Comment on Mr. Laski.


(The Crimson invites all men in the University to submit signed communications of timely interest. It assumes no responsibility, however, for sentiments expressed under this head an reserves the right to exclude any whose publication would be palpably inappropriate.)

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

We see that Mister Laski, not Professor, as the papers state, has taken the field again on he side of the down-troden union man. His address was to the women folk of the striking policemen. For the conclusion of his address the newspapers quoted the phrase, "Labor will never yield." Perhaps Mr. Laski will state what it is that labor thus tenaciously clings to and enunciate clearly the principle he is talking for.

One of the salient points of disagreement in the recent trouble was the question of affiliation with the A. F. of L. by an organization in the police department. Mr. Laski elsewhere propounds the doctrine of unchecked unionization and affiliation. Carry this theory to a further degree. After police, municipal employees, come federal and national employees, Why should not the Army or Navy unionize? An army strike for one tour of guard per year would increase the efficiency of the army surely.

The union question can be taken from the other side of the picture. Private labor can organize. It has done so with great benefits and many attendant evils to public comfort. The organization of municipal employee can receive a lesson from New York City. A Unionization of federal employees in an an organization autocratic by its very nature if absurd.

Great sympathy is due to the men who struck without realizing the seriousness of the offense. Yet there they broke a solemn oath to every citizen. Perhaps Commissioner Curtis showed a failing in diplomacy. Yet there is no diplomatic achievement on the side of the strikers. The principles for the which Mr. Curtis and Mr. Coolidge stand are good and have won the support they deserved.

Perhaps Mr. Laski will explain his stand and elucidate clearly the principles he talks for. There may be some extenuating circumstances hidden from the unenlightened. If he cannot wholly justify his course of action, or takes it from love of the bizarre, let us shun him as a "Boudoir Bolshevist," a breed against which we have been warned. D. H. WORRALL '20.