Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 9.djvu/796

766 entire industry. But that this man or his active followers represented the present character or tendencies of labor-unionism in the metropolis, or throughout the country, is far from the truth. The labor movement is entitled to be judged by the solid, permanent elements that underlie it, rather than by the surface accidents of vicious leadership.

Parks is not typical. Neither, for that matter, are John Mitchell, Samuel Gompers, Frank P. Sargent, Henry White, Samuel B. Donnelly, Robert Neidig, and the like; but they are much more nearly so. Parks's union had no recognized affiliation with other bodies of organized labor in the metropolis, other than that its walking delegate, an office it has recently abolished, was a member of the old board of building trades. It is not represented in the local Central Labor Union, and has no connection with the American Federation of Labor. The reserve sentiment of New York workingmen was impressively shown, moreover, on Labor Day, when the usual contingent of from 25,000 to 50,000 in the labor parade was reduced to less than 10,000, all the rest refusing to march with Parks. And it is positively stated that a considerable number of the supposed "housesmiths" in line of march were not housesmiths at all, but were specially recruited political camp followers of ex-Chief of Police William S. Devery, who rode with Parks at the head of the procession. The aggregation was hissed all along the line. Even among the housesmiths, of the country at large, although Parks seemed in complete control of the last national convention, his influence was not all-powerful, since he lost his chief point in failing to prevent the re-election of President Buchanan.

The conditions represented in this struggle are not confined to New York. A crisis is being forced upon the whole labor movement by the arrogant excesses of its least reputable, but still powerful elements. If wiser counsels gain control—and promptly—it may ward off the concerted attack by employers' associations on labor-unionism in general, which the immediate situation promises. In the main, nothing more difficult is demanded either of the unions or of the employers, whether in the local disturbance or in the larger problem that is gathering