Dublin Core
Title
Montgomery Ward & Co. Are All Right.
Subject
Chicago Teamsters' Strike of 1905.
Description
Page 110 of Mr. Boller's scrapbook presents a 4-page pamphlet produced by Montgomery Ward & Co. detailing their perspective on the Chicago Teamsters' Strike of 1905. It includes sections taken from various Chicago-based newspaper of the time.
Creator
Montgomery Ward & Co.
Source
Claude Villette Boller's Scrapbook, Farmingdale State College Archives, Farmingdale State College, Farmingdale, New York.
Publisher
Montgomery Ward & Co.
Date
April 1905.
Contributor
Claude Villette Boller.
Relation
Claude Villette Boller's Scrapbook, page 110.
Format
Paper, 19.7 cm. x 21 cm. (cover). 21 cm. x 39.4 cm. (open).
Language
English.
Type
Text.
Text Item Type Metadata
Text
[Pamphlet page 1 of 4]
You have read or heard how Montgomery Ward & Co. have a strike on their hands.
What this strike is about, how it originated, and how conditions are with us, it is our purpose to tell you briefly.
Say you are a farmer and have twenty men in your harvest field. A man drives up to the fence in a buggy and calls your hands over to him.
Without a word to you the entire bunch jump the fanse and go away with the man, without even knowing why,
"Hey, you, where you going?" You'd sing out. "Come back here. What's wrong? Let's talk it over - let's arbitrate."
Then if they didn't answer you and never came back - what would YOU do?
Would you let the grain spoil and the year's crop go to the devil? When a hundred other good work-men came up and said:
"Let US save your crop; we want the work the other men have abandoned," you's not be such a fool as to throw away the chance of hiring all you needed of them, would you?
Last December nineteen of the garment cutters we had went out on a general strike at the call of their union, in connection with all the other cutters of Chicago.
We had a contract with their union, which stated that they should NOT go on strike without first notifiying us of any dissatisfaction and submitting their grievance to arbitration.
This they ignored.
Neither the cutters nor their union ever came back to us to ask reinstatement, or anything else.
They were getting full union pay and working only union hours. They had no grievance against us that we have ever heard of.
This was in December.
All through December, January, February and March not one word was ever said to us about the cutters, by themselves or their union.
But on the 6th of APRIL the TEAMSTERS' Union came to us and threatened to call out all their teamsters in retaliation, unless we arbitrate the strike of four months previous.
Meanwhile, having waited a few days after the cutters departed, but not hearing from them or their union, we hired other good cutters. We installed them in December 1904. We are not going to discharge them in April, 1905, to reinstate the men who quit us for nothing four months before.
Then the Teamsters' Union ordered our drivers out. Not a man of them wanted to quit, and they protested against their union ordering them out without giving them a chance to vote on the matter. Our drivers were getting $1.50 a week or so MORE than the union scale, were perfectly satisfied with us, and we with them. Some of them have been over twenty years in our employ.
That they should be compelled to strike out of sympathy with twenty cutters whose union got them into trouble months before seemed folly to our drivers.
But they had to go at the behest of the union.
Why should they, as teamsters, lose their jobs and...
[Pamphlet page 2 of 4]
...pay on account of some garment cutters they didn't even KNOW?
Our drivers went out under protest.
We at once employed temporary drivers and went ahead with our deliveries to the depots.
We have occasion to send from 50 to 90 large loaded trucks to the different freight depots every day, besides thousands of mail and express packages.
The strikers dared not interfere with the mails, but tried to stop the express companies.
But the latter said they would deliver everything that came up to them from Montgomery Ward & Co. at any cost, and they did.
We moved our loads of frieght every day under police guard, and continued to do business as usual. Not another employe than the teamsters was affected or lost an hour's time or an hour's pay because of this unfair strike.
Of the three hundred or more of Chicago concerns who transact business daily with us. all stood by us, and insisted that they would deliver and receive our goods. And they did.
The merchants and manufactureers of Chicago, the city officials and the press, as well as the body of respectable citizens, have stood by us faithfully.
The Chicago Employers Association recognized that this strike is not against Montgomery Ward & Co. alone.
The unions threatened that they would begin with Montgomery Ward & Co. as a large concern, who did a lot of teaming, and after settling THEM would take up the other merchants of Chicago, who would be easier, they said, after Montgomery Ward & Co. were conquered.
The onlu employes of M. W. & Co. who are on strike are the 40 teamsters. And they are doing so under protest. They are not seen on the streets or making any disturbance.
They are at home, waiting for the union to let them return to work for us again; only the hoodlums and thugs of the alleys prevent them from being with us now, as they have been for 20 years past.
EVERY OTHER EMPLOYE OF THE 3500 THAT WORK FOR US IS AT HIS POST.
Not one has a grievance, all are faithful and willing to fight for us, if necessary.
We have shipped and received goods every day, and shall continue to do so.
We are now shipping our normal business, and everything is moving along on schedule time.
There will be but little, if any, delay in your orders reaching you, and in many entire lines of goods no delay whatever.
To many friends and customers who have extended their encouragement we express our thanks.
To any who are not correctly informed as to the conditions that exist in our city, we proffer this brief explanation.
Montgomery Ward & Co. are all right, and are conscious of doing right; are going right ahead with their business in all departments, and want you to know the truth, in order that any reports, started or circulated by country merchants to our detriment, may be fairly met and answered right on the start.
We add some recent comments of the Chicago Newspapers, selected from many of the same tenor, showing how the press and the citizens of our city view the disorder that is created by the malicious and the misdirected.
Remember, this strike is NOT against Montgomery Ward & Co. alone, but against every merchant in Chicago who has a contract with any body of union men. It is a TEST of the VALUE of a CONTRACT between business houses and union leaders.
Our friends will favor us with their orders, in all departments, as usual, and may be assured that the goods will come promptly and in the usual good order.
This we guarantee.
[Pamphlet page 3 of 4]
The present sympathetic strike of the teamsters' union agaianst Montgomery Ward & Co. raises a question that is of particular interest to the great "third party" - the suffering public - in all these later day industrial disputes.
When does a strike end? Not. When do the unionists say it ends? Not, When do the employers consider it ends? But when is it actually over?
In the question that now threatens the peace of the city the apparent facts may be summed up thus: A number of union garment workers left the employment o Montgomery Ward & Co. last December, and this leaving was called a strike by the unionists. In a short time the firm had replaced these workers and was conducting its business as usual. Under such conditions the firm said there was no strike.
Four months after the original strike of the garment workers - who all this time maintained they were still on strike - the Chicago Federation of Labor took up the cause of the garment workers and, through the powerful agency of the teamsters' union, undertook by sympathetic strikes to force the firm to come to an agreement with the employes who had ceased to work for it months before.
Yesterday organized labor was willing to submit the cause of the garment workers to arbitration. Montgomery Ward & Co. declined on the ground that no strike of garment workers against the firm existed. The firm and the employers associated with it were ready to have an arbitrament of the present strike, which they claim involves only the teamsters. The teamsters refused, holding that they had no grievancethat called for arbitration, that they were simply acting out of sympathy with the garment workers.
The unionists say the garment workers are still on strike; the employers say the strike of the garment workers was over long ago. The public would like to have the point settled.
Therefore it is suggested that both sides agree to submit to arbitration this question: Did the strike of the garment workers against Montgomery Ward & Co. end when the firm found that it could get along perfectly well without the strikers, or does it continue as long as the strikers and organized labor back them assert they are still on strike?
It is not necessary to pass judgement upon the alleged grievances of the garment workers against Montgomery Ward & Co., or upon the question whether or not the teamsters have grievances against the firm. Let us have a settlement on this point: Is there still a strike of the garment workers, and if not when did it end?
This appears to be a question that both sides might submit to arbitration without compromising the position each has assumed in the present conflict; and a decision might settle the controversy.
From the Chicago Journal
Mayor Dunne confronts a disorderly and riotous city.
Refusing to arbitrate, as their contracts demand, plunging into a strike which they have no concern, the officials of the teamsters' union of Chicago have precipitated upon the community confusion and public crime.
Every one of these contract-breaking officers and investigators of wrong doing is openly boasting his influence with the new administration and informing the men he misleads that they may riot and assault to their heart's content. Mayor Dunne, they say, is on their side.
Chicago will be satisfied with nothing short of rebuke, short, sharp and instructive to such arrogance.
Mayor Dunne, both lawyer and judge, is fully aware of his own obligations to the city of which he is chief executive and of the eed of preserving the public peace. He cannot tolerate for a moment this attempt on th epart of irresponsible and time-serving labor leaders to involve his administration in their own wickedness.
That these men openly boast of the fact that they supported him in the recent election and that in turn Mayor Dunne will support them can have only one answer. Dold, Barry, McGee, Morton, Shea, Smyth, Young and the rest are proved contract breakers and counselors of disorder, are an irresponsible lot and should be checked by their own unions.
Mayor Dunn was elected to represent no single interest, either those of employers or employed. He is the mayor of Chicago, of all its people and he will see first and foremost, that the public peace is maintained and the rights of the public secured.
It is gratifying to have word from his own lips that such is the fact. Mayor Dunne will be mayor.
From the Chicago Journal
In order that the people of Chicago may know the responsibility rests for the rioting and disorder into which their streets have been plunges, the names of the following men are published as the direct cause:
Charles Dold, president of the Chicago Federation of Labor.
James B. Barry, walking delegate of the Express Wagon Drivers' and Conductors' union. Now under arrest for rioting.
Hugh McGee, president of the Truck Drivers' union.
Joseph Morton, president of the Stationary Firemens' brotherhood.
C. P. Shea, president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
John Smyth, president of the Coal Teamsters' union.
Joseph W. Young, president of the Baggage and Parcel Delivery Drivers' union.
These men have counseled the teamsters to refuse to arbitrate differences with employers, in direct violation of their duly executed contracts.
They have ordered deluded men on strike, in direct violation of the contracts entered into by themselves as officers of their unions.
They are responsible for the interruptions in the city's business interests, for the disorder in its streets, for injuries inflicted on innocent bystanders and upon men with a higher sense of obligation to contracts and to the criminal law.
If death follows their combined lawlessness, murder will be upon their heads.
And to Barry, McGee, Morton, Shea, Smyth, and Young this warning:
No labor leader in Chicago has survived a losing strike.
No labor leader who has deliberately broken the contracts he himself helped to make has ever been able to regain the confidence of the community.
Each of you is as certain to go down into the dark as has the long treacherous list of contract-breakers and law-breakers preceding you.
From the Chicago Chronicle
If the suthorities of the city of Chicago and of the state of Illinois imagine that they are deceiving anybody of intelligence by their present attitude toward the teamsters' strike now in progress they are woefully mistaken.
[Pamphlet page 4 of 4 (incomplete due to adhesive holding it to the scrapbook page)]
Two hundred and fiftey policemen escorting ten or a dozen wagons through the streets make a brave show, but why is it that these 250 policemen are needed? Who is it and what is it that calls for such a display of force?
It is well known that if these wagons were to appear in the streets without police escort their drivers would be beaten and perhaps killed. It is known to a certainty that not one of these vehicles unprotected could reach its desination without bloodshed. Wo is it that exercises this terrorism?
The mayor of Chicago, the superintendent of police and the state's attorney know the names of these offenders and they know exactly where to lay their hands upon them. They know that they are in rebellion against the laws of the city, the state and the nation. They know that big police details are the only thing that prevents these men and their tools from committing crimes which ought to land them in the penitentiary. They know that a conspiracy exists here to deprive law-abiding citizens of the rights which are guaranteed to them by society. They know that this conspiracy in itself is a crime punishable under the statutes of the state.
We need not mince words in this case at all. If it were not for the fact that this lawlessness proceeds under cover of labor unionism it would be hunted down and extirpated at any and every cost. Because the men who are responsible for it happen to be officers of labor unions nothing is done. The police on the streets are merely defensive. In the presence of the active and defiant crime there are other instumentalities of justice which should be set at work.
One-quarter of the police force of this town is employed for the purpose of protecting one mercantile house in its lawful business. What will happen if ten, twenty or fifty commercial houses become involved in the same manner? We will never have policement enough in Chicago to prevent crime, but we have law enough to punish crime if the men who have been elected to office will but enforce it.
Every time a police regiment escorts a few wagons to and from the railway stations the mayor serves notice on the people that there are criminals in his jurisdiction that he is reluctant to deal with. He may confront their dupes in the streets with the clubs of his officers, but he does not venture to hunt down and prosecute the resposible leaders who incite the disorder and the crime. He will break the heads of fools in the streets, but he receives in friendly council the men who control these fools.
Any moement arising from any cause whatever which calls for a police guard of 200 or 300 men for a dozen wagons in criminal in spirit and fact and the fellows who are directing it are already at the mercy of the laws of the state. It is not possible to imagine any other depredation against life and property of this enterprise that would not instatly subject its authors to all of the penalties which an outrages law provides.
The theory that labor unions are in some manner exempt from the restrictions which are operative as against other organizations and individuals is wicked and cowardly.
[End here. Incomplete.]
Montgomery Ward & Co.
Are All Right
Are All Right
You have read or heard how Montgomery Ward & Co. have a strike on their hands.
What this strike is about, how it originated, and how conditions are with us, it is our purpose to tell you briefly.
Say you are a farmer and have twenty men in your harvest field. A man drives up to the fence in a buggy and calls your hands over to him.
Without a word to you the entire bunch jump the fanse and go away with the man, without even knowing why,
"Hey, you, where you going?" You'd sing out. "Come back here. What's wrong? Let's talk it over - let's arbitrate."
Then if they didn't answer you and never came back - what would YOU do?
Would you let the grain spoil and the year's crop go to the devil? When a hundred other good work-men came up and said:
"Let US save your crop; we want the work the other men have abandoned," you's not be such a fool as to throw away the chance of hiring all you needed of them, would you?
Last December nineteen of the garment cutters we had went out on a general strike at the call of their union, in connection with all the other cutters of Chicago.
We had a contract with their union, which stated that they should NOT go on strike without first notifiying us of any dissatisfaction and submitting their grievance to arbitration.
This they ignored.
Neither the cutters nor their union ever came back to us to ask reinstatement, or anything else.
They were getting full union pay and working only union hours. They had no grievance against us that we have ever heard of.
This was in December.
All through December, January, February and March not one word was ever said to us about the cutters, by themselves or their union.
But on the 6th of APRIL the TEAMSTERS' Union came to us and threatened to call out all their teamsters in retaliation, unless we arbitrate the strike of four months previous.
Meanwhile, having waited a few days after the cutters departed, but not hearing from them or their union, we hired other good cutters. We installed them in December 1904. We are not going to discharge them in April, 1905, to reinstate the men who quit us for nothing four months before.
Then the Teamsters' Union ordered our drivers out. Not a man of them wanted to quit, and they protested against their union ordering them out without giving them a chance to vote on the matter. Our drivers were getting $1.50 a week or so MORE than the union scale, were perfectly satisfied with us, and we with them. Some of them have been over twenty years in our employ.
That they should be compelled to strike out of sympathy with twenty cutters whose union got them into trouble months before seemed folly to our drivers.
But they had to go at the behest of the union.
Why should they, as teamsters, lose their jobs and...
[Pamphlet page 2 of 4]
...pay on account of some garment cutters they didn't even KNOW?
Our drivers went out under protest.
We at once employed temporary drivers and went ahead with our deliveries to the depots.
We have occasion to send from 50 to 90 large loaded trucks to the different freight depots every day, besides thousands of mail and express packages.
The strikers dared not interfere with the mails, but tried to stop the express companies.
But the latter said they would deliver everything that came up to them from Montgomery Ward & Co. at any cost, and they did.
We moved our loads of frieght every day under police guard, and continued to do business as usual. Not another employe than the teamsters was affected or lost an hour's time or an hour's pay because of this unfair strike.
Of the three hundred or more of Chicago concerns who transact business daily with us. all stood by us, and insisted that they would deliver and receive our goods. And they did.
The merchants and manufactureers of Chicago, the city officials and the press, as well as the body of respectable citizens, have stood by us faithfully.
The Chicago Employers Association recognized that this strike is not against Montgomery Ward & Co. alone.
The unions threatened that they would begin with Montgomery Ward & Co. as a large concern, who did a lot of teaming, and after settling THEM would take up the other merchants of Chicago, who would be easier, they said, after Montgomery Ward & Co. were conquered.
The onlu employes of M. W. & Co. who are on strike are the 40 teamsters. And they are doing so under protest. They are not seen on the streets or making any disturbance.
They are at home, waiting for the union to let them return to work for us again; only the hoodlums and thugs of the alleys prevent them from being with us now, as they have been for 20 years past.
EVERY OTHER EMPLOYE OF THE 3500 THAT WORK FOR US IS AT HIS POST.
Not one has a grievance, all are faithful and willing to fight for us, if necessary.
We have shipped and received goods every day, and shall continue to do so.
We are now shipping our normal business, and everything is moving along on schedule time.
There will be but little, if any, delay in your orders reaching you, and in many entire lines of goods no delay whatever.
To many friends and customers who have extended their encouragement we express our thanks.
To any who are not correctly informed as to the conditions that exist in our city, we proffer this brief explanation.
Montgomery Ward & Co. are all right, and are conscious of doing right; are going right ahead with their business in all departments, and want you to know the truth, in order that any reports, started or circulated by country merchants to our detriment, may be fairly met and answered right on the start.
We add some recent comments of the Chicago Newspapers, selected from many of the same tenor, showing how the press and the citizens of our city view the disorder that is created by the malicious and the misdirected.
Remember, this strike is NOT against Montgomery Ward & Co. alone, but against every merchant in Chicago who has a contract with any body of union men. It is a TEST of the VALUE of a CONTRACT between business houses and union leaders.
Our friends will favor us with their orders, in all departments, as usual, and may be assured that the goods will come promptly and in the usual good order.
This we guarantee.
Montgomery Ward & Co.
Michigan Avenue, Madison and Washington Streets
Chicago
[Pamphlet page 3 of 4]
From the Chicago Evening Post
When Does a Strike End?
The present sympathetic strike of the teamsters' union agaianst Montgomery Ward & Co. raises a question that is of particular interest to the great "third party" - the suffering public - in all these later day industrial disputes.
When does a strike end? Not. When do the unionists say it ends? Not, When do the employers consider it ends? But when is it actually over?
In the question that now threatens the peace of the city the apparent facts may be summed up thus: A number of union garment workers left the employment o Montgomery Ward & Co. last December, and this leaving was called a strike by the unionists. In a short time the firm had replaced these workers and was conducting its business as usual. Under such conditions the firm said there was no strike.
Four months after the original strike of the garment workers - who all this time maintained they were still on strike - the Chicago Federation of Labor took up the cause of the garment workers and, through the powerful agency of the teamsters' union, undertook by sympathetic strikes to force the firm to come to an agreement with the employes who had ceased to work for it months before.
Yesterday organized labor was willing to submit the cause of the garment workers to arbitration. Montgomery Ward & Co. declined on the ground that no strike of garment workers against the firm existed. The firm and the employers associated with it were ready to have an arbitrament of the present strike, which they claim involves only the teamsters. The teamsters refused, holding that they had no grievancethat called for arbitration, that they were simply acting out of sympathy with the garment workers.
The unionists say the garment workers are still on strike; the employers say the strike of the garment workers was over long ago. The public would like to have the point settled.
Therefore it is suggested that both sides agree to submit to arbitration this question: Did the strike of the garment workers against Montgomery Ward & Co. end when the firm found that it could get along perfectly well without the strikers, or does it continue as long as the strikers and organized labor back them assert they are still on strike?
It is not necessary to pass judgement upon the alleged grievances of the garment workers against Montgomery Ward & Co., or upon the question whether or not the teamsters have grievances against the firm. Let us have a settlement on this point: Is there still a strike of the garment workers, and if not when did it end?
This appears to be a question that both sides might submit to arbitration without compromising the position each has assumed in the present conflict; and a decision might settle the controversy.
___________
From the Chicago Journal
Mayor Dunne and the Strike
Mayor Dunne confronts a disorderly and riotous city.
Refusing to arbitrate, as their contracts demand, plunging into a strike which they have no concern, the officials of the teamsters' union of Chicago have precipitated upon the community confusion and public crime.
Every one of these contract-breaking officers and investigators of wrong doing is openly boasting his influence with the new administration and informing the men he misleads that they may riot and assault to their heart's content. Mayor Dunne, they say, is on their side.
Chicago will be satisfied with nothing short of rebuke, short, sharp and instructive to such arrogance.
Mayor Dunne, both lawyer and judge, is fully aware of his own obligations to the city of which he is chief executive and of the eed of preserving the public peace. He cannot tolerate for a moment this attempt on th epart of irresponsible and time-serving labor leaders to involve his administration in their own wickedness.
That these men openly boast of the fact that they supported him in the recent election and that in turn Mayor Dunne will support them can have only one answer. Dold, Barry, McGee, Morton, Shea, Smyth, Young and the rest are proved contract breakers and counselors of disorder, are an irresponsible lot and should be checked by their own unions.
Mayor Dunn was elected to represent no single interest, either those of employers or employed. He is the mayor of Chicago, of all its people and he will see first and foremost, that the public peace is maintained and the rights of the public secured.
It is gratifying to have word from his own lips that such is the fact. Mayor Dunne will be mayor.
___________
From the Chicago Journal
Counselors of Crime and Disorder
In order that the people of Chicago may know the responsibility rests for the rioting and disorder into which their streets have been plunges, the names of the following men are published as the direct cause:
Charles Dold, president of the Chicago Federation of Labor.
James B. Barry, walking delegate of the Express Wagon Drivers' and Conductors' union. Now under arrest for rioting.
Hugh McGee, president of the Truck Drivers' union.
Joseph Morton, president of the Stationary Firemens' brotherhood.
C. P. Shea, president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
John Smyth, president of the Coal Teamsters' union.
Joseph W. Young, president of the Baggage and Parcel Delivery Drivers' union.
These men have counseled the teamsters to refuse to arbitrate differences with employers, in direct violation of their duly executed contracts.
They have ordered deluded men on strike, in direct violation of the contracts entered into by themselves as officers of their unions.
They are responsible for the interruptions in the city's business interests, for the disorder in its streets, for injuries inflicted on innocent bystanders and upon men with a higher sense of obligation to contracts and to the criminal law.
If death follows their combined lawlessness, murder will be upon their heads.
And to Barry, McGee, Morton, Shea, Smyth, and Young this warning:
No labor leader in Chicago has survived a losing strike.
No labor leader who has deliberately broken the contracts he himself helped to make has ever been able to regain the confidence of the community.
Each of you is as certain to go down into the dark as has the long treacherous list of contract-breakers and law-breakers preceding you.
___________
From the Chicago Chronicle
Wicked and Cowardly
If the suthorities of the city of Chicago and of the state of Illinois imagine that they are deceiving anybody of intelligence by their present attitude toward the teamsters' strike now in progress they are woefully mistaken.
[Pamphlet page 4 of 4 (incomplete due to adhesive holding it to the scrapbook page)]
Two hundred and fiftey policemen escorting ten or a dozen wagons through the streets make a brave show, but why is it that these 250 policemen are needed? Who is it and what is it that calls for such a display of force?
It is well known that if these wagons were to appear in the streets without police escort their drivers would be beaten and perhaps killed. It is known to a certainty that not one of these vehicles unprotected could reach its desination without bloodshed. Wo is it that exercises this terrorism?
The mayor of Chicago, the superintendent of police and the state's attorney know the names of these offenders and they know exactly where to lay their hands upon them. They know that they are in rebellion against the laws of the city, the state and the nation. They know that big police details are the only thing that prevents these men and their tools from committing crimes which ought to land them in the penitentiary. They know that a conspiracy exists here to deprive law-abiding citizens of the rights which are guaranteed to them by society. They know that this conspiracy in itself is a crime punishable under the statutes of the state.
We need not mince words in this case at all. If it were not for the fact that this lawlessness proceeds under cover of labor unionism it would be hunted down and extirpated at any and every cost. Because the men who are responsible for it happen to be officers of labor unions nothing is done. The police on the streets are merely defensive. In the presence of the active and defiant crime there are other instumentalities of justice which should be set at work.
One-quarter of the police force of this town is employed for the purpose of protecting one mercantile house in its lawful business. What will happen if ten, twenty or fifty commercial houses become involved in the same manner? We will never have policement enough in Chicago to prevent crime, but we have law enough to punish crime if the men who have been elected to office will but enforce it.
Every time a police regiment escorts a few wagons to and from the railway stations the mayor serves notice on the people that there are criminals in his jurisdiction that he is reluctant to deal with. He may confront their dupes in the streets with the clubs of his officers, but he does not venture to hunt down and prosecute the resposible leaders who incite the disorder and the crime. He will break the heads of fools in the streets, but he receives in friendly council the men who control these fools.
Any moement arising from any cause whatever which calls for a police guard of 200 or 300 men for a dozen wagons in criminal in spirit and fact and the fellows who are directing it are already at the mercy of the laws of the state. It is not possible to imagine any other depredation against life and property of this enterprise that would not instatly subject its authors to all of the penalties which an outrages law provides.
The theory that labor unions are in some manner exempt from the restrictions which are operative as against other organizations and individuals is wicked and cowardly.
[End here. Incomplete.]
Montgomery Ward & Co.
Chicago
Original Format
Paper, 19.7 cm. x 21 cm. (cover). 21 cm. x 39.4 cm. (open).