66 CHAPTER IX 99 NEXT, if not equal, in importance, to the slander ous attacks made upon the character of the personnel of the army and navy, is the insidious attempt of anti-militarists of a certain class to convince the so-called "common people" that military force is opposed to the interest of the plain citizen. The most successful form which this campaign has taken has been in antagonizing union labor against military force. In this particular body of men there appears to be a natural tendency to regard military force as their enemy, and this tendency receives much assistance from some of the anti-militarists. It is a regrettable fact that at the present time organized labor has been unable to see the errors of its reasoning. Labor unions are, as a whole, patriotic organizations. Many of them are composed of intelligent men, and it has been found in more than one instance that when conditions were properly explained, they favored rather than opposed military force. The opposition of labor lies, of course, in the fact that troops are frequently used to preserve order during riots growing out of labor trouble. According to the agitators, the soldiers are the tools of the employer. Such, however, is far from the case. A soldier, in the first place, would rather perform any other duty than riot duty during a strike; and, in the second place, when compelled to do so he stands for order alone. Union labor men are not anarchists; they are not lawless; they are not dishonest; and they do not oppose a government that insures good order. In fact, such men give a strong, high-class vote in favor of what they believe will be for the protection and interest of their homes. They desire the protection of police for their own homes and privileges, and would under no circumstances vote to have the police protection done away with. Due to agitators, however, in many cases they fail to recognize that troops when called out are merely performing the duty which the police have been unable to do. As for the attitude of the soldier in labor disturbances, we quote from one of the military manuals for riot duty; a book which has been adopted by the War Department for study in all officers' schools in the National Guard, and which is in use in many of the states: The attitude of the troops should be strictly impartial, especially in labor disturbances. They should absolutely prevent all disorder, no matter from what source, but should take extreme care to show no favors to any side of the con troversy. Furthermore, after preventing disorder, damage to property or possible injury to person, no action should be taken which will aid or hinder either party in their lawful attempts to further their purposes. In addition to the legal and military aspects, there is another point to be considered in regard to the use of force in riot duty. Both officers and men should take into consideration the great difference between the classes of riots and rioters in determining the amount of force to be used. Riots may be divided as tollows: First, those partaken in by citizens, usually law abiding, but temporarily crazed through real or fancied wrongs; second, those in which the participants are entirely vicious and criminal; and third, those assuming the nature of a rebellion against the lawful government, whether the participants be of the lawful or criminal classes. Though, from a military viewpoint, all may be the same, and, from a legal viewpoint, the first two may be the it is obvious that every effort should be made to refrain from wounding or killing participants in the first class of rioters, while in the second and third cases greater force may be advisable and necessary.* same, Time and time again it has been shown that troops not only take the above attitude, but are more careful not to use unnecessary force than are forces composed of undisciplined deputies sworn in for the occasion, and certainly very much more careful than the private guards employed by some of the large corporations. We know of no instance when troops have ever fired unnecessarily or continued their fire * Troops on Riot Duty, Military Publishing Co., Trenton, N. J. to an excessive point in riots; but we do know of many cases where they have withheld their full power in spite of personal injury sustained by missiles and even shots coming from a crowd. The better class of union labor and this constitutes the majority is in favor of a stable government, of one that will be strong enough to prevent disorder and anarchy from occurring at the will of any body or organization. The Government accomplishes this through police and troops, both bodies being men whose duty it is to keep all sides of an argument in good order, but not to investigate the matter, form their own opinions, and help one side or the other. The labor man would not desire to have the police or the soldier investigate strike conditions and take active action, using offensive force against one side or the other. Such decisions should be made by other men than soldiers; for instance, boards of arbitration. In the meantime, the soldier must keep his opinions to himself, and confine his efforts to maintaining order. Such an attitude is the only possible way of securing justice and maintaining good government. Should they give the matter a little thought the union men would realize thoroughly that, in keeping order during strikes, the soldier is doing exactly what the laboring man himself would vote for at a time when he was not impassioned by his own grievances. Moreover, labor has already, in some instances, offered to furnish deputies from the ranks of strikers to keep good order during labor disturbances. This was a wise and logical move. Similarly the unions could do no better than to fill the National Guard, which is the force usually called in strike duty, with union men. It would be an insurance of justice to labor on the part of each individual Guardsman, in addition to the present just attitude of the Guard as a whole. This attitude may now be spoiled, on occasion, by the act of someone or some few members of the National Guard- exactly, for instance, as some union men occasionally fail to stand for the principles advocated by their organizations. It is not fair, for instance, to charge all union labor with the acts of dynamiters, nor to charge the Guard with the acts which may occur through a small proportion of its members. When the unions realize the truth about the soldier, we will secure most of our citizen soldiers from their ranks, and the unions themselves will be greatly strengthened by gaining the support of those who now look upon them as advocates of disorder and anarchy. Furthermore, we have already pointed out one of the many instances where it is in defense of the rights of the laboring classes that we may be involved in war. We refer to the prevention of the importation of cheap yellow labor a case where it is certain that, socialists to the contrary, the soldier would be |