What legal or other reason is there for working out a world scheme for union labor? It is our belief that the thing will work out detrimentally to labor itself, but the rest of the public, constituting perhaps 85 per cent or more of the population of the world, has some rights, which must not be dissipated by the initiation of class legislation. Once we commit ourselves to this sort of arrangement, either with or without reservations, there will be a constant agitation in this country for its adoption by Congress, and it will become the football of politics and a most dangerous Damocles sword dangling over the heads of our people.

The Bache Review quotes as follows from a pamphlet issued by the Home Market Club, on "Labor Provisions of the Treaty of Peace," by Mr. Edward N. Dingley:

True, the Conference of 128 delegates sitting at the seat of the League of Nations under the contract can only "recommend," but what follows the failure of any member (nation) to carry out the recommendation? Failure on the part of a member (nation) to obey the recommendation of the Conference is followed by (1) publication of the failure, (2) an inquiry by a commission selected by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations, (3) recommendations of “an economic character" against the defaulting member (nation), (4) appeal by any member (nation), to a Court of International Justice, followed by a decision indicating still further penalties of an economic. character. Is there any doubt but what these economic penalties ultimately will be invoked against a "defaulting" member (nation)?

There appears to be no limit to the power of the proposed International Labor Conference within the broad field of industrial and labor problems. It is inconceivable that the industrial supremacy of the United States, the hours of labor, the conditions of labor, the operation and management of industries, both great and small-of railroads, mines, etc.-ultimately might be controlled by the proposed International Labor Conference of 128 members (in which the United States would have only four votes) engineered by a Governing Board of 12-all of whom may be unAmerican-with its headquarters in Europe, probably at Geneva. It is conceivable that ultimately the control of America's domestic industries and transportation, so far as labor is concerned, might be transferred from Washington and the several State capitals to Geneva or the seat of the League of Nations. The possibilities exist and the perils are apparent.

Furthermore, if the contemplated League of Nations may use the "economic boycott," the International Labor Conference, an integral part of the League, may do likewise with equal effect. What is meant by an economic boycott? Refusal to trade, a blockade, cutting off supplies of raw material, food coal, etc. Does America wish to be controlled by a Labor Conference of 128 men and a Governing Board of 12 men sitting in Europe? Is the United States prepared to surrender its industrial and economic rights to a coterie of men a!! but four un-American? Is the United States willing to jeopardize its fiscal and economic policy, its industrial independence, its premacy? It is unthinkable.

su

It is argued that such a thing is impossible. Yet it is possible i

the Treaty of Peace is ratified as it is, with the provisions of the International Labor Conference intact. The Treaty of Peace is a contract. The creation of an International Labor Conference in

part of this contract and the signing of the contract by the representatives of the United States makes binding upon the United States all the provisions, agreements and undertakings recited therein.

On a November day in 1620 the founders of the Plymouth Colony covenanted and combined themselves together "into a civil body politic for our better ordering and preservation, and to exact, constitute and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances and acts, constitutions and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet for the general good of the colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience."

This compact has been called the first written constitution in the world. It was the cornerstone of the Massachusetts colony. It was the forerunner of our Declaration of Independence. It was the inspiration of the constitution of Massachusetts and the constitution of the United States. And today, three hundred years after that covenant was drawn up and signed, we are called upon to reaffirm and ratify it.

For three centuries the spirit of that compact has guided the civic development of Massachusetts. In accord with it our Commonwealth was founded and in sympathy with it our laws have been enacted. We cannot solve the problems that confront us; we cannot promote the welfare of the

people unless we have respect for the authority of the State and obedience to the laws. It is the duty of the State to guard the welfare of the citizen. It is the duty of the citizen to uphold the State.

We have here the freest and the best government that the world has known. It was established by men who had a passion for liberty, but liberty under the law. It was established for the protection of human rights and for the maintenance of law and order.

It is both my purpose and my duty to maintain the government of Massachusetts as it was ordained and established by her people,-a government that will protect the rights of all but yield to dictation or coercion by none. I propose to maintain unimpaired the guaranties of our constitution and the authority of our laws. The security and the safety of the public is the business of the State. Both the laws of the State and the dictates of reason impose that duty upon us. So long as I am Governor that duty will be performed.

The issues before the country today transcend all personal considerations. It is not a question of candidates, but

the maintenance of a cause. That cause involves the very fundamentals of government. It means the supremacy of the law. It means the authority of the State. It means peace, security and order. It means the bed-rock of civilization. If we believe in orderly government we must believe in the duty of the government to enforce order. If we believe in upholding the law we must support a lawful government. We must be for peace or against it; for order or against it; for law or opposed to it. The government is the refuge and security of the people. If the authority of the government goes, all goes with it. If the supremacy of the law is swept aside, anarchy takes its place.

This is not a question of organized labor. It is a question of organized government. It is not a question of one group, it is a question that affects us all. To no authority but that of the city and the state can the officers of the people owe allegiance.

This is fundamental. On this conception of public office as a public trust rests the foundation of our government. Upon the maintenance of such a government depends the welfare of us all. The government is the people's government and it must continue to be the government of all the people.

We cannot surrender the authority of the government. We cannot arbitrate the supremacy of the law.

We cannot compromise the duty of all the people to obey the law. Wher government arbitrates, it abdicates; and when government abdicates, authority ends and chaos begins. Since the day when that little band sat in the cabin of the Mayflower and covenanted one with another for order and the preservation of life and property and that, for the general good, they would observe and obey the laws. there has been orderly governmen: in the colony and commonwealth of Massachusetts. Since that day there has been a government in Massachu setts founded on the will of all the people.

I stand for a government of all the people founded on the rights of all and on justice to all. I am opposed to government by any group or class, or selfish interest. This is the people's government and all the people are now called upon to sup port and save and serve it. To that cause our citizens have always beet true. We cannot be false to it and maintain our institutions or our country. This is the call of America today to all true Americans.

under the stress of war, or that some temporary condition upset it, or that it would do very well if something else had not happened. The crucial test is so unexpected, so rapid in its movements, so direct that phrases

and fancies are shattered before it actually strikes.

England's great merchant fleet was a reality that staggered Adam Smith. This country's development appealed with irresistible force to Mill. Early in life Madison and Jefferson advocated free trade, only to see that it meant dependence on the Old World. Henry C. Carey and William D. Kelley owned that their abstract reasoning could not square with the experience of common life. It was in reviewing the life of Justin D. Morrill that the great Southern Democrat, Morgan, owned that protection had brought us a great manufacturing development.

Case after case teaches the same lesson. British free trade writers

have filled shelves with their books, yet what author on that side has matched Beaconsfield's single sentence, "You cannot fight hostile tariffs with free imports"?

For some time past we have been receiving documents from the Tariff Commission. Though selected to make out a case against protection, the chosen officials invariably bear testimony in its favor. Report follows report, and in every case, the protectionists are willing to make wholesale quotations, and the adversary pitches the pamphlet into the waste basket or the fire. Professor Taussig may reflect that Gallatin let his free trade rust till he was out of the Treasury Department; that Salmon P. Chase followed Gallatin's example and that Daniel Manning's investigations went far to make a protectionist out of him.

President Wilson now asks us to believe that we ought to welcome Old World imports in general, but that we need protection of chemicals in particular. The admission that we must guard a new industry goes far to justify all that has been done in starting the industries of the past. Never from Hamilton to Dingley has a protectionist more urgently pressed the claims of labor and capital than the President has done in his latest message. But who can guarantee that there may not be ten or twenty or a hundred lines of manufacture as essential to us as the chemical industries?

Vital as the chemical industry is, there are others also that are indispensable. No general indictment of protection ever fails to have its qualifying clause. A doubtful State must be held in line; a close district must be carried; there must be something done for Angora goats. There is always some tree that must not be hewn down. The tariff of 1846 had its concessions to special interests. The tariff of 1894 was marked by favoritism from beginning to end. Under the present tariff we have heard unnumbered expressions of thanks by Democrats because the war largely nullified the schedules. Now

the President whose ostentatious de-. sire was that our countrymen should whet their wits against the wits of the rest of the world, is careful to add "EXCEPT ON CHEMICALS."