The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

MARINE REVIEW. [August 8, MARINE REVIEW Devoted to the Merchant Marine, the Navy, Ship Building, and Kindred Interests. Published every Thursday at No. 418-19 Perry-Payne building, Cleveland, Ohio, by THE MARINE REvIEW PUBLISHING Co. The strike of the employes of the United States Steel Corporation, which last week looked as though it might be settled amicably, now pre- sents the most foreboding aspect. It has been extended through the order of the president of the association to the union men employed by the National Steel Co., the Federal Steel Co. and the National Tube Co. President Shaffer's strike order is as follows: "Brethren: The officials of the United States Steel trust have refused to recognize as union men those who are now striving for the right to organize. The executive board has authorized me to issue a call upon all amalgamated and other union men in name and heart to join in the movement to fight for labor's rights. We must fight or give up forever our personal liberties. You will be told that you have signed contracts, but you never agreed to surrender those contracts to the United States Steel Corporation. Its officers think you were sold to them just as the mills were, contracts and all. Remember before you agreed to any con- tract you took an obligation to the amalgamated association. It now calls you to help in this hour of need. Unless the trouble is settled on or before Aug. 10, 1901, the mills will close when the last turn is made on that day. Brethren, this is a call to preserve our organization. We trust you and need you. Come and help us and may right come to a just cause." First of all this is an appeal to the emotions and not to the judgment. Shaffer displays a bias in the very first sentence by referring to the great corporation as the United States Steel trust. The word trust has been made odious and this is the reason doubtless why Shaffer uses it. The fact that it is incorrect seems not to weigh at all with him. The great corporation is far from being a trust. In fact, it has fiercer competition to meet than any of the great industries. The companies independent of the corporation are just as powerful as those associated with it. The cor- poration's companies are a little less vulnerable than most and that's about all the advantage which they have; but in this particular instance it is a matter for public congratulation that they are less vulnerable. We don't quite know what Shaffer means when he says that the corporation "has refused to recognize as union men those who are now striving for the right to organize." The corporation has recognized them to the extent of paying them a better wage than the union schedule and it has not sought to interfere with the union or its legitimate growth. It has very naturally declined to cultivate the growth of unionism, but it has thrown no obstacles in its way. Shaffer's statement that they must fight or forever give up their personal liberties is nonsense. The corporation is not seeking to interfere with the personal liberties of any man. He is as free to think and to act as he pleases so long as he does not trespass upon the right of others. The personal liberty of the employe is not questioned by the corporation but it seems to be most seriously interfered. with by the amalgamation itself. The amalgamation would deny to a' workman the right to work--a right which is inherent, sacred and unim- peachable. Is this not a most unwarranted interference with personal liberty? It seeks, moreover, to destroy individualism, which is the very base of personal liberty. It is destructive of ambition and it prevents men from attaining that to which their natural qualities give them title. Charles M. Schwab would never have been the president of the Steel Cor- poration had he joined a union and followed present-day union methods after he became an employe of the 'Carnegie company. Not that Mr. Carnegie would not have had him, but that the union, by destroying his individuality, would have prevented his advancement. This is one of the worst features of unionism. It puts all men upon a level and it makes the worthy support the unworthy. It prevents a really skilled man from getting all that he earns in order that someone else may get more than he earns. Mr. Shaffer also manifests that moral turpitude which distinguishes so many unions in their attitude toward contracts. They don't seem to understand that a contract is a moral obligation. It should be all the more binding upon the employe, because he has given nothing to secure it; the corporation secures it with every dollar of its tangible property. Yet Shaffer blithely says: "You have been told that you signed contracts, but you never agreed to surrender those contracts to the United States Steel Corporation." The United States Steel Corporation is merely a convenient vehicle wherein a number of underlying companies agreed to merge their interests and to accept the stock of the corporation in exchange for the stock of the underlying companies. The underlying companies did not lose their identity. They exist today as entities just as much as they ever existed. The corporation in accepting the stock of the underlying companies and giving in exchange therefor its own stock assumed all the contracts and obligations of the underlying companies. It has not sought to repudiate any of them. The contracts given to the underlying companies by the union men are just as binding today as they were the day they were written. They are not altered either in spirit 'or in letter or in law. The force of this would appeal to Mr. Shaffer were the corporation to seek to break these contracts. He would be the first to denounce it as a legal outrage and a violation of faith and he would be as clearly right as he is now clearly wrong. It is strange that he does not perceive the untenable nature of his argument, and stranger still, its gross injustice. But let us continue. He adds: "Its officers think you were sold to them just as the mills were, contracts and all." We do not know why Mr. Shaffer deliberately makes such an unequivocal statement as this. It is needless to say that the officers 'of the corporation think nothing of the kind. It is doubtless true that such a thought has never even occurred to any of them. They are not the sort of men who are capable of producing such thoughts. With the ex- ception of Mr. Morgan, who inherited a fortune, the executives of the steel corporation are all men who have worked for a daily wage. They comprehend the dignity of labor. They came up from the ranks broad- ening as they toiled, and understanding fully the workman's rights and his strength. Not one of them could conceive the folly of undertaking to sell a human being. We reserve for the last the worst paragraph in Mr. Shaffer's statement. It is this: "Remember, before you agreed to any contract you took an obligation to the amalgamated association." What does the man mean by this? What can he mean but one thing-- that obedience to the ritual of the amalgamation involves, if necessary, the violation of any agreement to which the union man may have sub- scribed. Of what avail is it, then, to enter into contract with any member of the amalgamated association? His bond is inscribed upon the sands and his promises are written in water. The president of the amalgama- tion preaches the doctrine of repudiation. It is upon such a platform as this that he stands before the people of the United States and asks their indorsement. The success of the amalgamation in the present strife would be a national calamity. We speak advisedly when we say that in our opinion no greater misfortune could befall the country than the success of the amalgamation. The position which they have chosen to assume is tyrannical in the extreme. Had there been the least warrant for their action one might view the outcome with interest, and probably with sympathy, but no one who judges the future can view it now with any other feelings than those of alarm. There is no question of the right of the union to exist; there is no question of the right of the union to extend its offices; there is no question regarding the employment of union men. All these were conceded before they were asked. There is a vital question as to whether the employers of the United States may impartially employ labor, whether it be union or non-union, and whether they shall manage the great institutions which their energy and brain have builded. Every dollar invested in a manufacturing enterprise in the United States is deeply concerned in the matter; every man who works with his hands is involved, for to him the issue is whether he is to be a union man or a free man. The country has cause to be thankful that men of such capa- cious intellects as compose the directorate of the United States Steel Cor- poration are managing the conflict. They have fought many battles in their time and they are not likely to surrender this one. The fight should be fought to a finish. Success is necessary to preserve the integrity of the industrial life of the nation. Of that there is sufficient evidence in the call of the president of the amalgamation. One of Boston's big department stores recently published the fol- lowing in the midst of its large display advertisement in the Sunday local papers: "Many customers have said to us 'Why do you advertise continu- ously? We always come to your shop when we desire to buy goods.' We believe that is true with thousands of our patrons, particularly the large number who have charge accounts, but we wish to increase this long list and our announcements of new articles and fabrics opening frequently are intended as a source of information from time to time of what is particularly new and desirable, as well as what is exceedingly reasonable in price. Many lots have to be disposed of at a great loss on account of excessive stock, injudicious buying or change of fashion. At such times the prices quoted are so very low that we want the information of these opportunities known far and near, both to our regular customers and the general public. So if you read our advertisements in the light of valuable 'information about our store you can send messengers or come yourself, confident such may be relied upon, and if you are made a satisfied cus- tomer we have accomplished our purpose, for a satisfied customer is the best advertisement known to us." The advantage which this department store has over its competitors is that it looks upon its advertising as news. Advertising, properly handled, is news. It tells the story of the world of trade. It is the re- flection of what is moving in commercial lines. The advertising pages of some magazines today are far more interesting than the pages devoted to reading. There is more meat in them. One gets downright information in studying them--far more, indeed, than he frequently gets in reading the literary section of the magazine. Moreover, the advertising pages are better illustrated than the reading pages of the ordinary magazine. Some- thing happens every day or every week in a business house or factory that is of interest to the public and it is of value to the merchant and manufacturer that the public should know it. No manufacturer should be without space in a trade paper which covers his particular line of in- dustry, and he should be continually telling his story to the trade. If he has a staple article he should tell why he considers it better than articles of similar character made by other manufacturers. He should be careful to make no statement which he cannot substantiate. If he gives his reasons earnestly and sincerely dealers will take his word for it. If he manufactures a specialty he should take pains to describe it, to tell what it will do and what labor it will save. If it is a good specialty advertising will make it sell. Persistent and judicious advertising pays. Every repetition of the advertisement is sure to meet a fresh pair of eyes. Con- tinuous advertising cannot possibly be a mistake. It opens up new fields and it convinces old ones. Secretary Long in his next annual report to congress will renew his recommendation that the bureaus of construction, steam engineering and equipment be consolidated under one head, to be known as the bureau of ships. The fact that these bureaus which have to do with the complete construction of a ship are under separate heads has much to do with the discord and friction which prevails in the navy department, It extends to every ship yard in which a government ship is building, because each bureau has its own special representative there. The three departments overlap and it is almost impossible to determine where one begins and the other ends. This makes a situation over which three jealous admirals can find plenty of opportunity to quarrel.