a union merely determines the rate of pay and the conditions of employment for such members of the union as agree to work; and the union is no more compelled to furnish a sufficient and definite number of laborers than the. employer to furnish a sufficient and definite amount of work. The union no more guarantees that any particular man will work than the employer guarantees that work will be provided for any particular man; and even if this guarantee did exist, the mere fact of incorporation would not render it more effective.

Some of the advocates of incorporation seem to desire to make the unions responsible not only for the authorized acts of their agents and officers, but for those of all members or of persons sympathizing with the unions but having no connection with them. The arguments of those who desire incorporation are curiously at variance in this matter. Some say that the unions should be forced to incorporate because they are not responsible for these actions; others claim that there is no reason why they should not incorporate, because they are even now liable for damages for such action, and that incorporation would really limit the responsibility of their members. They cite the recent Taff Vale decision in England, by which the court held that a trade union, though not incorporated, could be sued and mulcted in damages for unlawful acts of its agents in the course of a strike. At the same time, cases have recently been brought against individual members of trade unions, and these members have been held liable in damages for injury donc or alleged to have been done by the trade union. A number of advocates of incorporation, therefore, believe that unions, even if unincorporated, are liable or at least that their individual members are liable.

It is probable, though not certain, that a union is already responsible for its own illegal acts and for those of its authorized officers and agents; and incorporation would neither increase nor decrease this responsibility. The individual unionist is equally responsible for his individual acts, and this responsibility likewise is not increased or diminished by incorporation. It would not be possible by incorporation to make the union responsible for

the acts of unauthorized members or sympathizers, but if it were possible, this would constitute the strongest argument against incorporation.

One of the great drawbacks to incorporation is the vagueness of the law with regard to the rights of trade unions. There still remains in the minds of many of our judges a belief that trade unions have something in them inherently unlawful and of the nature of a conspiracy. There has been a tendency to consider trade unions in restraint of trade and labor and opposed to public policy. The judicial decisions upon the question of boycotting and striking have not been uniformly in harmony with modern ideas and ideals, and such things as peaceful picketing are not infrequently visited by the censure and punishment of the courts. It is questionable whether incorporation would really increase the responsibility and liability of trade unions, but as long as the law remains so vague and so capable of being used as a weapon against the unions, it is not to be wondered at that a proposal, such as that of incorporation, which is based exclusively on its supposed tendency to make the unions more liable to control by the law, should be inquired into with the utmost care.

Perhaps, to a certain extent, unionists have exaggerated the animosity of the judges of our superior tribunals. It is believed by many unionists that too many of our judges have secured and maintained their positions through services rendered or services to be rendered to large corporations. It has also been felt that many judges, while entirely honest and well-meaning, have been brought up to a manner of thought entirely at variance with the philosophy of trade unionism and without any appreciation of the dignity and rights of labor. The fundamental objection, however, is that the rigid application of a law, even if well conceived, might, through the fluctuating and ever-changing conditions of trade unionism, seriously affect the latter and prevent its growth along beneficent lines. There are some leaders of trade unions who believe that with the incorporation of the unions many of the present members would leave the organizations and many prospective members fail to join. This contingency is especially feared in the case of the non-English speaking elements in our laboring pop

This miner's home, propped up to keep it from falling, is valued at about $10, but the tenant pays $2.25 per month rent

ulation, who might not understand the extent and limitations of incorporated unions and might harbor toward them an unfounded jealousy or fear. Moreover, it is recognized by both workingmen and employers that the laws of incorporation, as they now exist, are not adapted to the incorporation of trade unions. No law would encourage incorporation, unless it expressly provided for a form of association distinct from the ordinary business corporation, unless it protected collective bargaining and the ordinary legal rights of workingmen on strike, unless it made the union alone, and not its unauthorized members, responsible for a breach or violation of a contract, and, finally, unless it was so conceived that the unions could actually secure the same legal redress from employers that employers could secure from the unions. At all events, no law at present existing among either the federal or the state statutes would be sufficiently flexible and sufficiently in accord with modern ideas to permit of the incorporation of the unions on a large scale.

The intervention of the courts in the affairs of trade unionism is in actual practice not feared on account of any prohibition of, or punishment for, illegal acts. Even now the union and individual members and officers actually concerned are apparently responsible for illegal acts committed by them. What the unions dread, however, is the interference of the courts. in matters which are not illegal, in other words, in the internal management and economy of the union. They also fear that the unions might become the victims of a definite policy of legal persecution. It would be possible for hostile employers to promote litigation between the union and individual members not in sympathy with the union upon questions of the internal policy of the organization; and the victory in such cases would rest with the longest purse. If an individual member were expelled from the union or suspended or even fined, it might be possible to carry his case by appeal to the supreme court of the state, if not to the supreme court of the United States. Litigation could be promoted upon the most trivial pretexts, and the funds of the organization could be spent in futile attempts to defend it. The union might be prevented from using the benefit funds for strike