is safer with moderate men, such as Clynes, Thomas, Barnes, and Stewart Bunning, I yet felt that in his devotion to the families of the miners, in his unselfishness, single-mindedness, and courage, I had met no more Christlike man in Great Britain than the miners' executive. It was painful to feel obliged to disagree with him on his policies. II-SAMUEL GOMPERS: PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN Mr. Sherman Rogers, New York City. My dear Mr. Rogers: FEDERATION OF LABOR BY SHERMAN ROGERS INDUSTRIAL CORRESPONDENT OF THE OUTLOOK In a recent speech delivered by you in Boston you I made the statement that organized labor had stood for stability and construction during the last twenty-five years, and that you believed Samuel Gompers, President of the American Federation of Labor, had demonstrated highly commendable loyalty before the war and during the war, and that you personally believed the country owed Mr. Gompers as much as any single man for the successful prosecution of the war. I believe whole-heartedly in your advocacy of better relations between capital and labor, relations that will be founded on the absolute certainty that a vast majority of the laboring men of the country are absolutely square. I believe, as you do, that we have entered a new era so far as recognizing justice in industrial affairs is concerned, and I also believe, as you have so vigorously stated, that, in proportion, there are just as many I. W. W.'s among the ranks of capital as there are in the ranks of labor, and that the I. W. W. capitalists are just as great a menace to the country, and probably more so, than the I. W. W. laboring man. I agree with you on the fundamental principles of the ideas and ideals you are giving all your time to. But, and I want to spell that "but" with a capital "B," I think you are dead wrong when you hold Samuel Gompers up as a patriotic leader. I think his acts in the last three years should place him in the same category as other radical revolutionary labor leaders not connected with the American Federation of Labor who believe in destroying the present system and establishing the new-fangled and destructive notion: namely, the dictatorship of the proletariat. I trust you will believe me an enthusiastic believer in the doctrines you advocate, and trust also that you will kindly write me how you can be so inconsistent as to spoil your good work by making the statement above referred to. vision, and constructive stability continuously since he became President of the A. F. of L. thirty-five years ago. I do not agree with all the principles of the American Federation of Labor, but I do sincerely contend, as Samuel Gompers so eloquently stated Underwood & Underwood SAMUEL GOMPERS, AMERICAN LABOR LEADER, ON HIS WAY TO ROCHESTER BY AIRPLANE in his recent debate with Governor Allen, in Carnegie Hall, that the American Federation of Labor is mainly responsible for the elimination of miserable sweatshop conditions, child labor, especially child labor in the coal fields, and, in fact, I go Sam Gompers one better by stating that in a great degree the American. Federation of Labor under the leadership of Mr. Gompers deserves much of the credit of placing labor in America on a higher standard in regard to social and economic conditions than anywhere else in the world. In regard to Samuel Gompers's loyalty, his past private utterances, his published articles, and his speeches of record speak for themselves. The veteran needs very little defense. All that is necessary to prove that Mr. Gompers is a real American and a sincere friend of labor is to bring to light excerpts of speeches made by him or articles from his pen. You apparently term Mr. Gompers an I. W. W. I emphatically state that the American Federation of Labor, through the energetic and tireless ef forts of its great leader, has been and still is one of the greatest bulwarks against Bolshevism existing in the United States to-day. I quote an excerpt from a signed article written by Samuel Gompers in "McClure's Magazine" of April, 1919: "I do not know that I am entitled to very great credit because I am not a Bolshevik. With my understanding of American institutions and American opportunities, I repeat that the man who would not be a patriot in defense of the institutions of our country would be undeserving the privilege of living in this country. . . . If I thought that Bolshevism was the right road to go, that it meant freedom, justice, and the principles of humane society and living conditions, I would join the Bolsheviki. It is because I know that the whole scheme leads to nowhere, that it is destructive in its efforts and in its every activity, that it compels reaction and brings about a situation worse than the one it has undertaken to displace, that I oppose and fight it." In "McClure's" of April, 1919, Mr. Gompers wrote: "America is not merely a name, a land, a country, a continent; America is a symbol. It is an ideal, the hope of the world. . . . It is the duty of every citizen to stand by his country in times of stress and war as well as in times of peace. The man who would not fight, or make the supreme sacrifice, if necessary, to save and protect his home and his country, who would not fight for liberty, is undeserving and unworthy of living in a free country." Does that sound like the principles of an I. W. W.? In a report to the A. F. of L. Convention at Atlanta, Georgia, in November, 1911, Mr. Gompers said, in part: "It [the American Federation of Labor] has pursued its avowed policy with the conviction that if the lesser and immediate demands of labor could not be obtained now from society as it is, it would be mere dreaming to preach and pursue that will-o'-the-wisp, a new society constructed from rainbow materials-a system of society on which even the dreamers themselves have never agreed." Permit me again to say that I am not attempting a wholesale defense of Mr. Gompers in all of his beliefs, nor in all of the tenets of the American Federation of Labor; I quote the above in answer to the statement made in your letter of September 5. MILAN GUARDED BY TROOPS DURING THE LABOR TROUBLES Many factories in Italian cities were recently seized by turbulent workers, and troops were called upon to quell disturbances and guard property. These labor disputes have now, it is reported, been adjusted I ANSWER THE WILL YOU VOTE FOR OWEN WISTER FOR HIM IT IS THREE STRIKES AND OUT SHALL vote for Harding. For this I have three reasons, any one of which alone would decide me. First, we must return to Constitutional government. We have had eight years of personal government. These years seem to me amply to justify the deep-rooted distrust of personal government felt by the founders of the country and the careful thought they took to guard against it. Second, we stand in urgent need of the very best equipped intelligence that can be found to direct our domestic affairs. We must have men not merely of brains, but of brains seasoned with experience, and of steady judgment. I I think many more such men are found in To sum up. Through Harding and the with other nations. STEWART EDWARD WHITE SAYS ONE REASON IS ENOUGH-AND COX SUPPLIED IT In making this statement I speak not BOOTH TARKINGTO AN EDITORIAL FOREWOR following correspondence was then in trusted to the wire: Booth Tarkington: Can still use your two to three hundred word statement if it reaches us by next Monday. Send it if necessary by wire night press rates at our expense. Please wire to-day whether we may count on you. ERNEST H. ABBOTT. Ernest H. Abbott: mental efficiency is at the lowest in its history. The fundamental reasons seems to lie in personnel. Weak, vain men in high positions. Secretaries whose private and public utterances and actions are incredibly childish; men whose first reaction to any project brought officially to their attention-even in waris not whether the project is effective and desirable, but whether it can be published! This also is first hand and not rumor. Perhaps the Democratic party has abler men than those who have been allowed to keep the responsible positions for the past eight years; but, if so, they have not been shown in action. The proof of their existence is still to be made. The Republican party STEWART EDWARD WHITE TLO AN'T SAY NOTHING ND SOME TELEGRAMS the subject but find a great vacancy due to thinking nothing. BOOTH TARKINGTON. Booth Tarkington: Please think nothing for us for two or three hundred words. You will be the spokesman for millions. ERNEST HAMLIN ABBOTT. Ernest H. Abbott: Surely if Mr. Tarkington can speak neither anything nor nothing on the campaign, his silence is at least eloquent of his opinion. But some of the other authors to whom we appealed have found it possible to be as eloquent in words as Mr. Tarkington has been in silence. We publish their valued replies below. It is perhaps needless to say that when we appealed to these noted authors for an expression of their opinions we had no inkling as to their political leanings in the present campaign. has at least proved, able men; it has a tradition of government, and some precedents of known worth by which to guide itself. It also is against the peculiar form of one-man government that, personally, I think has harmed us immeasurably. So much for general principles. As to candidates, I should vote for Mr. Harding if I had only one indication for comparison. I refer to Mr. Cox's public charges of corruption, bad faith, insincerity, and the rest of what seems to start like the campaign of a demagogue. Even if all these charges should I happen to be literally true, the personal enunciation of them should be beneath the dignity of a candidate for the highest office we have. Their publication could quite safely be left to others; and the effect of them, if they had the vitality of truth, would not be diminished. That Mr. Cox does not see this is to me a small but significant gauge of the man's capacity. If he is not big enough to see that the methods of the ward politician and the mud-slinging demagogue are not applicable to a campaign for the ruler of a country like this, he is not big enough for the job. MARY ROBERTS RINEHART DECIDES THAT NO ATLASES NEED APPLY SHALL cast my first vote in November, and that vote will be for the Republican party. Had I cast my first vote ten years ago, it would also have been Republican, but with this difference that then it would have been mainly the result of heredity and environment. Now my decision is, to be honest, a compound of discontent. with present conditions, resentment at the negation by Woodrow Wilson of the representative form of government, and hope. Two of these fundamental impulses are negative. I shall vote against the Democratic party. One is positive. I want the Republican party to be given a chance. Although I am aware that to become heir to the past eight years, to come back to the changed social and economic conditions that face the country and the world, to inherit not only blunders and debts that were avoidable but also the aftermath of an unavoidable war, is to come into power under the worst possible conditions. Not at once can administrative blunders be remedied. Debts incurred cannot be canceled. It will take time to restore our standing with the world, and it will take effort and good faith to restore the confidence of our people in the Government. I have spoken first of my personal discontent with present conditions. That includes several things. Our form of government is founded on representation in good faith, yet there has been a consistent refusal on the part of the Executive to recognize the will of the people through their accredited representatives. Our only check on the executive office is through our National legislative bodies, and their proper recognition is essential. The Republican nominee has had his training in the National Legislature, is fully aware of their importance as representing the will of the people, and of their power and authority. But my personal discon tent goes further. Not only has the political morale of the Nation been upset by the unseemly bickering of those in high place, but the social and economic. Morale is from the top down. Quarreling above-stairs means quarreling below; waste and extravagance are contagious. Inefficiency and poor management at the head of a business mean the same thing all through. But, granting that war was an emergency for which we were unprepared, and that the chaos of administration has its excuses, there are other things not so easily explained. To be honest, I believe that the Democratic party came into power with two fixed ideas. The first was a not unnatural one-to remain in power. But the second one requires explaining. The development of the party was from the masses, and the mass is always Socialistic until it acquires property. Therefore wealth was a crime, not in the concrete but in the abstract. The party came into power with a practical denial of class, and therefore at once awoke class consciousness. It went further, and instituted class taxation, thus ignoring the fundamental fact that what is given to a man free is without value. In the same way it denied wealth it denied achievement, and as it espoused lost causes it espoused mediocrity. It has forgotten that Jefferson was an aristocrat, a gentleman, and a scholar, and remembers only that he wore no frills upon his shirt. Of the second reason for my personal discontent I have stated the fact, and that is enough. Our President is our President still, and an ill man. He is a great man also, greater than we know, but not so great that he, or any other man, can carry us, Atlas-fashion, on his |