Progress in civilization has everywhere meant a limitation and regulation of contract.

"Pending a thorough-going investigation and action there is certain legislation which should be enacted at once. The law, passed at the last session of the Congress, granting compensation to certain classes of employees of the Government, should be extended to include all employees of the Government and should be made more liberal in its terms. There is no good ground for the distinction made in the law between those engaged in hazardous occupations and those not so engaged. If a man is injured or killed in any line of work, it was hazardous in his case. Whether I per cent. or 10 per cent. of those following a given occupation actually suffer injury or death ought not to have any bearing on the question of their receiving compensation. It is a grim logic which says to an injured employee or to the dependents of one killed that he or they are entitled to no compensation because very few people other than he have been injured or killed in that occupation. Perhaps one of the most striking omissions in the law is that it does not embrace peace officers and others whose lives may be sacrificed in enforcing the laws of the United States. The terms of the act providing compensation should be made more liberal than in the present act. A year's compensation is not adequate for a wage-earner's family in the event of his death by accident in the course of his employment. And in the event of death occurring, say, ten or eleven months after the accident, the family would only receive as compensation the equivalent of one or two months' earnings. In this respect the generosity of the United States towards its employees compares most unfavorably with that of every country in Europe-even the poorest.

"There is also, I think, ground for the belief that substantial injustice is often suffered by employees in consequence of the custom of courts issuing temporary injunctions without notice to them, and punishing them for contempt of court in instances where, as a matter of fact, they have no knowledge of any proceedings. Outside of organized labor there is a widespread feeling that this system often works great injustice to wage-workers when their efforts to better their working condition result in industrial disputes. A temporary injunc

tion procured ex parte may as a matter of fact have all the effect of a permanent injunction in causing disaster to the wage-workers' side in such a dispute. Organized labor is chafing under the unjust restraint which comes from repeated resort to this plan of procedure. Its discontent has been unwisely expressed, and often improperly expressed, but there is a sound basis for it, and the orderly and lawabiding people of a community would be in a far stronger position for upholding the courts if the undoubtedly existing abuses could be provided against.

Yet while deprecating any unfair use of the weapon of injunction, he supports the injunction as a principle, saying in relation to it, in his message of December, 1905:

"There has been demand for depriving courts of the power to issue injunctions in labor disputes. Such special limitation of the equity power of our courts would be most unwise. It is true that some judges have misused this power; but this does not justify a denial of the power any more than an improper exercise of the power to call a strike by a labor leader would justify the denial of the right to strike. The remedy is to regulate the procedure by requiring the judge to give due notice to the adverse parties before granting the writ."

Elsewhere he puts himself on record in regard to labor unions: "I believe emphatically in organized labor. I believe in organizations of wage-workers. Organization is one of the laws of our social and economic development at this time. But I feel that we must always keep before our minds the fact that there is nothing sacred in the name itself. To call an organization an organization does not make it a good one. The worth of an organization depends upon its being handled with the courage, the skill, the wisdom, the spirit of fair dealing as between man and man, and with wise self-restraint.

We can most fitly illustrate Mr. Roosevelt's attitude towards the relations of labor and capital by stating his course in the case of the celebrated anthracite coal-miners' strike of 1902, one which affected the well-being of the people at large more than any other strike in the history of the country.

The incidents of this strike will be remembered by all users of

anthracite coal. Breaking out in the spring of 1902, it dragged on until the fall, with apparent hopelessness of settlement. The winter was at hand with its threat of biting and freezing chill. The stock of mined coal was growing perilously low. Its price rose from six to twelve and more dollars a ton and complete exhaustion by the time winter set in was justly feared. Intense suffering to great numbers of people was highly probable, but union and the operators continued obstinate, arbitration was contemned, conciliation seemed hopeless, and little or no consideration was given to the appeals of the coalusing community.

The situation grew daily more serious. Something must be done, everybody said; but what could be done and who could do it? At this critical juncture President Roosevelt stepped into breach. He had no precedent to follow, but he was a man who made, not one who followed,. precedents. From the West, where they burn soft coal, came counsel to let things alone. From the East came piteous appeals for instant and drastic action. Yet such action, in what many held to be a non-Presidential capacity, threatened serious political consequences. He considered the case fully, then set his face in his own grim manner and said:

"Yes, I will do it. I suppose that ends me; but it is right, and I will do it."

It was a strenuous fight he had before him, to bring together two bitterly hostile antagonists and force them to acknowledge that the people had rights as well as they. And at this time he was suffering from an accident in which his coach had been broken down, the driver killed and his leg seriously injured.

But he had given his word and went into the fight, appointed a strike commission with Judge Gray, of Delaware, at its head and used all his powers and persuasions to bring the coal barons and the labor leaders to terms. He won. The strike was adjusted in some way or other and the men went to work. But it took a hard pull. To the Governor of Massachusetts, who sent him "the thanks of every man, woman and child in the country," he wrote:

"Yes, we have put it through. But, heavens and earth! it has been a struggle."

The London Times, looking upon the matter as a new expansion of the field of government, said: "In the most quiet and unobtrusive manner President Roosevelt has done a very big thing, and an entirely new thing."

Did his interference affect President Roosevelt's political standing, as had been feared? Yes; but fortunately the effect was entirely favorable. It made him far more friends than foes, and doubtless it had a large share in adding to the rain of ballots which fell in his favor in the election of 1904.

There were those who said that President Roosevelt had surrendered the country to the overweening claims of organized labor; yet a few months later, when striking miners in Arizona were using methods of violence against the property of the operators, he took the opposite course and sent troops in all haste to the protection of the threatened property.

Here is an illustrative anecdote told by Jacob Riis, in his "Theodore Roosevelt, the Citizen." It shows the man in action. Roosevelt was then Police Commissioner in New York, the labor men had trouble with the police over their strikes; he saw that a misunderstanding existed and invited the labor leaders to talk the matter over with him.

"The strike leaders thought they had to do with an ambitious politician and they tried bluster. They would do so and so unless the police were compliant; and they watched to get him placed. They had not long to wait. Roosevelt called a halt, short and sharp. Gentlemen,' he said, 'we want to understand one another. That was my object in coming here. Remember, please, that he who counsels violence does the cause of labor the poorest service. Also, he loses his case. Understand distinctly Understand distinctly that order will be kept. The police will keep it. Now, gentlemen!'

"There was a moment's amazed surprise and then the hall rang with their cheers. They had him placed then, for they knew a man when they saw him. And he, he went home proud and happy, for his trust in his fellow man was justified."

CHAPTER XIII.

The Larger Good as Contrasted With the Demands of Expediency

THE

HE rule of expediency, the falling into line behind some passing demand, that does not seem for the best good of the people, has never been Theodore Roosevelt's way. However strenuously it might be urged, whatever marshalling of battalions lay behind it, he as strenuously held his own. "The larger good" has been one of his maxims. He has cared not a whit to win a record for consistency. What he may have done yesterday never controls him when the question arises as to what is the best thing to do to-day. In his campaign for the governorship of New York he pledged himself to rule by the Ten Commandments, and it has always been his aim to do the thing that is right, rather than the thing that is expedient. There are those whose eyes are fixed upon the ground and who see only the passing steps. There are those who take a long look ahead, and see only the goal. Theodore Roosevelt is one of the latter. And always in his goal "the larger good" looms up.

But he knows man and his limitations. One man cannot always sway a multitude. If we cannot get what we want, the next best thing is to get the most we can attain and by the most available means, so that they be honest means. This is a phase of the Roosevelt policy.

"Hitch your wagon to a star," he says, "but always remember your limitations. Strive upward, but realize that your feet must touch the ground. In our Government you can work successfully only in conjunction with your fellows."

Let us quote some words of his from an address delivered in Wheeling, W. Va., September 6, 1903. They bear upon this question.