THE LABOR QUESTION AND THE SOCIAL PROBLEM 77$
Assuming the desire and determination of the strikers to remain within the limits of lawful activity, what more can they do to enforce their demands? "Nothing more," say many. The strikers must retire to their several homes and passively await developments. If other men can be secured to take the vacated places, the strike is lost; if the strikers cannot be replaced, the employer will capitulate and sue for peace.
But organized labor is far from accepting this doctrine regard- ing the limits of its rightful activity in connection with a strike. It has a very elaborate and effective post-strike program. It resorts to (i) picketing and (2) boycotting. The former practice it defends on the ground that the striker has a right to persuade and induce fellow-workmen to join with him, or to abstain from taking the place he has vacated. Theoretically, the picket is stationed merely to watch establishments under "strike law," give informa- tion to intending applicants for work, and exhort these to respect "the eleventh commandment" "Thoushalt not take thy brother's job." In other words, picketing is based on the rights of free speech, moral suasion, and free locomotion. When it degenerates into intimidation and assault, it concededly becomes criminal, and, as we have said, no responsible unionist justifies violence by picket, striker, or bystander.
Boycotting is defended (it was defended before the Gray Commission by Messrs. Mitchell and Gompers) as amounting merely to the quiet, peaceable withdrawal of patronage from unfair, unfriendly, or objectionable persons. The argument, in brief, runs thus : Am I bound to patronize this or that butcher, tailor, or dry-goods merchant ? May I not, for any reason whatever, transfer my custom to another butcher, tailor, or merchant? May I not deal with those who are friendly to me and leave severely alone those who are hostile or disobliging? If I may, and if every other man similarly aggrieved may do the same thing, the legitimacy of organized and collective boycotting is established.
To multiply illustrations would be a waste of space. It is plain that all these positions are strictly and radically individual- istic. They imply that the only limit on conduct is the equal
