for the adjustment of their claims, unless, indeed, experience or other grave reasons would justify their prudent conviction of the futility of having recourse to any tribunal. Ordinarily, failure to resort to such a tribunal would call for the condemnation of the strike on the ground of their failure to resort to all the less drastic means available for the enforcement of their just claims — one of the conditions that a strike may be considered morally justifi- able. Not only should the State provide such tribunals but it may have and has undoubt- edly the right "to forbid strikes until they first endeavor to settle their differences by arbitration," * if such measures be necessary for the safeguarding and promotion of the common good. Compulsory arbitration of industrial differences — as long as the State does not oblige the contesting parties to abide by the decisions of the tribunal — does not abrogate any natural right either of the worker or of the employer. Like the right to private ownership of productive property, the right to strike is not unlimited or abso- 1 Verrneersch, op. cit, n. 477 (5); Tanquerey, op. cit., n. 850. J 162 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE lute and can be defended only in so far as it does not interfere with the common good. The State certainly has the right and obli- gation to impose restrictions on the exercise of both of these rights. The nature of these restrictions will depend on circumstances of time and place, it being always kept in mind by those charged with the exercise of author- ity in this matter that "the State should interfere only in so far as the common good requires its just and prudent intervention." ' To the extent to which the State can provide other efficient and less drastic means for the adjustment of differences and the secur- ing of justice to both parties, to that extent may it limit the laborer's right to strike. Experience would tend to show that more can be accomplished in the matter of strike intervention by the establishment of com- pulsory arbitration tribunals, where the ac- ceptance of decisions rendered is left to the free-will of those directly interested, than by attempting to force the employer and em- ployees. Many countries are coming to favor a sys- tem of arbitration similar to that which, with some modifications, has been in operation 1 Husslein, op. cit., p. 63. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 165 in Canada since 1907, when an attempt was made to solve the strike problem by the pass- ing of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, a form of compulsory investigation and arbitration. The scope of the Act as enacted is to "aid in the prevention and settlement of strikes and lockouts in mines and indus- tries connected with public utilities." 1 In any other industry or trade where a dispute "threatens to result in a lockout or strike, or has actually resulted in a lockout or strike" 2 the provisions of the Act, on the agreement of both parties, may also be applied. In general "the measure applies to industry, the principle of investigation prior to a lockout or strike. It is founded upon the idea of introducing into industry a system of ad- justing industrial differences based upon the principle of law and order. It takes away no right of strike or lockout from the parties to the industrial disputes." 3 The Act com- bines the best features of conciliation and arbitration with investigation. It differs, however, essentially from compulsory arbi- tration as ordinarily understood. The real significance of the Act has been well set forth 1 6-7 Edward VII, Chap. 20. 'Op. cit., sec. 63. • Mackenzie King, Industry and Humanity, p. 495. 164s THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE by the Chief Industrial Commissioner and Chairman of the Industrial Council of the United Kingdom in a report made in the year 1912 to the British Government. In this report Sir George Askwith says: "It (the Act) only endeavors to postpone a stoppage of work in certain industries for a brief period and for a specific purpose. It does not destroy the right of employers or work people to terminate contracts. It does not attempt to regulate details of adminis- tration of business by employers or trade unions. It legalizes the community's right to intervene in a trade dispute by enacting that a stoppage either by strike or lockout shall not take place until the community, through a Government Department, has in- vestigated the difference with the object of ascertaining if a recommendation cannot be made to the parties which both can accept as a settlement of the difference. It presup- poses that industrial differences are adjust- able, and that the best method of securing adjustment is by discussion and negotiation. It stipulates that before a stoppage takes place the possibilities of settlement by dis- cussion and negotiation shall have been ex- hausted, but it does not prohibit a stoppage THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 165 either by lockout or strike if it is found that no recommendation can be made which is ac- ceptable to both sides. If no way out of the difficulty can be found acceptable to both parties there is no arbitrary insistence upon a continuance of either employment or labor, but both sides are left to take such action as they may think fit. As a result, it does not force unsuitable regulations on indus- tries by compulsory and legal insistence, but leaves an opportunity for modifications by the parties. It permits elasticity and re- vision and, if it does not effect a settlement, indicates a basis on which one can be made." * The effectiveness of the Canadian method as compared with the Compulsory Arbitra- tion Law of Australia is quite apparent. During the years 1914-18 the total number of strikes in Canada has been 506 2 — scarcely more than one-fourth the number which oc- curred in the same period in Australia where illegal strikes numbered 1,945. 3 The effec- tiveness of the measure of settling the indus- trial disputes is seen from the fact that 1 Report to the Board of Trade on the Indus. Disputes Investigation Act of Canada 1907, p. 7. London, 1913. , The Labor Gazette, Dept. of Labor, Canada, March, 1919 p. 278. 3 Cf . Australian Report, Dept. of Labor, July, 1919. 166 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE although the decisions are not obligatory, yet during the period from March 22, 1907, to March 31, 1919, it has failed to avert strikes in only 22 of the disputes that came within the scope of the Act. 1 A closer acquaintance of the workings of the Act on the part of the employers and laborers in Canada has resulted, as is shown by the Labor Report of Canada in various years, in an increasing disposition on the part of those concerned in the disputes brought before the board to accept the find- ings of the court, and in a more frequent application of the machinery of the Act to the settlement of disputes in "outside" in- dustries. During the year from March 31, 1918-March 31, 1919, twenty-five such cases were referred to a Board of Conciliation and Investigation, and in all cases an amicable settlement was effected. However, arbitration, conciliation, or in- vestigation legislation alone can never bring about a permanent settlement of the indus- trial struggle no matter how successful any such measures may be in effecting temporary settlement of industrial differences when they arise. They, like the Workmen's Com- 1 Labor Gazette, Dept. of Labor, August, 1919, p. 902. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 167 pensation Act, and the various forms of social insurance legislation, although good and necessary in themselves, fail under present conditions of industry to touch the real heart of the problem. No mere surface legislation will suffice, for the remedy, to prove permanently effective, must strike boldly at the very root of the economic struggle. Not only the present injustices, but their very causes must be remedied and removed. Statistics show that the wage problem has been the source of over fifty per cent of the strikes that have occurred in this country. It is obvious that any leg- islation that will remove the injustices done to the laborers in this respect will have the result of removing the cause of the larger portion of our strikes. "Proposals for the reform of social conditions are important in proportion to the magnitude of the evils which they are designed to remove and are desirable in proportion to their probable efficacy. Applying these principles to the labor situation, we find that among the reme- dies proposed, the primacy must be accorded to the minimum wage. It is the most impor- tant project for improving the condition of labor, because it would increase the compen- 168 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE sation of some two-thirds of the wage earn- ers and because the needs of this group are greater and more urgent than the needs of the better paid one-third. ... A legal mini- mum wage is the most desirable single meas- ure of industrial reform because it promises a more rapid and comprehensive increase in the wages of the underpaid than any alterna- tive device that is now available." x That such legislation would undoubtedly prove beneficial is evident from the results where the system has been tried out. According to Professor Hammond of Ohio, who con- ducted investigations during the year 1911- 12, the people of Australia have "accepted the minimum wage as a permanent policy in the industrial legislation in that part of the w r orld." 2 In Great Britain under the Trade Board Acts "the beneficial effects of the minimum wage have been even more strik- ing than in Australia." 3 Experience has shown, then, that such legislation will prove not only beneficial to a very large portion of the laboring class, 1 Cf. Ryan, Distrib. Just., p. 400. 2 Amer. Economic Rev., June, 1913. Quoted by Ryan, Distrib. Just., p. 403. 3 Ryan, op. cit, p. 403; Cf. Wright, Sweated Labor and Trade Boards Act., Chap. Ill; O'Grady, A Legal Minimum Wage, Chap. VI, VII. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 169 but to society as well. It is clearly, there- fore, the duty of the State to enact such leg- islation, for it is the duty of the State in all circumstances to seek to remove the occa- sions that may lead to strikes. This is in complete accord with the teachings of Pope Leo XIII, who writes, "when the work- people have recourse to strike it is frequently because the hours of labor are too long, or the work too hard or because they consider their wages insufficient. The grave incon- venience of this not uncommon occurrence should be obviated by public remedial meas- ures. . . . The laws should be beforehand and prevent these troubles from arising; they should use their influence and authority to the removal in good time of the causes that lead to conflicts between masters and those whom they employ." * The modern system of Capitalism has arisen largely from the disregarding of the sacred rights of the laborer to a reasonable family wage. It continues its work by the warfare of unrestricted competition under a State policy which has guaranteed to the employer the inviolability of his private property while it has at the same time per- 1 On the Condition of Labor. 170 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE mitted the employer to exploit the necessi- ties of the laborers by forcing them to consent to a wage that was far below the minimum of justice. In acting in this way the State has manifestly done "but half its duty. It is failing to defend the laborers' natural right of access on reasonable terms to the sources of supply." * Inasmuch as the individual employers have failed not only in their duty to the laborers, but also in their social responsibilities to the State, it is un- doubtedly the duty of the State to enforce their observances. "Whether it be consid- ered from the viewpoint of ethics, politics, or economics, the principle of the legal mini- mum wage is impregnable. The State has not only the moral right but the moral duty to enact legislation of this sort whenever any important group of laborers are receiving less than the living wages." 2 Yet, however far legislation which pro- vides for a minimum wage, reasonable hours of work, conditions of employment, social in- surance, etc., may go towards solving the industrial problem by removing the osten- sible causes of the greater number of strikes, 1 Moran, Irish Theol. Quart., April, 1919, p. 105. 2 Ryan, op. cit., p. 407. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 171 such legislation of itself is bound ultimately to fall short of being an adequate remedy. Any scheme which fails to breach over the chasm of divergent interests which separates the capitalists from the laboring classes must necessarily be defective. So must also be any attempt made to solve the social prob- lem without the aid of Religion. "Ultimately the workers must become not merely wage earners but capitalists. Any other system will always contain and de- velop the seeds of social discontent and social disorder." * As long as the present type of industrial system continues with the means of production and the instrumentalities of distribution almost entirely under the con- trol of a few capitalists, while the great bulk of humanity is left dependent on their daily wage, the seeds of industrial strife are bound to germinate. A system of this kind does not make adequate provision for the full development of man's personality. The great body of workers are left without any adequate means of satisfying the natural in- stinct of property, the failure to satisfy which contributes largely to producing the present unrest among the laborers. The sat- 1 Ryan, Distrib. Just., p. 425. 172 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE isfying of this instinct is necessary that man may become master over his own life in any adequate sense. "Lack of capital deprives the great majority of wage earners of the security, confidence, and independence which are required for comfortable existence and efficient citizenship." 1 John Leitch seems to strike very near the root of the trouble when he states: "Men strike because they are without adequate representation; what is really behind it all (the industrial struggle) is the half-articulated feeling that they should be treated not as mere material but as co-promoters of industry; that there should be dignity in their position and rela- tions." 2 Laborers must be given adequate representation in the field of production and distribution. The majority of the workers "must somehow become owners, or at least in part, of the instruments of production. They can be enabled to reach this stage gradually through co-operative productive societies and co-partnership arrangements. . . . However slow the attainment of these ends, they will have to be reached before we can have a thoroughly efficient system of 1 Op. cit, p. 213. 'Industrial Democracy, p. 28. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 173 production or an industrial and social order that will be secure from the danger of revo- lution." 1 Wherever the cooperative meth- ods have been tried out to any considerable extent the results have been most encourag- ing. In England where the cooperative movement has made considerable headway during the past quarter of a century, results have been such that the Whitley Report is- sued by a Parliamentary committee recom- mended "as a means of preventing industrial unrest and industrial disputes during the war that labor be given a greater share in industrial management." 2 Profit sharing is but another step forward — the natural pro- gression from labor participation in manage- ment. Carried out under certain conditions it is bound to contribute much towards securing to labor a deeper interest in the processes of production and distribution, be- sides removing many of the causes of labor troubles. Through this system the laborers are enabled all the more readily to become owners of capital and thus satisfy the fun- damental craving of the human heart for 1 Social Reconstruction, Nat. Cath. War Council Pam- phlet, p. 22, Wash. D. C, 1919. 2 Cf. Ryan, Labor Sharing in Management and Profits, Cath. Char. Rev., Feb. 1920, p. 48. 174 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE private property. "Taken together, the two devices seem to be the most effective and promising immediate steps toward a reason- able amount of democracy in industry, im- proved relations between capital and labor, and a larger and better product." 1 The duty of the State in this matter is clear. It should by the general laws of the country lend every possible aid to the pro- motion of this end. "The law should favor ownership and its policy should be to induce as many as possible to become owners." 2 Every encouragement should be given also to the formation of industrial unions and to the operation and extension of the principle of collective bargaining between the employ- er and the employees. In this way the inter- ests of both parties to the trade agreement will be regulated more in accordance with the dictates of justice and the danger of dis- rupting the peace of society by industrial strife will be considerably lessened. However, as the issues involved in our industrial disturbances are not purely eco- nomic but "fundamentally moral and re- ligious, so their settlement calls for a clear 1 Cf. Rvan, op. cit., March, 1920, p. 74. a Leo XIII. On the Condition of Labor. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 175 perception of the obligations which justice and charity impose." 1 Pope Leo XIII de- clared truly that while the social question demands the attention of "the rulers of States, of employers, of labor, of the wealthy and of the working people themselves, . . . all the striving of men will be in vain if they leave out the Church." 2 Only in the light of true philosophical and religious principles can the solution for the great industrial problem be found. The individual, whether employer or laborer, particularly the former, must come to realize that only through a re- turn to the practice of religion, which must effect "a considerable change in human hearts and ideals" of all, can be effected the proper ordering of economic and social rela- tions which will put an end to the necessity of strikes as a means for the establishment and safeguarding of justice. Pastoral Letter of the Bishops of the United States, Feb., 1920. 1 On the Condition of Labor. vn BIBLIOGRAPHY MORAL ANTOINE, LE R. F. CH., S. J., Economic Sociale, Guillaumin & Cie., Paris, 1899, 12th Edition. AQUINAS, THOMAS, Summa Theologica, secunda secundae. BOEDDER, BERNARD, Natural Theology, New York, 1910. CATHREIN, VICTOR, Moraiphilosophie, Her- der, Freiburg, 1911. CRONIN, MICHAEL, M. A., D. D., The Science of Ethics, Vol. II, Benziger Brothers, New York, 1917. CUTHBERT, O. S. B., Catholic Ideals in Social Life, New York, 1916. DEVAS, CHAS. S., Political Economy, Long- mans, Green & Co., N. Y., 1913. DUNOYER, LE, La Libertie du Travail, Vol. II, Paris. GARRIGUET, L., Regime du Travail, Vol. I, Librairie Bloud & Cie., Paris, 1908, 13th edition. 177 178 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE GENICOT, E., S. J., Theologiae Moralis Institu- tions, Vol. II, A. Dewit, Brussels, 1909, 6th Edition. GIBON, La Liberte du Travail et les Greves. HUSSLEIN, JOSEPH, S. J., Ph. D., Democratic Industry, P. J. Kenedy & Sons, New York, 1919. HUSSLEIN, JOSEPH, The World Problem, Capital, Labor and the Church, P. J. Kenedy & Sons, New York, 1918. KELLEHER, J., Private Ownership, Benziger Brothers, N. Y., 1911. KELLY, FLORENCE, Some Ethical Gains Through Legislation, New York, 1905. LEHMKUHL, A., S. J., Theologia Moralis, I., Herder, Freiburg in Breisgau, 1902. LEHMKUHL, A., S. J., Die Sociale Frage, Frei- burg in Breisgau, 1895. LEHMKUHL, A., S. J., Casus, Vol. I. LEHMKUHL, A., S. J., Arbeitersvertrag und Strike, Herder, Freiburg, 1892, Translated into French by R. D. Fritsch, Louvain, 1893. LASALLE, J., Capital et Travail, Lib., du Prog- ress, Paris, 1880. LEO XIII, Pope, Encyclical Letter. On the Con- dition of Labor, 1891. McKENNA, L., S. J., M. A., The Church and Labor, P. J. Kenedy & Son, New York, 1914. MACKSEY, S. J., Argumenta Sociologica Di- gesta, Gregorian University, Rome, 1918. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 179 MERCIER, CARDINAL, A Manual of Modern Scholastic Philosophy, Vol. LT, B. Herder, St. Louis, 1917. NAUDET, L'ABBE, Le Christianisme Social. Propriete, Capital et Travail, Bloud & Bar- ral, Paris, 1896. NOLDIN, H., S. J., Summa Theologiae Moralis, Vol. II, Pustet, New York, 1914, 11th Edi- tion. CPGRADY, JOHN, M. A., Ph. D., A Legal Mini- mum Wage, Washington, 1915. PARKINSON, HENRY, D. D., Ph. D., A Primer of Social Science, Devin Adair Co., New York, 1913. PERIN, CHARLES, Premiers Principes d'econo- mie Politique, LeCoffre, Paris, 2d Edition, 1896. PLATER, CHARLES, S. J., The Priest in Social Action, New York, 1914. POLIER, L'Idee du Juste Salaire, Paris, 1903. POTTIER, A., De Jure et Justitia, R. Ancion, Liege, 1900. POTTIER, A., Questiones Sociales et Ouvrieres, Paris, 1883. ROSS, J., ELLIOTT, Ph.D., Consumers and Wage Earners, Devin Adair Co., New York, 1912. ROSS, J. ELLIOTT, Ph. D., The Right to Work, The Devin Adair Co., New York, 1917. ROSS, J. ELLIOTT, Christian Ethics, The Devin Adair Co., New York, 1919. 180 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE RYAN, JOHN A., S. T. D., A Living Wage, Mac- Millan, New York, 1912. RYAN, JOHN A., S. T. D., Distributive Justice, MacMillan, New York, 1916. RYAN, JOHN A., S. T. D., The Church and So- cialism, The University Press, Washington, D. C, 1919. TANQUEREY, AD., Synopsis Theologiae Mo- nths, Vol. Ill, Bonziger Brothers, New York, 1907, 3rd Edition. VERMEERSCH, A., S. J., Quaestiones de Jus- titia, Bruges, 1901. ECONOMIC ADAMS & SUMMER, Labor Problems, MacMil- lan Co., New York, 1915. ASHLEY, W. G., English Economic History, London, 1892. BELLOC, HILAIRE, The Servile State, Lon- don, 1912. BOYLE, Minimum Wage and Syndicalism. BRISSENDEN, P. F., The I. W. W. A Study of American Syndicalism, Columbia Univer- sity Press, 1919. BARNETT & McCABE, Mediation, Investiga- tion and Arbitration in Industrial Disputes, D. Appleton & Co., New York, 1916. BROOKS, JOHN GRAHAM, The Social Unrest, The MacMillan Co., N. Y., 1903. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 181 CARLTON, FRANK T., Ph. D., The History and Problems of Organized Labor, D. C. Heath & Co., N. Y., 1911. CLARK, VICTOR A., Ph. D., The Labor Move- ment in Australia, Henry Holt & Co., New York, 1906. CLEVELAND & SCHAFER, Democracy in Re- construction, Houghton Mifflin Co., New York, 1919. CLARK, LINDLEY D., LL. M., The Law of the Employment of Labor, MacMillan Co., N. Y., 1911. CLAY, Syndicalism and Labor. COMMONS, JOHN R., Industrial Goodwill, Mc- Graw Hill Book Co., N. Y., 1919. COMMONS, J. R., History of Labor in the United States, 2 Vols., MacMillan, N. Y., 1918. COMMONS & ANDREWS, Principles of Labor Legislation, Harper & Bros., N. Y., 1919. COMMISSION ON INDUSTRIAL RELA- TIONS, Final Report, U. S., 1915. CROSS, I. B., Collective Bargaining and Trade Agreements, etc., University of California, 1919. ELY, RICHARD T., Ph. D., LL. D., Evolution of Industrial Society, MacMillan Co., N. Y., 1903. ESTEY, J. A., Revolutionary Syndicalism in France, London, 1913. 182 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE FRIEDMAN, ELISHA M., Lcabor and Recon- struction in Europe, Dutton & Co., N. Y., 1919. GILMAN, NICHOLAS FAINE, Methods of In- dustrial Peace, Houghton Mifflin Co., N. Y., 1904. GOMPERS, S., Labor and the Common Welfare, Dutton & Co., N. Y., 1919. GROAT, GEORGE GRAHAM, Ph. D., Attitude of American Courts in Labor Cases, The Co- lumbia L T niversity Press, 1911. GROAT, GEORGE GRAHAM, Organized Labor in America, MacMillan Co., N. Y., 1919. GRANT, PERCY STICKNEY, Fair Play for the Workers, Moffat Yard & Co., N. Y., 1919. HALL, FRED S., Ph. D., Sympathetic Strikes and Sympathetic Lockouts, The Columbia University Press, N. Y., 1898. HAYES, J. H. CARLTON, A Political and Social History of Europe, Vol. II. HENDERSON, RT. HON. ARTHUR, M. P., The Aims of Labor, B. W. Huebsch, New- York, 1918. HOBSON, The Industrial System, Longmans, N. Y., 1909. HOXIE, ROBT. FRANKLIN, Ph. D., Trade Unionism in the United States, D. Appleton & Co., N. Y., 1919, THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 183 JAY, R., La Protection Legale du Travailleurs, Larose, Paris, 1904. KING, The Wealth and Income of the People of the United States, MacMillan, N. Y., 1915. KING, HON. W. L. MacKENZIE, C. M. G., Ph. D., Industry and Humanity, Houghton Mif- flin Co., N. Y., 1918. KIRKUP, THOMAS, History of Socialism, 6th Edition. LEITCH, JOHN, Man to Man— The Story of Industrial Democracy, B. C. Forbes Co., N. Y., 1919. LEWIS, The Rise of the American Proletariat. LEVERHULME, W. H. L., Six Hour Day and Other Industrial Questions, Holt & Co., 1919. MARRIOTT, J. A. R., Right to Work, Oxford Press, 1919. MENGER, The Right to the Whole Product of Labor, London, 1899. MITCHELL, JOHN, Organized Labor, Ameri- can Book House, 1903. NEARING, SCOTT, Ph. D., Social Adjustment, The MacMillan Co., N. Y., 1916. PHILLIPS, S. L., Reciprocal Rights of Capital, Labor and the State, Washington, D. C, 1919. POTTER, Development of English Thought. RENAULT, Histories des Greves. ROGERS, J. E. T., Work and Wages. 184 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE REPORT ON STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS IN CANADA, 1901-1916. REPORT OF THE DEPT. OF LABOR, Canada, for year ending March 3, 1918. SCHOENLANK, BRUNO, Sociale Kamfe von 300 Jahren. SQUIRES, B. M., Operation of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act in Canada, U. S. Dept. of Labor Bulletin, 1918. STREEGHTOFF, FRANK HATCH, The Standard of Living among Industrial Peo- ple of America, Houghton Mifflin Co., N. Y., 1911. SNOWDEN, PHILIP, M. P., The Living Wage, Hodder & Stoughton, N. Y., 1912. TAUSSIG, Principles of Economics, MacMillan, N. Y., 1917. TAWNEY, Minimum Rates in the Tailoring In- dustry, London, 1915. TEAD, ORDWAY, Instincts in Industry— A Study of Working Class Psychology, Hough- ton Mifflin Co., N. Y., 1918. WALKER, The Wage Question, N. Y., 1876. WEBB, SYDNEY & BEATRICE, Industrial De- mocracy, Longmans, Green & Co., 1897. WEBB, SYDNEY & BEATRICE, The History of Trade Unionism, N. Y., 1911. WRIGHT, CARROLL D., The Industrial Evo- lution of the United States, N. Y., 1895. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 185 WRIGHT, THOMAS, Sweated Labor and Trade Boards Act, P. S. King & Son, London, 1911. PERIODIC A L S American Catholic Quarter!// Review. Vol. VII, July, 188:3, Capital & Labor. Vol. XXV, -Ian., 1900, Rene Holland, S. J., Industrial Arbitration. Catholic Charities Review, Editorials. 1919, Oct., Nov., Dec. 1920, Jan. Catholic University Bullet i/i. Vol. V, Jan., 1899, W. J. Kerby, Ph. D., Diffi- culties of the Labor Movement. Vol. VIII, Jan., 1902, W. J. Kerb;, Ph. D., Tin- Public and the Labor Question. Vol. VIII, Apr., 1902, J. A. Ryan, D. D., The Laborer's Right to a Living Wage. Vol. IX, 1908, Leo Dubois, S. M. M., The Min- ing Question. Central Hlatt and Social Justice, Collective Bar- gaining. 1919, Nov., Dec. 1920, Jan., Feb. Independent. V..1. <)!), Sept., 1919, Guardians of Order Abdi- cate. Strike of Boston's Police. Irish Ecclesiastical Record. O'lbrbv. C. M., The Labor Problem. 186 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE Irish Theological Quarterly. Vol. VII, Jan., 1912, J. Kelleher, The Morality of Strikes. Vol. XIV, Apr., 1919, W. Moran, Some Causes of the Present Social Unrest. Vol. XIV, Oct., 1919, Direct Action, Its Ethical Aspect. Labor Gazette, Dept. of Labor, Canada. 1918, February. 1919, March, August. Literary Digest. Vol. 60, Mar. 1, 1919, Meaning of Western Strikes. Vol. 61, Jun. 14, 1919, Canada's Labor War. Vol. 62, Aug. 30, 1919, High Cost of Strikes. Vol. 62, Sep. 27, 1919, The Policeman's Right to Strike. Vol. 63, Nov. 29, 1919, Labor's Right to Strike. Vol. 63, Dec. 20, 1919, Who Won the Coal Strike? Living Age. Vol. 300, Mar. 15, 1919, J. R. Clynes, British Nation and the Great Strikes. Vol. 301, P. Airey, Arbitration in Australia. London Quarterly Review. Vol. 132, Oct., 1919, F. C. J. Hearmshan, Strikes, Their Ethical Aspects. London Spectator. Vol. 122, Feb. 8, 1919, Strikes. Vol, 123, Oct. 11, 1919, The Right to Strike. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 187 Vol. 123, July 26, 1919, The Miners' Strike. Vol. 1«8, Oct. 4, 1919, The Railway Strike. Vol. IJ88, Oct. 19, 1919, The Strike. London Universe, March 21, 1919. Mont hi if Labor Review, U. S. Dcpt. of Labor. 1919, Aug., Sept., Dec. 1920, January. Nation. Vol. 108, Apr. 5, 1919, E. Fenter, Bolshevism and the General Strike in Switzerland. Vol. 108, June 14, 1919, J. A. Stevenson, The Great Winnipeg Strike. Vol. 108, June 28, 1919, W. McDonald, Paving the Way to Revolution. Strikes in France. Vol. 109, July 12, 1919, The Winnipeg Strike. Vol. 109, Oct. 4, 1919, Organization or Vio- lence? National Municipal Review, Philadelphia. Vol. VII, Nov., 1918, Strikes of Municipal Em- ployees. Vol. VIII, Mar., 1919, D. W. Hyde, Jr., Lon- don Police Strike. National Review, Jan., 1920, P. Airey, Arbitra- tion in Australia. New Republic. Vol. 18, Mar. 22, 1919, G. D. H. Cole, Hours Movement in England. Vol. 19, July 9, 1919, A. E. Darley, Winnipeg Revolution. 188 THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE. Vol. 20, Nov. 19, 1919, G. D. H. Cole, The British Railway Strike. Vol. 21, Jan. 21, 1920, Walter Lipmann, Can the Strike be Abandoned? Vol. 21, Jan. 21, 1920, William Hard, Out of the Mouth of Miners. New Statesman, London. Vol. XIII, June 14, 1919, Causes of Strikes. Vol. XIII, June 26, 1919, Causes of the Winni- peg Strike. Vol. XIII, Sept. 27, 1919, Wages and Strikes. Vol. XIV, Oct. 4, 1919, S. Webb, Facts of the Strike. Vol. XIV, Oct. 4, 1919, The Men Are Always Right. Vol. XIV, Oct. 4, 1919, The British Railway Strike. Vol. XIV, Oct. 4, 1919, Anarchist Conspiracy. Vol. XIV, Oct. 11, 1919, After the Strike. Outlook. Vol. 122, June 18, 1919, F. Maitland, Bol- shevism Testing Canadian Common Sense. Vol. 122, June 18, 1919, Canadian Labor Troubles. Vol. 123, Nov. 12, 1919, Right of the People to Defend Themselves. Vol. 123, Oct. 29, 1919, American Industry in a State of War. THE MORALITY OF THE STRIKE 189 Public. Vol. 21, April 27, 1918, H. L. Kenvin, Prevent- ing Strikes in Wartime. Vol. 22, June 14, 1919, The Winnipeg Strike. Vol. 22, June 21, 1919, C. L. Jolmson, Revolu- tion or Strike in Winnipeg? Vol. 22, Sept. 20, 1919, Can Public Servants Strike? I\< view of Rczwzcs. Vol. 60, Oct., 1919, Boston Police Strike. Vol. 60, Nov., 1919, Why the General Strike Failed in Italy. Scientific American. Vol. 121, Nov. 15, 1919, The Strike Problem. Survey. Vol. 42, Aug. 2, 1919, G. Taylor, Epidemic of Strikes in Chicago. \<>1. 42, Sept. 20, 1919, The Boston Police Strike. INDEX Act, Workmen's Compensation, 166. Advancement of laboring classes, 8. Alliance, Citizens' Industrial. Il'i American Federation of Labor, 119. Ancient civilization, economic regime of, 1. Anti-Slavery orators, 19. Arbitration, compulsory, 159, 1 .jO, 161, 165; not successful, 155; a two-edged sword, 166; Australia and Board of, 143; courts, 157; danger of tribunal of, 154; system favored, K>2. Ashley on serfdom, 7. eiation, man's need of, 28. [ation, National l.rectors', 118; National Manufactur- ers', 11^. 11.0, ]20. Associations, laborers', given civil recognition, 14. Australia and Board of Arbitration, 143. Authoritv, duty of civil, 150; essential, 75; private, 97; State, 144, 145. Bargaining, collective, 174; principles of, 73. Beneficial effects of the minimum wage, 168. Board of Arbitration, 142; Australia and, 143. Boston Police Strike, The, 78. Braddock, tOWU of, 14 7. Brit Mi National Conference of Coal Miners, 130. Canon Law, new, and living wage, 49. Capital, labor and, bound together, 46. Capitalism, modern system of, 169; Reformation and Ra- tionalistic, 57. Capitalists, workers must become, 171. Cardinal Mercier on Labor Problems, 153. Catholic Guilds of Middle Ages. 19. Catholicism, suppressed, 57. Catholic parochial school system, 133. Cause of the strike, 47. tion of work, 99. Character of l.it.or demands, 44. Charity, violation of, 33, 60. Cheap labor, consuming class and, 12. Children and factories, 11; Sir Robert Peel on pauper, 19, Christianity, influence of, 6. Church, strikes and the teaching of the, 91. 11)1 192 INDEX Citizens' Industrial Alliance, 119. Civic obligations not suspended during a strike, 96. Civil authority, duty of, ISO. Civilization, economic regime of, 1. Classes, advancement of Laboring, *; conflicts between, 126. Closed shops, fund to combat, 120. Coal Miners, British National Conference of, 130. Collective bargaining, principles of, 7:5, 174. Commodity, labor a, l 2, Compensation Act, Workmen's, 166. Compulsory arbitration, 152, 159, I'M, 165; not successful, 155; a two-edged sword, 156. Condition of slaves, 3. Conditions, economic, 51; working, 60; justifying shorter hours, 70. Conflict between classes, 126. Congress, joint, at Nantes, 126. Consuming class and cheap labor, 49, Contract, invalid, 36, 38. Contractual relationship, 33. Contracts, just, 33. Cooperative productive societies, 172. Corporation, United States Steel, 121. Costs of production, effects of increased, 40. Courts, arbitration, 157. Craft guilds, 8. Danger of a tribunal of arbitration, the, 154. Degradation of labor after the Reformation, 10. Demands, means employed to enforce, 91. Destitution after the Reformation, 11. Destruction of life or property forbidden, 95, 99. Development of the strike, origin and, 1. Direct legislation, 148. Distribution, justice in, 57. Domestic system, 13. Duty of civil authority, 150. Duty of the State, 141. Earliest evidence of a strike, 9. Early history of slavery, 3. Economic conditions, 54; forces and political influences, 153; slavery, revolt against, 14. Effects of increased cost of production, 40. Egyptian Pharaohs, 4. Eight-hour day, the, 68. Employer, and worker, relation existing between, 23; obliga- tions which bind, 24-26; State officials on side of, 147. Emplovers' rights, 31, 34. Encvclical of Pope Leo XIII., 21, 22, 48, 67, 68, 71, 73, 76, 136, 139, 160, 169, 175. INDEX 193 End or object sought, strike in relation to, 45. England, wealth in, 59. Eranoi, the Greek, 5. Evil results of a strike, 78. Exaggeration of the public press, the, 80. Extent of moral pressure, 101, 103. Factory system, 13. Factories, pauper children and, 11. False propaganda and public opinion, 121. Family wage, minimum wage and, 61, 62. Fear, use of unjust, 102. Federation of Labor, American, 119. Fund to combat closed shops, 120. General strike, the, 127; seldom justified, 125; sympathetic, 123. General legal prohibition of strikes, 140. Golden era of labor, 9, 10. Government ownership of railroads, 132. Greek Eranoi, the, 5. Guilds, craft, 8; of Middle Ages, Catholic, 12. Hayes, Professor, on the Reformation, 11. Hebrews, slaves protected among the, 3. History, of the strike problem, 1; of unionism, 119. Hours, of labor, 67; conditions justifying shorter, 70. Husslein, on ancient slavery, Father, 3. Industrial, systems, dependent on slavery, 2; revolution, 13; prosperity and large fortunes, 139; Workers of the World, 127; proclamation of, 128. Influence of Christianity, 6. Injustice, the strike a protest against, 59. Insurance legislation, social, 167. Insurrection at Laurium, 5. Invalid contract, 36, 38. Investigation Act, Industrial Disputes, 163-166. Just and unjust cause, 45. Justice, in distribution, 57; violation of, 99. Justifiable methods, just cause and, 30. Kazinczy, Father, and strike, 147. Labor, as a class in slavery, 2; organizations and revolution, 5; golden era of, 9, 10; degradation of, after the Reforma- tion, 10; consuming class and cheap, 42; demands, char- acter of, 44; and capital bound together, 46; hours of, 67; leaders against violence, 109; American Federation of, 119; Cardinal Mercier on problem of, 153. Laborer, prosperity and the, 137. Laborers' associations give civil recognition, 14; obligation of State to assist, 150. 194 INDEX Laboring classes, advancement of, 8. Large fortunes and industrial property, 139. Laurium, insurrection at, 5. Lawfulness of violence, 105, 106. Laws, against the workers, 14; forbidding strikes not ef- fective, 15. Leaders, labor, against violence, 109. League, Syndicalist, 126. Legislation on strikes necessary, 18; direct, 148; social in- surance, 167. Life or property, destruction of forbidden, 95, 99. Living, man's right to a decent, 24; strikes raise the stand- ard of, 80. Living wage, 37; and the New Canon Law, 49; statistics of, 63, 64, 65. Longshoremen's and printers' strikes, 34, 55. MacNamara trial, the, 127. Man's right to a decent living, 24; need of association, 28. Maximum wage, 53, 54. Means employed to enforce demands, 91. Methods, indirect, 160. Middle Ages, 9; Catholic guilds of, 12. Militia, State, 108. Minimum wage and family wage, 61, 62; beneficial effects of, 168. Modern system of capitalism, 169. Moral pressure, extent of, 101, 103. Morality of the strike, 19, 21. Nantes, joint congress at, 126. Nation, public pohcy of, 132. National Erectors' Association, 118. National Manufacturers' Association, 118, 119, 120. New Canon Law and living wage, 49. Notice of intended strike, 94. Obligation of State to assist laborers, 150. Obligations which bind employer and worker, 24-26. Orators, Anti-slavery, 12. Organizations, Labor and Revolution, 5. Origin and development of the strike, 1. Passing of guilds, 12. Peaceful picketing, 97. Peel, Sir Robert, on pauper children, 12. Physical violence, 103. Political, strike, the, 129; influence, economic forces and, 153. Pope Leo XIII., Encyclical, 21, 22, 48, 67, 68, 71, 73, 76, 136, 139, 160, 169, 175. Press, the exaggeration of the public, 80. Principles of collective bargaining, 73. INDEX 195 Printers' and longshoremen's strikes, 34, 55. Problem, history and development of the strike, 1; the strike purely modern, 15. Proclamation of the Industrial Workers of the World, 128. Production, effects of the increased costs of, 40. Profit-sharing, 173. Prohibition of general strikes, 140. Propaganda, false, and public opinion, 121. Property, destruction of life or, forbidden, 95, 99. Proportionate cause, 77. Prosperity and the laborer, 137; industrial and large for- tunes, 139. Public, right of the general, 39, 42; opinion, false propa- ganda and, 121 ; policy of a nation, 132. Railroads, Government ownership of, 132. Rationalistic capitalism, Reformation and, 57. Recognition, necessity of union, 72. Reformation, the, and labor, 10; destitution after the, 11; and rationalistic capitalism, 57. Relation existing between employer and worker, 23. Relationship, contractual, 33. Report of the United States Commission on Industrial Relief, 158. Repressed guild system, 57. Responsibility, for evil results, 82; State, 151. Revolt of radical Socialists, 74; against economic slavery, 14. Revolution, labor organizations and, 5; industrial, 13. Rights, employers', 31, 34. Schoenlank on the Reformation, 10. Serfdom, 7, 8, 9; Ashley on, 7. Six-hour day, the, 69. Slavery, labor as a class in, 2; industrial systems dependent on, 2; revolt against economic, 14. Social insurance legislation, 167. Socialists, revolt of radical, 74. Socialist theory, 46. Societies, cooperative productive, 172. Society, strikes a plague to, 78-80. Solution of the great industrial problem, 175. Soviets, the, 74. State, and the strikers, the, 107; miUtia, 108; action ano strike prevention, 136; duty of the, 141; authority, 144, 145; officials on side of employer, 147; may not forbid a strike, 148; has obligation to assist laborers, 150; re- sponsibility, 151; tribunals, 161. Statistics of living wage, 63, 64, 65. Strike, history of the, 1; the earliest evidence of a, 9; problem truly modern, the, 15; three essential elements of a, 19; morality of the, 19, 21; in relation to end or object 196 INDEX sought, 45; cause of the, 47; a protest against injustice, 59; an unlawful, 77; Boston Police, the, 78; evil results of, 78; violence in, 80; successful issue of, 87; a last re- course, 92; United States Steel, 93; notice of intended, 94; civic obligations not suspended by a, 96; sympathetic, 111, 115; when not justified, 116; the general, 127; the political, 129; State may not forbid, 148; right to, not unlimited, 161. Strikers, the State and the, 107. Strikes, prohibited in the United States, 14; laws forbidding them not effective, 15; small number of, for a century and a half, 15; number during last twenty-five years, 16; strikes once comparatively rare in the United States, 16; why the public has lost sympathy with, 17; legisla- tion on, necessary, 18; and the teaching of the Church, 21; printers' and longshoremen's, 34, 55; a plague to society, 78-80; raise standard of living, 83; successful, of doubt- ful benefit, 86; general legal prohibition of, 140. Sympathetic strike, the, 111, 115; when not justified, 116. Syndicalism, 125. Syndicalist League, 126. Syndicalists, 140. System, factory and domestic, 13. Suppressed Catholicism, 57. Teaching of the Church and strikes, 21. Theory, Socialist, 46. Three essential elements of a strike, 19. Trial, the MacNamara, 127. Tribunal of arbitration, danger of, 154. Tribunals, State, 161. United States Steel strike, 93; Steel Corporation, 121; Commission on Industrial Relief, report of, 158; strikes prohibited in the, 14; wealth in, 59. Unionism, history of, 119. Union recognition; its necessity, 72. Unlawful strike, an, 77. Use of unjust fear, 102; of violence, 108. Violation of charity, the, 33, 60, 92; of justice, 99. Violence, physical, 103; lawfulness of, 105, 106; use of, 108; labor leaders against, 109. Wage, maximum, 53, 54, 168; minimum and family, 61, 62; living, 37. Wealth, in England, 59; in United States, 59. Worker, relation existing between employer and, 23; obliga- tions which bind employer and, 24-26. Workers, laws against the, 14; must become capitalists, 171. Working conditions, 66. Workmen's Compensation Act, 166. World, Industrial Workers of the, 127; proclamation of, 128. HI {111 '«!!§ Willi