Approximately twenty-five hundred years ago Heraclitus of Ephesus said, "The major problem of human society is to combine that degree of liberty without which law is tyranny with that degree of law without which liberty becomes license."

The major problem of human society has not changed. Through the intervening years since Heraclitus spoke it has presented itself in connection with various phases of human effort and interest. In some of these phases society has no doubt made progress toward its solution. Mayhap the experience had in some of these phases serves to ripen our wisdom in dealing with modern questions.

The primary effort of man's early struggle for life was directed against his natural enemies. His ignorance of his enemies and their powers developed his superstitions. Uniting with his fellows for offense and defense according to the dictates of superstition, that man in any group who could persuade the others what superstition to follow in a given situation became the leader. Thus the first leader Thus the first leader was the priest and oracle. He organized the life of his followers by his reputation to interpret or propitiate the unknown. His power being great in proportion to the fear of his followers, became despotic. Whoever refused to worship his god and to offer the temporal sacrifices he dictated became a public enemy, the vilest of the vile. The history of religion is the story of man's conflict with the power of the priest. He gained in liberty of religion as rapidly as he lost his fear of natural phenomena and gained in power over the beasts of the jungle and learned how to resist the dangers of the storm and tide. Today in many societies men worship where they will and how they will and as they will

As social groups by migration or natural growth came in conflict with one another, they organized for offense or defense against other groups,—their human enemies. He who displayed the genius to organize and direct military operations asserted temporal power. The necessities for courageous leadership demanded implicit obedience to the courageous leader. Therefore the early manifestations of his power were despotic. Whoever threatened the power of the leader from within was a traitor to the security of the group, and the group suffered him to be ruthlessly eliminated. The history of political science is the story of man's effort to maintain the security of the state whilst freeing himself from the arbitrary rule of the sovereign. As the state has developed in size and the life and interests of men become more complicated, the state has taken over the duties of maintaining the common peace for the sake of the everyday affairs of the people, even as it at first enforced the king's peace among his subjects in order that

his power against foreign enemies might not be dissipated by fratricide. In man's progress toward his political liberty he has developed those great principles written in the Justinian code, the Magna Charta, the Bill of Rights, the Napoleonic code, and the Constitution of the United States, and the bills of rights and the constitutions of the several states. But while the principles upon which the foundations of law and liberty rest secure the difficulties of their application have increased with the rapid change in man's environment and the size of national populations during the last one hundred years.

And now, with the aid of steam and electricity, man is beginning upon a gigantic scale to organize his economic life. The earliest manifestation of this, like that of the earliest organization of religious and political life, was despotic. Twelve and fourteen hours a day in the cotton mills of Lancaster at a few pence a day revived between the owners and the workers of those mills a relation of absolutism but little short of that existing between the priest and his followers and the chief and his followers. But one hundred years have elapsed since the economic organization of life laid heavy hand upon the workers in the bleak, weary cotton mills of England. Yet step by step with the tremendous development of economic resources there has been a steady liberalization in the relation of master and servant from its despotic manifestations in the earliest undertakings of industrialism.

As industrialism has advanced the demands for capital have driven out the individual owner and taskmaster to make room for the corporation with its thousands of owners, with their combined capacity to provide adequate means for the conduct of the business under healthy and reasonable conditions. Politically a freeman, the worker has combined with his followers to drive a bargain for is wages and conditions of employment. On his side of the case the organization of his economic power has manifested the same initial tendency toward despotism. By threat of power to withhold labor now vitally necessary to society, the railroad workers coerced the Congress of the United States in 1916 to pass a measure they advocated1, and the coal miners of England this year coerced the parliament to subsidize their industry. So far as it is within their power no man may work at a trade who does not join their ranks and pay into their coffers. So long as they may have influence to resist, no law shall be passed that may force them to reform any abuse.2

On Saturday, September 26th, the United Mine Workers called a strike in the non-union coal mines of the Fairmont coal field in West Virginia. They staged a parade through the streets of Fairmont and held an open air meeting addressed by John L. Lewis, President of the union. Accounts of this demonstration in support of the strike were wired to the large metropolitan dailies. The New York Times and The Herald-Tribune are said to have had their own reporters present. The whole business lent, as Pooh Bah said, "artistic verisimilitude" to an otherwise bold and unconvincing narrative. For the fact is, there is no strike in Fairmont. Nevertheless the demonstration is interesting both as example of a job lavishly done and as evidence of the inability of the United Mine Workers to arouse any present interest in their union on the part of the people or the miners in this field where they enjoyed complete control from 1918 to 1922. The Fairmont field comprises twelve and one-half counties in West Virginia in the valley of the Monongahela. Prior to 1916 it was entirely non-union. In that year a few of the smaller companies signed union agreements. In 1918 all of the operators, being members of the Northern West Virginia Coal Miners' Association, signed a contract with the union. Opinion in Fairmont is not explicit as to why this came to pass, but among the influences at work were pressure from companies operating union mines in other fields, the attitude of the Federal Fuel Administration, a high price for coal that permitted payment of the union scale, and a current popular notion that the maintenance of the union scale would assure prosperity to the miners and to the merchants and business men who depend upon the mining industry.

In 1922 the situation had changed in Fairmont as elsewhere. Demand for coal fell off and southern West Vir

ginia coal was cutting the Fairmont markets. When the agreement was signed, several smaller companies who had no long term contracts for their output refused to accept the Cleveland scale. They opened operations on a non-union basis, paying the 1917 scale. In 1924, it was generally understood between operators and the mine workers' district officers that the Fairmont field should

enjoy a differential scale to off-set heavy freight charges and permit it to meet southern West Virginia competition. When the operators arrived in Baltimore to sign such an agreement they found the district officers no longer in charge of their own affairs. Instead, national officers offered an agreement based on the Jacksonville agreement. They directed the operators to take it or leave it. Most of the larger operators immediately withdrew from their association. Those who were willing to risk the Jacksonville scale stayed in the association and the association signed.

So in April, 1924, out of 123 companies operating, 74 operated non-union and 49 union. operated non-union and 49 union. By January, 1925, of 153 companies operating, 129 operated non-union and 24 operated union. The non-union operators paid the 1917 scale. On April 1, 1925, the union called a strike of nonunion miners in the Fairmont field to establish the Baltimore agreement. The progress of this strike and the issues involved were described in an article on the strike published in 7 Law and Labor 151.

In August, 1925, there were some twelve or fifteen mines in this area still operating union. In that month union mines produced 310,000 tons and non-union produced 1,977,350 tons.

The strike of April 1st having thus clearly failed, Bittner, international organizer, published a strike call ten days in advance in the following naive terms:

"To all the Men Working in and around the
Non-Union Coal Mines of Northern West Virginia.
"Greeting:

"The majority of the miners who are now working in the non-union mines of Northern West Virginia have informed the officers and members of the United Mine Workers of America that they are dissatisfied with the wages now paid and the conditions prevailing and it is their desire to join the United Mine Workers of America and engage in the struggle for American wages and American standards.

"To make it convenient for all men working at the non-union mines to join the United Mine Workers of America, a special dispensation has been granted and you can join our union for an initiation fee of $1.00, which will be effective until September 26, 1925.

"Surely every mine worker in Northern West Virginia is proud of the privilege to belong to the United Mine Workers of America. Every coal miner in Northern West Virginia knows what conditions prevailed in this field prior to the advent of the miners' Union and these conditions will again prevail if the non-union coal operators could force the miners to accept them.

"Most of the coal companies that are operating nonunion in Northern West Virginia have abrogated their wage agreement with the United Mine Workers of America and are attempting to enforce a wage reduction at the point of a bayonet in the hands of hired thugs and gun men. This is only a sample of the conditions which will eventually prevail if the coal operators are successful in their attempts to destroy the United Mine Workers of America.

"All the loyal members of the United Mine Workers of America and their wives and little children appeal to every