against coercion the steel constructing companies organized the National Erectors' Association, pledged to destroy that "un-American " institution, the union shop. This association in course of time drove the union officers to despair in their effort to establish or to hold the union shop and its regulations. The deeds to which the McNamaras confessed were born of their desperation. Having driven the union to desperation the association of erectors used the confession to create a public impression that the violence of these men and the union was typical of the policy of the union movement generally. It was with consummate effrontery that they turned to the public and to union men requesting their help in clearing the country of the violence perpetrated by union officers. They did not lessen the insult by explaining that they proposed this campaign against the union for their own good. If to accomplish their end it became necessary to wreck the whole union movement (and detectives and sections of the press intimated that it would be) they were prepared to help all good unionists to make that sacrifice.

When the McNamaras were arrested evidence of complicity of other union officials was in the hands of the Erectors' Association. During the trial of these other officials, thirty-eight altogether, it developed that detectives for the Association had been employed for six years in gathering evidence before making an arrest. They left no doubt in the mind of any one that

they had expected to indict officials of the American Federation and involve other unions besides the Structural Iron Workers. They expected to dissolve not one union of a few thousand workers but to disorganize a movement including two million workers.

As the union men came to believe that the hunt was less for the suppression of violence than for the suppression of the union movement the note of hesitancy and apology expressed by many union men turned to resentment. They had been convinced before the confession of the McNamaras that their arrest was "a frame-up "; they now understood for the first time the ground for their suspicion.

In the Amalgamated Journal of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers Judson O'Neil remarked, "The labor movement has nothing to apologize for in this case. Under like circumstances we shall in all probability do the same thing when the workers realize that violence is also a monopoly of big business . . there will be a different tale to tell." 3

Anton Johannsen, representing the Building Trades Council of California, speaking in behalf of the officials on trial said:

They found that in that industry (steel) every single labor union had been completely destroyed and annihilated with but one exception, the Bridge and Structural Iron Workers' Union. You can draw your own inference, but every union was destroyed by the steel trust and all those men who had lost their organization worked twelve

hours a day for $409 a year as the average wage. We have a Congressional report to back us up as to the facts. What are the facts in connection with the Iron Workers' International Union? In seven years during the administration of John J. McNamara the union increased its membership from 5,000 to nearly 14,000 members. They established an eight-hour day from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from Texas to the Canadian line, and they established a wage scale of $4.30 as compared with $2.20 . . . . I do not know, but I suppose that the McNamaras became convinced that no amount of pleading, no amount of argument, no amount of logic, no amount of Christianity, no amount of politics, would convince the steel trust that they could give eight hours and give them living wages. Labor would have to organize. The steel trust had what they called the National Erectors' Association, one of the tributaries of the steel trust, and the National Erectors 'Association had what they called the American Bridge Company, another tributary of the steel trust.

How long do they expect those 260,000 men and boys to work in the steel industry for $409 a year, twelve hours a day, without becoming imbued with animosity and despair? How do they expect it? If a man says to me McNamara should be condemned my reply is: All right, we will condemn the McNamaras; we will also condemn the Carnegies. If a man says to me that the Iron Workers' Union should be condemned I say, All right; we will also condemn the steel trust. If they say, We want light, we want justice; all right, light up the iron workers, light up the steel trust, light up labor and light up capital. Put on the searchlight for both parties and we are willing that our sins shall be compared with their sins. *

Any one who interprets these answers of labor as arguments in favor of violence fails to understand

the force of the reason or impulse which binds men together in unions. The conviction of union men is that violence does not meet the occasion, not that the occasion does not justify it. The occasion develops violence and unions stand by members who have been goaded by conditions to commit violence in protection of their purpose which is opposition to violence in industry. Violence is inconsistent with organization; it is its antithesis, and no people know this so well as those whose lives are spent in attaining organization.

The McNamara incident failed to convict the labor movement of violence. It served rather to bring out in relief the effort of the unions to protect life against the wanton disregard for life which characterizes the promoters of American industry.

In the chapter on "Strikes and Violence" it is shown that the violence of unarmed strikers pales into sickly effort before the authorized brutality of a wellarmed police force or militia. While society condones violence in industry and meets opposition to that violence with armed interference it will inevitably reap an occasional harvest of labor violence. As it undertakes to quell the opposition with its official force it places the labor unions in the lead in the fight against violence. The violence of the police in the Shirt Waist Strike in New York City advertised the thought of organization of women workers throughout the country and even in Europe, as the peaceful efforts of union officials had failed to do. And in the same

way the violence of the militia in the Lawrence strike carried the suggestion of rebellion to many thousand unskilled and apathetic workers. The violence of state officers quickens public interest and stimulates imagination. The community lines up and rebellious labor makes new friends and new recruits. While individuals surrender reason to the consuming forces of passion their militant acts in defence of a human cause kindle thought among the masses of men.