llen
violence of the mob against the sullen vigilance of the corporation. Yet
such methods have not always been used, for the union has done much to
systematize this guerrilla warfare. It has matched the ingenuity and the
resolution of the employer, backed by his detectives and professional
strike-breakers; it has perfected its organization so that the blow of
a whistle or the mere uplifting of a hand can silence a great mill. Some
of the notable strikes have been managed with rare skill and diplomacy.
Some careful observers, indeed, are inclined to the opinion that the
amount of violence that takes place in the average strike has been
grossly exaggerated. They maintain that, considering the great number
of strikes, the earnestness with which they are fought, the opportunity
they offer to the lawless, and the vast range of territory they cover,
the amount of damage to property and person is unusually small and that
the public, through sensational newspaper reports of one or two acts of
violence, is led to an exaggerated opinion of its prevalence.

It must be admitted, however, that the wisdom and conservatism of the
national labor leaders is neutralized by their lack of authority in
their particular organization. A large price is paid for the autonomy
that permits the local unions to declare strikes without the sanction of
the general officers. There are only a few unions, perhaps half a dozen,
in which a local can be expelled for striking contrary to the wish of
the national officers. In the United Mine Workers' Union, for example,
the local must secure the consent of the district officers and national
president, or, if these disagree, of the executive board, before it can
declare a strike. The tendency to strike on the spur of the moment is
much more marked among the newer unions than among the older ones, which
have perfected their strike machinery through much experience and have
learned the cost of hasty and unjustified action.

A less conspicuous but none the less effective weapon in the hands
of labor is the boycott, * which is carried by some of the unions to a
terrible perfection. It reached its greatest power in the decade between
1881 and 1891. Though it was aimed at a great variety of industries, it
seemed to be peculiarly effective in the theater, hotel, restaurant,
and publishing business, and in the clothing and cigar trades. For
sheer arbitrary coerciveness, nothing in the armory of the union is so
effe