Rout of the Railway Men. (1907)

From the December 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

The “Metz” of the A.S.R.S.

Curious indeed are the parallels that history furnishes us between incidents and events, often apparently unlike, and separated by time and position from each other. History, of course, does not actually repeat itself, and the parallels must not be pushed too far, but in the salient points of likeness valuable lessons may be learnt and deductions drawn for out future guidance.

Bazaine and Bismarck.

It will be remembered how, in the Franco-German War of 1870-71, Marshal Bazaine had been surrounded by the German Army and driven into Metz fortress, with 180,000 men and large munitions of war. Instead of using this immense force to break through the lines and join the other French armies, as every canon of military and national expediency demanded, he tried, as he afterwards confessed, to negotiate with Bismarck for the surrender of France on the condition that he (Bazaine) should be allowed to retain his own army and establish himself as dictator after the peace. Bismarck played with him till the opportunity for a successful sortie had passed and then became adamant. On October 27th, 1870, Metz was surrendered unconditionally, and the immense army passed into the possession of the Germans and remained prisoners until it suited the interest of the German ruling class—personified in Bismarck—to set them free to crush the Communards in Paris.

At the opening of the war between France and Germany, it was claimed by the French generals that it would be a triumphal procession from Paris to Berlin. Sadowa was forgotten. But the results showed a reversal of the procession, and it was Paris, not Berlin, that was beseiged.

Attempts have been made to defend Bazaine on the ground that the huge war stores were largely “fake” ; that the contractors had swindled the commissariat by supplying barrels of sawdust for food, empty cases for cartridges, and brown paper for boots. We need not now inquire whether Bazaine was a party to the frauds and received his share of the plunder. The revelations made in this country a short time ago show how far up as well as how low down these “business operations” extend. But the very shortage of real supplies should have been an added incentive to rapid action on Bazaine’s part, and the excuse only emphasizes his guilt.

The Parallel of Metz

The parallel of Metz with the recent struggle between the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants and the Railway Companies is remarkable. Firstly, preceding the conference held on November 6th, the officials of the A.S.R.S. had declared that it must be “recognition” of themselves or war. The men had been asked to vote upon this point, and an overwhelming majority declared in favour of enforcing this “recognition” by a strike if the companies refused to accept their demand. To-day, despite this vote, “recognition” is swept out of existence for seven years. This by itself would be a small point were it not coupled with the fact that the rank and file of the Railway Servants—union and non-union alike—have been surrendered, bound hand and foot, to the companies for those seven years. Never was “victory” so disastrous.

It is unnecessary to go into the full details of the Conciliation and Arbitration Scheme agreed to by the officials of the railway servants and the companies, but the essentials may be stated. For the purpose of this scheme each company is a unit that sends its representatives to the Sectional and Central Conciliation Boards, as well as before the final arbitrator, when any matter is carried so far. The men, however, employed by each company, are divided first into sectional groups along trade lines, and then into geographical groups for the purpose of electing their representatives. The whole of the employees are concerned in this election, and their representatives must be chosen from among themselves, and their power is rigidly confined to dealing with the hours and wages only of the particular section they represent. When a Sectional Board fails to agree, the Central Board, composed of the representatives of the company and one or more chosen from the employees’ side of the Sectional Board, shall consider the matter. In the event of this Board disagreeing, the matter is referred to a single arbitrator, appointed by agreement between the two sides of the Board, or, failing this agreement, by the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Master of the Rolls. The decision of this arbitrator shall be binding upon all parties.

Here, then, we have not only no “recognition” of the Union or its officials, but a deliberate flouting of the latter in that all representatives are to be elected from the employees themselves. Both Mr. Bell and the Daily News claim that the officials may represent the men before the final arbitrator, but while Lord Claud Hamilton says “recognition” has been completely abolished, the scheme is silent on this point, leaving the deduction to be drawn that it is the members of the Central Board who will argue before the final arbitrator.

Why Official Recognition?

In attempting to defend his claim for official recognition by the directors of the companies, Mr. Bell pointed out that if an employee were to go forward with any grievance his position of dependence upon the very people he was meeting almost paralyzed his efforts, but the trade union official, with a security of living outside the company, could argue every point. Moreover, it was stated, and numerous instances given in support, that an employee going forward to complain of the grievances of himself and his fellow workers, was thence a marked man and, if not discharged at once, some technical point would be found and used as an excuse for discharging him a little later. The whole of this contention has now been thrown overboard by the signing of this scheme.

It is exactly at the first move where this protection is most wanted, and even if Mr. Bell were correct in saying that officials could appear before the arbitrator, this would leave the men completely defenceless in bringing forward any complaint, as it must pass through the other stages first. Moreover, these Boards only deal with “hours and wages,” thereby leaving the other conditions of employment completely in the control of the companies, while in case of victimisation the men have absolutely no chance of redress, or even of discussion, under this scheme. A man who pushes forward the claims of his fellow workmen vigorously may he elected to the Board, and the company could then discharge him, while the men would be unable to lodge any protest through that Board.

Secondly, the excuse of the “faked” stores at Metz is paralleled by the position of the “stores” or fighting fund of the A.S.R.S. The officials boasted of having £362,733 in their funds. But, according to the Railway News, £192,422 belong to the provident fund, and, under the Friendly Societies Acts, could not be touched for strike purposes. This would leave £170,311 for a fighting fund for over 100,000 men, as not only would the actual members of the A.S.R.S. require support, hut the non-union men who might have come out would also need keeping. Even this does not reveal the whole truth, for the A.S.R.S. have over £120,000 invested in municipal loans, and £51,000 in railway companies’ stock !

Incompetency or Insanity ? 

Could incompetence or insanity go further ? Here is a sum, nearly one-third of their theoretical fighting fund, placed in the hands of the very people they have to fight. It is as though Bazaine had placed a portion of his ammunition in the German camp “to be kept dry.” With so small a fighting fund at their disposal the necessity for swift and decisive action on the part of the A.S.R.S. was imperative. Yet not only are the negotiations—or rather attempts at negotiations—kept dawdling about for over twelve months, but the chance to strike a blow in the busy season is, as the Daily News stated, deliberately thrown away by the officials.

More important, however, is the fact that the agitation was originally for an “All Grades” advance of wages and shortening of hours for all employees. This was pushed on one side at the first opportunity and the question of “recognition” put in its place, while the men were gulled into believing that “recognition” was all important. As though the example of the Boilermakers’ Society a short time ago was not at hand for them to see the value of “recognition” without the power to enforce their demands. When the Boilermakers refused to accept the conditions that their “recognised” officials had agreed to, they were served with a week’s lockout notices, and, frantically appealed to by those officials, finally accepted the employers’ terms.

The engineering employers on the Clyde “recognise” the A.S.E. to such good purpose that the “recognised” officials were used to keep the men at work after they had twice voted in favour of a strike to improve their conditions. The A.S.R.S. is itself recognised by the North Eastern Railway Co., with the results that were dealt with in our August issue. In spite of all these facts the men were fooled into believing that ”recognition” was of more importance than better wages or shorter hours; that dawdling about and sacrificing their chance of an effective blow during the busy season was more “diplomatic” and likely to obtain “public sympathy” (whatever that may mean) than insisting upon their original demands would have been. They voted in this belief, and back with terrific force is sent the answer : “seven years shalt thou serve in complete bondage.”

How Bismarck Recognised Bazaine.

As far as any work, other than that of a sick benefit society, on behalf of its members is concerned, the A.S.R.S. is practically dead for the next seven years. Mr. Bell’s pathetic appeal to all employees to join the A.S.R.S. can hardly evoke a hearty response seeing that the Boards, after the first election, will manage their own details. There is absolutely no place in the scheme for, and therefore no reason for the existence of, the A.S.R.S., while the scheme lasts. It may be objected that the officials were recognised seeing they were asked to sign the Scheme on behalf of the men. Yes ! exactly as Bismarck “recognised” Bazaine—until his operations were complete.

The union officials—for it must be remembered that the men have not been consulted at all on this Scheme—have been used as the tools of the companies in signing an agreement binding upon both union and non-union men, and then have been completely flouted in the Scheme itself and the unions ignored.

It needed but the last cynical point in the scheme to show how completely the companies have triumphed. The months of August and September are the favourite holiday months of sections of the capitalist class, including railway directors and managers, and with supreme irony it is laid down that the conciliation Boards shall not be called together during these months.

In the Franco-German War no single disaster—not even Sedan—was so completely crushing as Bazaine’s treacherous surrender of Metz.

In the history of trade unionism no parallel can be found to this crushing disaster called “The Settlement of the Railway Crisis.” Never before has so large a body of workers been delivered over to their masters, bound hand and foot by such a cast iron scheme of “conciliation,” without their being allowed any voice or vote in the settlement. It is the greatest victory for the employers on record, and will act as a great incentive to other large employers to adopt the beauties and powers afforded to them by such “conciliation” schemes.

Between the working class producing all the wealth that exists in Society, on one hand, and the capitalist owning, through the robbery of the workers, that wealth on the other hand, there must of necessity exist a bitter struggle for life itself. For the workers to own the means of life means the abolition of the capitalist class and system; for the capitalist class to exist means the continued subjection and slavery of the workers. There can be no “conciliation” or “arbitration” between the robber and his victim. The working class has nothing to arbitrate or conciliate but has itself to emancipate. Let the railway servants study these facts and realise the necessity for depending upon themselves instead of allowing “diplomatic” leaders to guide them to ambushes and disasters. Let them learn from their own past history how the employing class will use any and every means, from bribing so-called leaders with an office under Government to pouring troops and Maxims into the troubled areas as at Featherstone and Belfast, for the purpose of preserving their own position. Then, while organising upon the class basis for the overthrow of capitalism, they will organise upon the same basis for the purpose of fighting their battles upon the economic field, and, ignoring such phantoms as “public opinion,” use every available opportunity to strike sudden and far-reaching blows for the improvement of their conditions and wages. Along with the Labour misleaders will be swept away the superstitious nonsense of “conciliating” or “arbitrating” robbery ; and if only this lesson be learnt, then the parallel to Bazaine’s action at Metz in the signing of the Scheme at Whitehall will not have been in vain.

Jack Fitzgerald

Another solution that won’t solve. (1907)

Pamphlet Review from the November 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

“The Railway Difficulty and How to Solve It” is a penny pamphlet by Thomas Johnston and Hugh Adam. The writers advocate Nationalisation as immediately practicable. But they assert that it would mean a saving of at least 20 per cent. in working expenses. In other words, the Nationalisation of Railways would intensify the unemployed problem, as Mr. Bell, M.P., pointed out at the Annual General Meeting of the A.S.R.S. The authors claim to be “unhesitatingly and uncompromisingly Socialist,” and in their conclusion admit that Nationalisation of Railways would not be of any avail, but we must have Socialism. Why, then, waste the time and fritter away the energies of the working class in going for something that will not affect their position as the subject class in the community ?

Unconsidered Trifles. Being Letters not hithero published. (1907)

From the September 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

To the Editor of the Daily News.

Sir,— I observe in your issue of date that Mr. D. A.Thomas, M.P., has been threatening that unless the Government is prepared to bring in forthwith a radical measure of temperance reform, he will seriously consider the advisability of going over to the “Labour, Independent Labour, or Socialist Party.”

This I think is most kind and considerate of Mr. Thomas and I make no doubt that the “Labour and Independent Labour Party,” which is always on the look-out for persons of political or social standing, will be happy for the chance of welcoming the Welsh gentleman to its councils and adding his political scalp to the tent pole of its wig-wam. Particularly as he is in favor of a “radical measure of temperance reform,” which so far as I have noticed, represents the “Labour and Independent Labour Party’s” most revolutionary proposal. I cannot speak for that Party, but I can speak for The Socialist Party of Great Britain—the only real Labour Party of my knowledge—and on its behalf I must inform Mr. Thomas, M.P., that we cannot do with him.

Mr. Thomas would, I am sure, prefer to have it pointed out quite frankly that we have no use for M.P.’s whose political development has only reached the stage in which such grotesquely unimportant matters as temperance reform occupy pre-eminent positions. The Socialist Party has to deal with great working-class issues and until Mr. Thomas has given some evidence of his appreciation of those issues I am afraid it will be useless for him to apply for membership. Our measure of the fitness of a man to voice Labour’s claims is neither membership of a Westminster political club nor a standing in “Society,” but the indications he gives of a clear knowledge of the. working-class position, its causes and its only remedy, and of his determination to proceed to that remedy along the only lines that can logically be followed by any person claiming to be a Socialist, viz., the lines of relentless hostility toward all other parties of whatever political label.

This may sound strangely to Mr. Thomas but then clearly Mr. Thomas doesn’t understand. The Socialist can only justify his separate organisation upon the ground of the futility of all the other bodies claiming working-class support. Not being able consistently or honestly to support futilities or to stand by passively while his own object is obscured and his work frustrated, he must actively oppose. If he does not he is useless as a Socialist—worse than useless indeed. That is our complaint against all other political parties. If they are representing capitalist interests as is indisputably the case with the orthodox Liberal and Tory, they cannot represent working-class interests which are always and in every essential particular, in antagonism to capitalists’ interests,—witness Belfast where, by the way, Liberal sympathy with the workers in revolt under oppressive conditions, is manifesting itself in the same old way: through soldiery and quick-firing guns even as at Featherstone and Hull. If they are claiming to specially represent working-class interests (as in the case of the “Labour” Party falsely so called), they must establish their claim by giving evidence of their understanding of the working-class position and directly pointing their efforts to the overthrow of the prevailing (capitalist) method of production based upon the exploitation (robbery) of Labour. This evidence is entirely lacking and the conclusion is forced upon us that the “Labour” Party is either composed of ignorant persons, or those who have deliberately bartered their Socialist principles for the wages which the Party pays. If they are definitely asserting their Socialism as is the case (at times) with the Social-Democratic Federation, they are also, by supporting capitalist candidates, by arrangement with capitalist parties and by the propaganda of inconsequentialities sometimes called palliatives, nullifying any good effect of their occasional assertion of Socialism as admittedly the only hope of the workers, obscuring the class issue, confusing the working-class mind and, therefore, as Socialism is inconceivable apart from a class conscious working class, delaying the day of Labour’s emancipation.

For these reasons we are opposed to them all. For these reasons we claim to stand as the only party of the workers—the only Socialist Party in this island. And for these reasons we cannot at this stage of his development accept any application for membership from Mr. Thomas. It will save the gentleman some humiliation if he will try and understand this at once.

Yours etc.,

AGRA.

30.7.07.

__________________

The Menace of Socialism

To the Editor of the Daily Express.

Sir,—I pray you be gentle. As you value truth—and how much you value truth the world knows well—be merciful. Say what you will; do anything that seemeth you fit, but spare us who are Socialists the dire infliction of the public association with our movement of the names of such gentlemen as the vice presidents of the Land Nationalisation Society or similar organisations—names like Thomasson, Cornwall, Macnamara, Bell, Vivian, and unkindest cut of all, Burns ! Scourge us not with whips like these. Have pity ! We do not deserve it—really !

And, oh ! Sir, tell the trenchant, virile, truthful and painstaking author, of your articles under this head, to take it from me that there is nothing subterranean about our propaganda. We are loudly, openly, and unblushingly preachers of discontent, organisers of working-class revolt, propagandists of a fierce, unrelenting war upon Capitalism and all its works and all its champions and must remain so while we remain Socialists, until the working class, with whose well-being we are solely concerned, shall have taken control of the political machinery and through that the whole of the land and other means of life, in their own interests. And we include among the works and champions of Capitalism all shufflers and intriguers, all misleaders whether styling themselves Labour men or otherwise, or whether merely fools or arrant knaves ; Liberals and Tories to a man, Constitutionalists and Tariff or Municipal Reformers so called, literary pimps and panders, journals with the largest circulations, and so on. All who do not accept Socialism as the only hope of the workers, all who are not with us, are against the working class.

Of course we who are Socialists cannot help people taking our name in vain and working in dark ways for the realisation of their ends any more than you could help the good name of your paper (if it had one) being besmirched. But if these people think, as some of them, I believe, quite honestly do, to achieve Socialism by back-stair methods, they must be deplorably stupid people; and deplorably stupid people cannot be Socialists—any more than jingo editors can be honest. If they are not stupid they may be and probably are as you describe them, “political fakes working craftily in the dark” but they will be working for their own aggrandisement.

But that’s not our fault. Not every one who cryeth “Lord! Lord!” shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven ; and not every one who sayeth (on occasions) that he is a Socialist will come through an examination creditably. In short, we are not all Socialists now, notwithstanding a certain fat and be-knighted person’s notorious asseveration to the contrary. We repudiate these men of craft and do our best to let in the light upon the stupid; and we are continually exposing the working-class misleader. The young person with a passion for righteousness who spreads himself on your front page every morning, should read THE SOCIALIST STANDARD, the organ of The Socialist Party of Great Britain. He would then be able to get a notion of what Socialism means, the only way it can be realised and the only position a Socialist party can take-up. And he would learn that the Express is not a Socialist paper because it is presumably in favour of the nationalisation of the postal service; nor are Belgium and Germany Socialist countries because they have nationalised railways ; nor is Japan Socialist because she has a form of land nationalisation. And then he may discover to his (probable) surprise that a man may even be a “Constitutionalist,” an anti-Socialist, and a member of the “Socialist” Land Nationalisation Society ! I say probable because I have some reason to know that the writer is quite as well aware as I am that he is writing “piffle.”

However, I note with more than ordinary interest that you include in your latest, list of “Spies and ‘plants’ and political fakes who work craftily in the dark and fight under any colour but their own” the name of your erstwhile particular political pet, your own levelheaded labour-leader, your strong anti-Socialist fighter, Richard Bell, M.P., who, I conclude from your remarks, is really working insidiously for Socialism in the “Socialist” Land Nationalisation Society” ! I hope poor Richard will be properly grateful.

Finally, Sir, I don’t suppose for a moment that you will publish all this. What you will do (if you publish anything at all) will of course be to select those sentences which you think may in themselves look rather atrocious and arrange them in an order that will either seem to reflect upon the writer or support your contention. That of course is the pretty way usually affected by the Northclilfe-Pearson combination. But as I have taken the precaution of keeping a copy which I expect will appear in THE SOCIALIST STANDARD, it won’t greatly matter what you do.

Believe me, Sir,

Yours appreciatively,

AGRA.

24.7.07.

Our First Libel Case. (1907)

From the August 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Plaintiffs’ Original Sin

Nearly twelve months ago, at the instance of the General Secretary and Executive Committee of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, a writ for libel was issued against certain individuals, several of whom were not even members of The Socialist Party of Great Britain. Mainly as a result of this mistake of the Plaintiffs or of their legal advisors the hearing of the action has been delayed and the bill of costs greatly lengthened. Several of our comrades have appeared at different times before the Master in Chambers upon Plaintiffs’ Solicitors’ applications for “Directions” and other “wangles” that go to make up the Game of Law. It has been interesting to watch the wonderment of the lawyers and their office boys at the unusual spectacle of half-a-dozen members of the Socialist working class up against the legal luminaries engaged, at a heavy fee, to “clear the character” of Mr. R. Bell, M.P., and his fellow officials of the the A.S.R.S. And the legal luminaries have not always scored.

The Trial

Originally, many were sued, but ultimately, two were chosen. These, Comrades A. Anderson and J. Fitzgerald duly appeared before Mr. Justice Darling on July 15th. Arrayed against them were an eminent K.C., Mr. C. F. Gill, and two other Barristers-at-Law, Messrs. Edmond Browne and E. A. Hume, all instructed by Messrs. Pattinson & Brewer, Plaintiffs’ Solicitors. Several files of THE SOCIALIST STANDARD, from No. 1 to date, as well as single copies of last August issue, were referred to, quoted from, and passed up to the Judge and the Jury. The Second Edition of our Manifesto was also in evidence. Mr. Gill did his best to “confuse the issue” by withholding, until “m’Lud” drew attention to it, the fact that the E.C. of the A.S.R.S. deliberately ignored the vote of the members concerned and took action in direct opposition to the voting. He also endeavoured to prejudice the Jury by suggesting that the defendants desired to deprive respectable citizens (like himself) of what they had worked hard for and hoped to enjoy in their old age and misrepresented the position of this Party concerning Trade Unions by quoting a resolution which was moved at a Party meeting and ultimately rejected. He also, assisted by Mr. Bell, impressed the Court that those who voted against accepting the concessions voted in favour of a strike, which was not true. He quoted extracts from back numbers of THE SOCIALIST STANDARD which had nothing to do with the case until pulled up by the Judge, who “hoped they would get to the libel shortly.” He put Mr. R. Bell, M.P., J.P., into the box and after asking him a few questions, left him to the tender mercies of our comrades. If Mr. Bell’s attitude in the witness box, under the raking fire of Anderson and Fitzgerald, was typical of his general demeanour, it is impossible for him to give a straight answer. He is a shuffler, first, last, and always.

Mr. Bell, M.P., Labour Misleader

Not only is Mr. Bell a shuffler, but judging by his answer to one of Fitzgerald’s questions, he is cynically indifferent to the conditions under which many of the members of the A.S.R.S. work. He and his Counsel made much of the fact that only 3,000 out of 10,000 N.E.R. men voted, but when asked whether large numbers were at work and therefore unable to attend the meetings he replied “I am not responsible for that.” And his reply to a further question as to whether, when his Executive issued the call for a vote, they intended to abide by the result, should also be carefully noted by railway workers. He practically admitted that there was no intention of carrying out the expressed wishes of the N.E.R. men, unless they coincided with the previously formed views of the Executive. Thus the funds of the Union were wasted and the men fooled. Mr. Bell, in the witness-box, referred to himself as a Trade Union “Leader.” We have no hesitation in describing him as a Misleader of the working class.

The Verdict and After.

Following upon their searching questions, the speeches of our comrades Anderson and Fitzgerald must have come as a surprise to the Court. Of the working class, eating their bread by the sweat of their faces, when permitted by the master class to do so, lacking all the advantages possessed by the bewigged and begowned masters of the forensic art, our comrades logically and eloquently submitted our case to the Jury. But, of course, the verdict went against us. We were prepared for that. Mr. R. Bell and his fellow plaintiffs were awarded damages to the amount of forty shillings ! For ourselves, we shall continue our comments on political and industrial events without fear or favour. We shall say what we think at all times, in whatever language we consider the circumstances justify. This is our first libel action but it may not be our last. We will take that risk and others that may arise. The Socialist Party of Great Britain came into existence to fearlessly advocate the Cause of the Working Class and that Cause will be advocated, by voice and pen, until finally our fellow-workers shall see the light and, discarding their misleaders, capitalist and “labour,” will unite in a conscious effort to emancipate themselves by assuming control of the means of wealth production and distribution.

REPORT OF THE TRIAL

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.

KING’S BENCH DIVISION.

(Before Mr. JUSTICE DARLING and a Special Jury.)

This was an action for an alleged libel which appeared in THE SOCIALIST STANDARD. The plaintiffs were Mr. Richard Bell, M.P., the general secretary of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, a society registered under the Trade Union Acts of 1871 and 1876, and the other members of the executive committee of the society. The defendants were Messrs. A. Anderson and J. Fitzgerald, sued on behalf of themselves and the other members of The Socialist Party of Great Britain. The matter complained of consisted of the words “Found Out” in large leaded capitals, and immediately below in lighter capitals, “Labour Leaders Sell the Union Members, and their Apologist gets a Warm Reception,” followed by an account of a mass meeting of servants of the North-Eastern Railway, held at Newcastle on July 15th, 1906, for the purpose of considering a report by the plaintiff Mr. Bell as to certain negotiations carried on by the executive committee on behalf of the society with the North-Eastern Railway. The defendants denied malice, and denied that the statements complained of were false, and they pleaded fair comment.

Mr. Gill, K.C., Mr. Edmond Browne, and Mr. E. A. Hume appeared for the plaintiffs; the defendants Anderson and Fitzgerald appeared in person.

Mr. GILL said that the above society was a very powerful trade union, with a large number of members and branches, its object being to improve the condition of the members and the relations of employers and employed and to promote the safety of railway travelling. From time to time there was what was known as an “all grades” movement in connexion with the North-Eastern Railway, and the general secretary’s report presented to the meeting at Cardiff in October, 1906, stated that the movement was sanctioned by the executive committee in 1903. The matter having been threshed out, a conclusion was recommended for acceptance by the men, and that was agreed to in May, 1906, at a conference of the men and the representatives of the railway. An expression of opinion was sought from the men, but so few troubled to vote that when the matter came before the executive committee, which represented the whole society and not merely the servants of one railway, they, on July 12th, 1906, found that only 3,000 out of 10,000 had voted on the question, there being a majority of about 800 in favour of rejecting the terms. Later the executive committee resolved that as so few voted they instructed their secretary to write to the North-Eastern Railway accepting the concessions. All the committee but two voted in favour of that, but Mr. Bell, the secretary, did not vote at all. The rules of the society provided that there was power in the executive committee to take any decisive action subject to a right of appeal to the general meeting, and the committee had power to decide whether they would order a strike at the expense of the whole society. In this case the committee thought it desirable to accept the concessions, although a majority of the members who were servants of that railway were unwilling to do so. Some of the servants of the North-Eastern Railway afterwards expressed adverse opinions as to the benefits which had been derived from the negotiations. The matter attracted the attention of the defendants, known as The Socialist Party of Great Britain, which published a paper called THE SOCIALIST STANDARD.

Mr. GILL said he did not propose to rove over the whole of the paper, interesting as he found it yesterday afternoon.

The JUDGE.—It is not a Sunday paper.

Mr. GILL.—I think it is peculiarly adapted for Sunday consumption, and walking in the park one sometimes hears a little of it.

Mr. GILL said that in the August, 1906 number the matter complained of appeared—namely, “Found out. Labour Leaders sell the union members and their apologist gets a warm reception.” If this was confined to the Socialist party and was only read in their family circles no one would complain, but they gratuitously distributed copies of the paper to the branches of the society. The action was not brought to recover money, as one did not expect to get money from people who held these views. One of the chief reasons why people worked was to save a little money and have it for themselves. The action was, however, brought to prevent the mischief caused by such statements as the libel in question.

Mr. Richard Bell, M.P. for Derby, one of the plaintiffs, stated that he had been general secretary of the society for ten years. It had 90,000 members and 650 branches. An enormous amount of labour was devoted to the negotiations with the North-Eastern Railway, and certain conclusions were agreed to by the representatives of the company and the men. In July, 1906, the executive committee determined that the terms should be accepted and the negotiations should be continued with a view to a conciliation board being appointed. The matter was referred to in witness’s report to the general meeting, and at a meeting of the servants of the North-Eastern Railway some disapproval was expressed. There was no foundation for the imputations made upon him in the alleged libel. The executive committee had considered the interests of the society as a whole. They represented the whole of the members, and not a section.

Cross-examined by Mr. ANDERSON.—The result of the negotiations was submitted to a conference of delegates held at Darlington, and they decided to adjourn the conference to take the opinion of the members of their branches. That adjournment was irregular, and the executive committee decided that they could take the opinion of the branches without the expense of an adjourned conference. There was a majority of 802 against accepting the terms. In spite of this adverse majority, the executive committee accepted the terms. Witness did not think that was dishonourable. He got rather an unfavourable reception, but that was nothing new.

By Mr. FITZGERALD.—The executive committee had to take into consideration the interests of the whole society and not of a section.

Why did you ask for a vote if you were not going to act upon it ?—Just to get their opinion; there were 10.000 men altogether, and only 3,000 voted.

Did you not know that owing to Sunday duty many could not get away ?—I am not responsible for that.

Mr. FITZGERALD.—The men are not either. Did you ask for instructions and then ignore them ? —No, we asked for an opinion, and two-thirds declined to express an opinion.

Continuing, witness said that the executive committee had power and were justified in declining to authorise a strike on the vote of 800 men. So far as work was concerned, he believed that nearly the whole of the men interested could have attended.

Mr. ANDERSON.—When you issued the call to the members of the society, did you, as the paid servant of the men, intend to act on the result of the vote ?—We intended to act as the circumstances justified.

Is it your opinion that the members who did vote voted with the idea that their vote would be acted on if they had a two-thirds majority ?—I cannot say what each individual had in his mind.

Mr. FITZGERALD.—Is it a fact that since the Newcastle meeting you have been appointed a justice of the peace ?

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING created roars of laughter when he remarked that Mr. Fitzgerald was entitled to ask anything to Mr. Bell’s discredit, but “I cannot say sitting here that even if that is so the world ought to think any the worse of him.”

Mr. FITZGERALD was prompt with his retort: I did not want to discredit him: I wanted to show that not a great deal of damage had been inflicted.

Mr. BELL.—I don’t know that the Newcastle meeting had anything to do with the J. P.

Mr. ANDERSON, addressing the jury, declared that the headings were justified. The men were asked to vote on a question, and were then tricked, imposed on, and sold.

At Newcastle, where Mr. Bell went to explain and apologise for the action of the union, he got a very hostile reception. Mr. Anderson said he was a member of the working class and a Socialist. Mr. Gill had attacked his position as a Socialist, which had nothing to do with the case, and it would have been just as relevant if he had referred to Mr. Bell’s attack on Labour leaders, such as Mr. Philip Snowden and Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, who neglected their Parliamentary duties to write articles for capitalist newspapers and the Harmsworth brigade.

Mr. FITZGERALD also briefly addressed the jury.

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING, in summing up, said that under the rules the executive committee were not bound to obey the majority of the members who were employed by the North-Eastern Railway and who voted on the question, but they had to consider the interests of the society as a whole. If the plaintiffs had not betrayed their trust they were entitled to a verdict.

The jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs for 40s.

A Look Round. (1907)

From the February 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Street Betting Act was a great victory for Reform, according to the Daily News, which suppresses starting prices but not Stock Exchange quotations.

* * *

The first result has been to intensify the unemployed problem. Men who had been living by “making a book,” acting as touts, etc., have taken to legitimate business, and workmen have been discharged to make room for them. Reynold’s Newspaper says that prominent police officials openly express the opinion that rigid administration of the Act will have a distinct tendency to increase breaches of the law in other directions as an enormous number of persons have been suddenly compelled to find some new means of livelihood.

* * *

What are they going to do ? The Daily News knows that it is impossible for every one to get permanent employment to-day, that a large section of the community must prey upon the others. And if by Acts of Parliament or acts of God certain of them are suddenly deprived of their usual means of livelihood, they must seek a living elsewhere.

* * *

Perhaps the Daily News will permit “L.G.C.M.” to explain how these bookmakers, touts, runners, watchers, and all others connected with street betting can get an honest living in view of the indisputable fact that so many already find it impossible to do so.

* * *

If all drunkards became teetotallers, all pickpockets and burglars reformed, all corner-boys turned over a new leaf, all tramps became enthusiastic for “honest” toil, what a happy land England would be ! Would it, my Christian friends ? Think what it would mean if all these folk entered the labour market and competed for “honest work,” a labour market already so overstocked that many of the largest and strongest Trade Unions find their resources taxed to the uttermost, owing to the heavy and increasing demands upon their Unemployment Funds.

* * *

The Rev. C. F. Aked, who has been “called” from the Pembroke Baptist Chapel, Liverpool, to J. D. Rockefeller’s Fifth Avenue Church, New York, says that he has received hundreds of begging letters and wonders whether people take him for a fool. If it be true that he is giving up £l,500 for £5,000 a year, his wonderment seems somewhat unnecessary.

* * *

Rockefeller did not take him for a fool, but for a tool. The Trust Magnates can foresee the approaching struggle between the “have-nots” and the millionaire holders of aggregated capital. They will endeavour to delay it by every possible means. In this they will be assisted by “advanced” clergymen, who will accept, the slaveholders’ dollars to preach patience and peace to the wage slaves.

* * *

The first number of the Voice of Labour says that “the Labour movement, organised, federated, largely international, holds in its hands, even more than it deems, the forces that, shall fashion the future . . . That is why the politician, Socialist, Labour, and Liberal, promises so much to gain its votes.” This is on page 1. On page 7 it says “When the people find that, the Socialists and Anarchists are not what the Press depicts ” &c.

* * *

We note that “the Editor is not necessarily in agreement with, nor does he hold himself responsible for, signed articles,” and the article on page 7 is signed. According to it the Socialists are not what the Press (i.e, the Voice of Labour) depicts.

* * *

We freely admit that there are some calling themselves Socialists who have promised and do promise all sorts of impossible “reforms” to gain working-class votes. We have charged them with misleading the working class and adding to working-class confusion, and we have given evidence in proof of our charges. But we claim that these people have no right to call themselves Socialists, and we have always held that the workers will not be emancipated until they emancipate themselves. Surely our friends of the Voice of Labour know whether they are Socialists or Anarchists ?

* * *

The Conservative Press are doing their utmost to convey the impression that Progressivism and Socialism are one. They are as wide asunder as the Poles. But there is certainly some justification for this in view of the municipal this and municipal that which members of the Labour Party, S.D.F., I.L.P., and Fabian Society devote their time to advocating. And now, according to Justice, we have Councillor J. Jones (S.D.F.), opposing Mr. B. Sansome in a debate on “That the Progressive and Socialist Policy on Municipal affairs is harmful to the Community and especially to the Working Class.”

* * *

Councillor John Jones opposes the proposition that the Progressive Municipal Policy is harmful to the working class. Why then, does the S.D.F. declare itself in opposition to Progressives, and appeal for funds to enable it to put forward candidates when its candidatures may result in Progressive seats going to the Municipal Reformers and an alternative policy to that of the Progressives and Socialists being pursued ?

* * *

Mr. Will Thorne, M.P., has been interviewed for the Trades and Labour Gazette. “I cannot tell you,” he says, “when I became a Socialist.” Neither can we. “In trade unionism I am known as a Socialist “; he adds, “my municipal work has been done with Socialist ideals before me ; and when I entered the House of Commons it was as a Labour man and a Socialist.” (note which is first). “My constituents sent me there as such. My fellow members know me as a Socialist, at least I think they do. In a short time I hope so to manage things that there will be no doubt about it.” !

* * *

And so, although he became attached to the S.D.F. in 1884, and is still a member, he has a doubt whether his fellow M.P.’s know him as a Socialist ! But it will, he hopes, be all right in a short time, when he manages things differently.

* * *

Mr. Winston Churchill has written, “My dear Bell,” meaning Richard of that ilk, Labour Leader and Liberal M.P. for Derby, defending the action of the Liberal Government in prohibiting the Servants of the Central South African Railways from taking an active part in political agitation. He thinks it right that “prominent political activities should be denied to them, so long as they continue, as Government Servants, to draw Government pay,” and approves of the circular issued by Lord Elgin. The Daily Chronicle considers that Lord Elgin “has acted very properly.”

* * *

What a howl of execration went up from Liberals when it was suggested that certain Tory employers here had endeavoured to deny “prominent political rights” to their employees. But now that the Liberals are in office their dictum is that government employment must carry with it political disabilities. And Mr. Bell, as a good Liberal, will continue to support his Party, even tho’ they prove their readiness, when opportunity offers, to do that which the ordinary capitalist does not attempt to do, viz., control their wage slaves out of working hours.

* * *

In the Journeymen Bakers’ Magazine appears a portrait and interview with Mr. Alexander Wilkie, M.P., General Secretary, Associated Shipwrights’ Society. Asked what books had exercised the greatest influence on his life, he replied, “the Bible and the poetry of Robert Burns.” “When all is said and done” he added, “I fall back upon the Bible and Burns, and I am of opinion that a man cannot build his life upon a more stable foundation.”

* * *

At the December meeting of the London Trades Council a resolution was moved protesting against the sentence passed upon Stoker Moody, and Mr. Quelch moved to add the words “and demands the abolition of courts-martial in times of peace.” He did this, he said, with a view to civilising the Services and breaking the rule of caste. From which it would appear that he believes in courts-martial but only in times of capitalist war, not when the capitalist class are pleased to be at peace with each other and are not ordering the working class to risk their lives in the interests of their masters. And does Mr. Quelch really think that the capitalists will abolish courts-martial because he may persuade the L.T.C. to pass a resolution “demanding” it ?

* * *

Later, Mr. Quelch moved : “That this Council condemns the encouragement of ‘jingoism’ given by the surreptitious introduction of rifle practice into our elementary schools as part of the ordinary curriculum, and calls for the abolition of the standing army as being dangerous, unnecessary, and unconstitutional; this Council being further of opinion that all the military requirements of the nation would be met by the adequate training of all citizens in early manhood to the use of arms, thus constituting the whole manhood of the nation a citizen force for the national defence, and free from the burden and charges of the present military organisation.”

* * *

The italics are ours. What is the nation, and what is national defence ? The nation to-day is the propertied class, in whose interests wars are carried on. Preparing for the national defence means preparing to defend the property and interests of the propertied class of Great Britain against the interests of the propertied class of another country. Should Socialists encourage the working class to believe that they have national interests that must be defended ?

* * *

Mr. Quelch claimed that he was the first to use the phrase in this country the “armed nation.” He said that Mr. Haldane hoped to get his “armed nation” on the voluntary system. But the voluntary system had broken down. He was opposed to teaching children the use of firearms, in the way in which it was being introduced, because he believed it was intended to encourage a love of militarism and to bolster up the voluntary system. What they wanted was universal training—every man drilled and armed as a soldier, but remaining a citizen, as in Switzerland. . . . This was not conscription … it was the antidote to conscription, to militarism, and to jingoism, and so on.

* * *

From which a very clear idea of Mr. Quelch’s position can be obtained. He would civilise the Services, i.e., offer greater inducements to the working class to become “food for powder” in the interests of the capitalist class and their property ; he objects to the surreptitious introduction of rifle practice into elementary schools—he would do it openly and above board, then it would not encourage jingoism ; he is opposed to voluntary effort, and would make it compulsory for every citizen to be drilled and trained in the use of arms ; this compulsion is not conscription, certainly not, “only ignorant or untruthful persons so describe it” ; he would foster the idea of nationalism, and would have the working class compelled, by their masters, to make adequate preparation to defend the national (capitalists’) interests against those of some other national capitalists.

* * *

I could understand Mr. Quelch advocating that as a workman becomes class-conscious he should take steps to prepare for the defence of the international working class against the international capitalist class, that he should not pin his faith to one method of attacking and ultimately vanquishing his exploiters, but it is beyond my comprehension how a professing Socialist can advocate a narrow and working-class dividing nationalism. In opposition to his attitude we say : “Workers of all countries unite ; you have nothing to lose but your chains—you have the the world to gain.”

J. Kay

A Look Round. (1907)

From the January 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

On January 1st all orthodox persons are supposed to make resolutions—which they devote the remaining days of the year to breaking. Reformers of all shades are amongst the orthodox, regarding the members of the S.P.G.B. as unorthodox, “visionary,” “outside the political pale,” etc. I would suggest that these folk take a resolution to ignore the things that do not matter, and to devote their energies to the only thing that does, viz., the class ownership of the means of wealth production, and the consequent enslavement and poverty of the wealth producers,

o o o

If the reformers could show any effective “reforms” as the result of their efforts ; if they could prove that any “reforms” they may have been instrumental in securing have made any real difference to the condition of the working class, one would be inclined to bear with them, but when there is abundant testimony to the failure of their efforts, to the waste of all the money they have spent, the time and energy they have devoted to the particular phases of the social problem which find favour in their eyes, one gets a little impatient. However, I will be calm and will only bid them take to heart the truth, as expounded in the following paragraph, extracted from the columns of that, most respectable organ, The Times, of Christmas Day, in its comments upon the reports by medical inspectors of the Local Government Boards.

o o o

“The stories told, it says, are monotonous, and, in most instances, the particulars are disgusting. . . Houses unfit for human habitation, rooms destitute of light and ventilation, overcrowding in rural cottages, contaminated water supplies, accumulations of every description of filth and refuse, a total absence of drainage, a reign of unbelievable dirt in milk-shops and slaughter-houses, and an inadequate supervision by officials who are frequently incompetent; such, in a general way, is the picture that is commonly presented.”

o o o

Reading an article from the pen of Mr. E. Belfort Bax in Wilshire’s Magazine, written from the National Liberal Club, England, a correspondent in America asks how the S.D.F. can square its assertion that the Liberal Party must be smashed with the fact that it allows its prominent members to belong to Liberal Clubs. We know it is usual to ask riddles at the festive season, but, owing to the ravages of the prevailing epidemic, we regret we are not up to finding the solution.

o o o

According to the Reader, one of the most prized possessions of Lord Tweedmouth is a half-crown. It is set in a frame, and underneath are the words, “Honestly earned.” We congratulate his Lordship upon being so candid as to admit that out of his large income he has only “honestly earned” one solitary half-crown in his life, and that was by accident.

o o o

Mr. Ben Cooper (Liberal) and Mr. Harry Quelch (S.D.F., and supporter of Liberal candidates) will represent the London Trades Council at the Labour Party Conference at Belfast this month.

o o o

Mr. Bell, M.P., addressing a meeting of the Derby Trades Council recently, said that he certainly had said “For God’s sake let us keep politics out of our unions,” and he was still of the same opinion. Later he declared that they had had more advantages for Labour during the past year from the Liberals than they had ever had or were likely to have from any Conservative government. His position was and always had been one of strict neutrality, but he invited them to give the Liberal Government credit.

o o o

If Mr. Bell believes in keeping politics out of the unions, why does he so continuously use union meetings to boom the Liberals and—Richard Bell, M.P. ?

o o o

In these days when wealthy and titled personages are entering the “Labour” movement, and, because of their wealth and their titles, being pushed to the front by the middle-class dominators of that movement; when “Labour ” “copy” is “good copy” in capitalist journals and magazines, the working class will need all their wits to prevent side-tracking. There is something to ponder over in the words put into the mouth of an Anarchist plotter in a story in the December Harper’s.

o o o

“Don’t you know yet that an idle and selfish class loves to see mischief being made, even if it is made at its own expense ? Its own life being all a matter of vestment and gesture, it is unable to realise the power and danger of real ache and of words that have no sham meaning. It is all fun and sentiment. It is sufficient, for instance, to point out the attitude of the old French aristocracy towards the philosophers whose words were preparing the Great Revolution. Even in England, where you have some common sense, a demagogue has only to shout loud enough and long enough to find some backing in the very class he is shouting at. You too like to see mischief being made. The demagogue gets the amateurs of emotion with him. Amateurism in this, that and the other thing is a delightfully easy way of killing time, and of feeding one’s own vanity—the silly vanity of being abreast with the ideas of the day after tomorrow. Just as good and otherwise harmless people will join you in ecstacies over your collection of old china, without having the slightest notion in what its marvellousness really consists.”

o o o

With the advent of these “aristocratic” and “millionaire” Socialists in increasing numbers, more strenuous efforts are made by their “fellow conspirators” to make Socialism appeal ever so respectable. “Hide the Red Flag” says one section; “Don’t hold meetings on Sundays,” says another; “Deny the Class War,” and so on. And here is Gaylord Wilshire, one of America’s “millionaire Socialists,” repeating the old twaddle that “The phrase ‘capital versus labour’ continually gives rise to the popular misconception that labour is against capital, or rather that the Socialist is against capital. Not at all. The Socialist is against the private ownership of capital, but certainly not against capital itself.”

o o o

The Socialist who understands the position is out for the abolition of capital. This was dealt with in our issues of April and August last.

o o o

“There are many Socialists who assert that ‘the armed nation,’ so called, should supplant the standing armies of capitalism, but the experience of Switzerland doesn’t bear out the theory. A recent meeting of Socialists in the Canton of Zurich was held to protest against the employment of troops in suppressing strikes. They claimed that in no country in Europe, Russia not excepted, were troops so constantly used to put down strikes and suppress picketing, and stated that ‘military outrages against peaceful strikers are becoming matters of daily occurrence.’ Switzerland’s military establishment is based on the ‘armed nation’ principle.” 

Wilshire’s Magazine.

o o o

In the Report of Mr. D. Cummings and his Executive of the Boiler Makers’ Union, on the failure of the Clyde Strike, and the defeat of the men, occur these words : “On account of our railway shares not being saleable without great loss, and the difficulty of disposing of the Preference shares of Armstrong, Whitworth, and Co., we were momentarily in financial difficulty, but our bankers advanced us temporarily a large sum of money at the current interest, and were prepared to advance us still more had the strike gone on.”

o o o

The capitalist Press are continually booming the “thrift” of the working class, as evidenced by their savings in trade unions, friendly societies, building societies and the like. But in a time of need, such as the strike under review, these savings are useless unless “at call.” As they are invariably invested in capitalist enterprises they are, not available when needed, except under the disadvantageous circumstances referred to in the Report. A combination of financiers could at any time, paralyze the trade unions, by dealing with their investments on the Stock Exchange in such a manner as to render them useless.

o o o

The capitalist cat has at least the proverbial number of lives, and is not going to be killed by a little Trade Dispute Act, despite the junketing of S.D.F., I.L.P., and Liberal-Labour men, who forgot their differences and ate, drank, and were merry together at the Shackleton Banquet last month.

J. Kay

Blogger's Note:

"There is something to ponder over in the words put into the mouth of an Anarchist plotter in a story in the December Harper’s . . . " 

The passage quoted from Harper's magazine is from Joseph Conrad's short story, 'The Informer'. I'm guessing this short story was one of Conrad's dry runs for his more famous work, The Secret Agent.

A Look Round. (1906)

From the December 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

At the National Anti-sweating Conference held recently at the Guildhall, and opened by the Lord Mayor, Mr. Stephen Walsh, M.P., declared that, despite their powerful organisation, the Lancashire miners are in a worse condition to-day than they were in eighteen years ago !

* * *

During the Conference Mr. D. J. Shackleton, M.P., vigorously defended child labour, and appealed to the delegates to let Socialism alone and concentrate their energies upon “something practical.”

* * *

Mr. Shackleton is vice-chairman of the Labour Party in the House of Commons, lately called the L.R.C. Under its auspices various members of the S.D.F. and I.L.P. have run as “Labour” candidates, in order to get the financial support of affiliated trade unionists.

* * *

The Workmen’s National Housing Council, judging by its Seventh Annual Report, seems to be in a jubilant mood. There are affiliated sixty trade unions, without counting branches, forty-three trades councils, with a few other bodies. During the general election it issued a simple test question to all candidates and received a very large harvest of replies, many of them being very encouraging. Still more encouraging, we are told, is the fact that after persistent attention from the Council lavished on those members who promised to get financial aid for housing from the Imperial Exchequer, and the constant stirring up of ministers, the Government are now committed to the principle, and promise for rural England, Scotland, and Wales, something similar to the Irish Labourers’ Bill— cheap money and plenty of it—4¼ millions at 3¼ per cent. for inclusive money charges. This will be of great assistance when it is fulfilled, and the Council are on the point of asking far the moral support of every affiliated body to keep the Government up to the scratch next session ! That’s progress !

* * *

It will take something more than “moral pressure” to induce the capitalist class to do the only thing that will benefit the working class, viz., get off the workers’ backs.

* * *

The “test questions for candidates” is a favorite game of the reform politicians. Obviously if any body of men submit certain questions to candidates they must support the candidates who reply favorably and oppose those who do not. Thus we have the S.D.F. and I.L.P., through their affiliation to the National Workmen’s Housing Council, supporting capitalist candidates, whilst “in another place” declaring those candidates to be working class enemies.

* * *

The S.P.G.B. is out for the abolition of the capitalist system, not its patching up. It therefore wastes no time on so-called reforms, but aims straight for revolution.

* * *

In dealing with a complaint that tramway men often found their day of ten hours was spread over fifteen, Captain Hemphill at the L.C.C. said the facts were not as stated, but that the question was receiving the very careful attention of the Committee, who hoped to bring up a report at an early date. This really means, reading between the lines, that the “ten hours’ day” for tramway employees is another Progressive lie.

* * *

Captain Hemphill also said that the Council had recently spent a sum of £1,500 a year more than had been spent by the old companies, with a view of reducing inconvenience to the men.

* * *

Improvements in the means of transit tend to increase the ratio of exploitation of the workers, whether employed by the private trust, or the public monopoly form of capitalism. Drivers and conductors of modern electric tramcars are subject to a very much greater menial and physical strain than were those of the old horse cars, but their wages are practically the same, and even when higher, the increase is in no sense proportionate to their extra wear and tear. The same applies to motor bus and railway workers.

* * *

Mr. R. Bell, M.P., emphasised this in his Annual Report to the recently held Congress at Cardiff. During 1905, he said, the goods train mileage decreased by 400,000 miles in spite of an increase of 11,300,000 tons in goods carried. To have carried the goods traffic of 1905 under the conditions of 1900 would have required over 2,500 more engines and sets of men. Calculating four men to each engine—driver, fireman, cleaner, and guard—this would have meant an increased staff of at least 10,000 men in the running department alone. Instead of this he calculates that this increase in the volume of traffic has been conveyed with some 1,200 less engines and sets of men, for, as different railway chairmen have stated at half-yearly meetings, they have been enabled to take many of their older locomotives out of traffic, and the full number shown to be owned by the companies were not actually working. Thus the mental and physical responsibilities of the men generally have been vastly increased, and the firemen particularly, who have to shovel nearly double the quantity of coal on the large engines without any extra pay at all.

* * *

There was another paragraph in the Report which should be interesting to readers of the Socialist Standard. It relates to the men employed on the North Eastern Railway, and reads as follows:

“This movement on behalf of all grades was sanctioned by the Executive Committee in September, 1903, and the programme adopted by the men at a conference held at Darlington was duly forwarded to the company. Not much progress was made, however, until 1905, when as a result of interviews in March and July a few concessions were obtained for men working large engines and with heavy trains, together with an increased bonus for the East Coast men.

“The programme was still pressed, but further delay arose in consequence of changes in the chairmanship and managership. In April and May, however, the committee of the movement and myself had a ten days’ conference with the general manager and chief officials, and .also another day’s discussion with the general superintendent. The programme was fully discussed, in addition to a large number of grievances, resulting in substantial concessions being obtained for the men. The men’s delegate meeting, however, would not take the responsibility of accepting the terms offered, and decided to refer the matter to the branches concerned. The Executive Committee, therefore, requested the branches to arrange special meetings at which the North Eastern members should vote for or against accepting the terms. The result showed a majority of 802 against the terms, but as only a very small proportion of the men had voted the Executive Committee decided to accept the terms for the men, and to suggest to the company that, a conciliation board be formed. The company have this proposal under consideration at the present time.”

* * *

The italics are ours.

* * *

In the November issue of the “Journeymen Bakers’ Magazine” Mr. L. A. Hill returns to the subject of the Union’s 48 Hours Bill, which was dealt with in our October number. He said it was most essential that this Bill should be passed into law. Machinery had displaced and would continue to displace large numbers of men. Whereas there would be before the introduction of machinery work for five men, there was now only work for three. If the Bill was passed he estimated that it would find employment for some 5,000 men, and that it would be in a measure, a way of solving the unemployed question in the baking trade.

* * *

As we pointed out in October, the effect of a compulsory 8 hours’ day for bakers, however secured, would be to kill the small bakers and drive the trade into the machine bakeries, where the 8 hours’ day already obtains. It would thus tend to displace 2 men out of every 5, to use Mr. Hill’s figures, and would intensify instead of solving the unemployed question in the baking trade.

* * *

The “Daily Express” continues to expose the Fraud of Capitalism. In connection with Mr. Lever’s Soap Trust (I beg pardon—”economic amalgamation”) it said,

“The grocer of to-day is almost as much ‘tied’ as the publican who is managing a ‘tied’ house for a firm of brewers.

“He has practically ceased to be a free agent, and is becoming more and more of an automaton who is forced to hand out over the counter the ready weighed articles supplied by great trusts and powerful owners of proprietary articles.

“He has little or no share in the selection of the articles he is to sell, and can control neither the price he pays for them nor the price to the customer. He does not even have a chance to see the quality of the goods he sells or to weigh them. Certain sealed packets come to him and automatically he hands them over the counter.

“Acting on the instructions of one or other of the great firms who have selected him to sell their goods, he has occasionally to say that a certain article is ‘just as good’ as a different one desired by a customer, and to see that a customer does not buy the goods he first wanted.

“Twenty years ago a grocer was able to give his customers all they required, but now certain goods are pushed on him, and he in his turn has to force them on the public.”

* * *

Coming back to the “Daily Express,” this organ of Tariff Reform, which recently declared that the American workers, owing to protection, were exceedingly prosperous, made the following admissions in its issue of November 12, last:

“In spite of the wonderful surface prosperity, America is seething with discontent, and the party of the ‘have nots’ is a very real danger.

“The power of the trusts and the great business combinations has been growing rapidly. The small business man has been driven into the Bankruptcy Court in ever increasing numbers, and has considered himself lucky if he could secure a place as a salaried employee of the trust which absorbed his business. A generation ago most of the dwellers in American cities owned their own homes or looked forward to owning them. Now, they would laugh at the suggestion, and they bitterly resent the prospect of a lifetime as a rent-payer to some millionaire or real estate corporation.

“The working men, in spite of their nominally high wages, are bitterly discontented. Wages are not so high as they seem. The bricklayer who earns 24s. a day cannot depend on more than six months work in the year, as there are periods of two or three months in New York when no building can be done on account of the severe weather. The same rule applies to all the building trades, and to the lake and river transportation trades, and to those employed on the railways fed by the lakes and rivers. 

“In spite of all the nominal prosperity, New York has its unemployed problem every winter—not so acute as London’s problem, perhaps, but still a very serious problem.”

* * *

As we have so often pointed out, the working class is poor and the master class is rich all over the world, no matter what fiscal or other conditions obtain.

J. Kay

Party Notes. (1907)

Party News from the June 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

On May 12th R. H. Kent and F. E. Dawkins held another meeting in Nottingham. Dawkins also held a meeting on the 20th. Definite results are expected shortly.

#    #    #    #

A four page circular, stating the working-class position and advertising THE SOCIALIST STANDARD has been issued. Twelve copies will be sent post free for 2d. Price to branches, 6s. Per 1,000.

#    #    #    #

A second edition of the Manifesto of the S.P.G.B. is now ready. It deals with the Party’s position in regard to the S.D.F., I.L.P., Fabian Society, S.L.P., Trade Unions, etc. Post free 1½d. per copy from Head Office.

#    #    #    #

The Rules of the Party, as amended at the last Annual Conference, are now ready. They are printed and folded for insertion in membership cards. They can be obtained from Branch Secretaries, or post free from Head Office, 2½d.

#    #    #    #

Correspondence has passed between the Tottenham branch of the Party and the Tottenham I.L.P. respecting a challenge to debate. Full particulars later.

#    #    #    #

If one had no previous experience of the hypocrisy of the Daily News, one would expect them to admit an error when pointed out to them. On May 10th they printed a report of an application made before the Lord Chief Justice by Mr. Gill, K.C., in connection with the action for alleged libel brought by Mr. Richard Bell, M.P. and the A.S.R.S. against this Party. The report was headed “A Socialist Party ‘Gone.'” The following letter was sent to the Daily News but was not published by the organ of the Nonconformist conscience.

Socialist Party of Great Britain.

Head Office:

22, Great James Street,

Bedford Row, W.C.

May 15th, 1907.

Sir,

Mr. Richard Bell, M.P. and The Socialist Party.

In your issue of Friday last, under the heading “Socialist Party ‘gone,'” you reported an application in re the above Libel action made before the Lord Chief Justice on Thursday, from which it would appear that this Party has “gone away and left no address.” This statement is incorrect. The defendants selected to represent this Party appeared last Friday before the Master in Chambers in connection with an application by the Plaintiffs’ Solicitors for directions and only failed to answer to their names on Thursday because it is a matter of indifference to this Party when the action is heard.

The reference to “the Solicitor for the defendants” in no way referred to us. Being the only Socialist Party in this country (there are various Reform parties posing as “Socialist”) we have no money and therefore, even if we desired to do so, cannot afford to fee legal luminaries. We are fighting our own case.

Yours etc.,

(Sd) R. H. KENT,

General Secretary, S.P.G.B.

To the Editor, “Daily News.”

#    #    #    #

Cycling members who have not yet done so are requested to forward their names and addresses to the Head Office at once.

#    #    #    #

The E.C. have accepted a Challenge from the Advocates of Industrial Unionism to debate in the columns of THE SOCIALIST STANDARD. The first instalment will probably appear in the July issue.

#    #    #    #

All members of the Peckham branch are requested to at once send their present addresses to the Head Office, as an important communication will be sent to them as well as to all branch Secretaries in the course of a few days.

K.

Have we libelled Mr. R. Bell, M.P.? (1906)

From the October 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Courts To Decide

A writ, claiming damages for libel alleged to be contained in an article which appeared in the August issue of the Socialist Standard, has been issued against the Executive Committee of the S.P.G.B. by Mr. Richard Bell, M.P., the General Secretary, and the Executive Committee of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants.

Comrades desiring to contribute to the Defence Fund should send in their contributions early and often to the Head Office, 28, Cursitor, Street, E.C. It is essential that the Party should be in a position to fight the matter out. All contributions will be acknowledged direct to the senders.

Found Out ! (1906)

From the August 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

LABOUR LEADERS SELL THE UNION
 MEMBERS AND THEIR APOLOGIST 
GETS A WARM RECEPTION.

A mass meeting of railway men was held in the Palace Theatre, Newcastle, on July 15, to hear an address from Mr. Richard Bell. M.P., General Secretary of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, on the subject of the mens grievances as discussed at the recent conference.

Mr. Bell was received with applause and much booing, and failed to get a hearing for some minutes. After the chairman had intervened, Mr. Bell said the movement which was commenced in November, 1903, was an all-grades movement, which meant a movement in the interest and for the benefit of those for whom the Society’s books were open for registration. Under the all-grades movement there would be in round figures 28,000 men. of which 11.000 were to-day members of the Society, He ventured to think that that was not given full consideration at the time the programme was formulated at Darlington in 1903. That programme had two points which, he ventured to think, had never had the full consideration of the men. (Laughter.) If, Mr. Bell continued after further interruption, the argument in support of higher pay for night duty was on the ground that night duty had so considerably increased, why not confine it to the grades thus affected? Instead of this, they were asking for time and a quarter for night duty for all grades. If they took time and a quarter for night duty for 28,000 men it meant that if everyone worked alternate weeks there would be a 12½ per cent. advance all round. The total cost of time and a quarter for night duty worked out by himself on under estimated figures, amounted to £123,000 per annum. That was one item in the programme. Another was the demand for an advance of 2s. per week for men with under 24s. It was estimated that at least 18,000 men were now in receipt of wages under 24s. per week. (Cries of “shame.”) If this increase were granted, it would mean an additional expenditure by the Company of £93,000 per annum. Here they had two items on the programme which alone would mean £216,000. (Cries of ”What are the profits of the Company?” and “Are you here for the Company or the men?”) He was there for the men— (laughter and booing)—and he was there to do that which was fair and just, in spite of all the hisses, hooting, and other circumstances.

The Chairman appealed for order.

Mr. Bell (resuming) said at the first interview with the Company they were told point blank that the Company were not prepared to discuss certain items in the Darlington programme. They considered the situation and tabulated the grievances. The conference sat eleven days, and he believed they had got more than they could have secured by any other means. (“No.”) There was absolutely no reduction to any single individual on the North Eastern system. (Uproar.) Enginenmen and firemen would all benefit to the extent of £7,800 per annum. The shunters’ hours had been brought down from ten to eight per day. There had been a slight improvement to passenger servants, and the increases altogether would amount to £25,000 per annum. That had been obtained without a strike. without causing bad feeling between the Company and the men. (Derisive laughter.) Was he to accept, then, that they desired that ill-feeling should exist between the Company and the men? (Cries of “Yes.”) Then they were about the funniest lot of men he had ever met. (Uproar.) The Executive had decided that he should write to the Company accepting the agreement and trusting that a conciliation board be formed. He was going to advise them to abide by the decision of the Executive. If some of the men had been itching for a strike, they must not forget that they had fellow-workmen in other places who had first to be considered. What had been done had been done in the interests of railway men alone, and he asked them to place some confidence in those whom they had elected.

Mr. James R. Bell, secretary of the all-grades movement, said be refused to sign au unconditional recommendation to accept the concessions, and only agreed when the matter was referred to the Darlington conference. That Body considered the concessions, and asked that the men. through their branches, should have the opportunity of considering them. That opportunity was denied them by the Executive Committee. (Applause.)

Mr. Dickinson moved a resolution to the effect that that meeting of the all-grades movement absolutely refused to accept the decision of the Executive Committee, or of the deputation having control of the all-grades movement owing to the unconstitutional methods adopted, also that they should continue a movement of their own to secure time and a quarter for night duty and 2s. per week for men under 24s. per week. He said he did not believe there were 28,000 men in the North-Eastern system eligible to join their society. He thought they might take 8,000 off that number. Very few men would benefit by Mr. Bell’s “substantial concessions.”

Mr. Brodie seconded, and said they had heard the Company's side from Mr. Bell. He was going to put the men’s side. Rule 13 provided that the men should be consulted. Their general secretary seemed to think the men had got an all-round advance, which was a mistake. Whilst the company were building big engines and putting two trains into one the men were getting nothing. The signalmen's advance of 1s. per week worked out at a 1s. per week reduction. (Laughter.)

Mr. Bell, in replying to the discussion, said he got his figures about the 28,000 workmen from Board of Trade returns, He disliked the sneers of men who talked about pilots getting only 4s. 3d. per day. Well, 4s. 3d. per day after seven years was better than 3s. 9d. which they had received. It was absurd to say that porters could look forward to a reduction. It had been said that only 3,000 men would benefit, but he calculated that 7,000 men would benefit. They could carry their resolution, but it would have no effect. They would get no support from the Society , as it was unconstitutional. (Loud hooting.)

The resolution was carried and Mr. R. Bell was hissed as he left the platform.