to bear to clear the atmosphere.
Usually hot-headed sympathizers with the cause of labour agitation are
the principal advisers at such a time. We remember, and the trolleymen
certainly do, that at the critical juncture several summers ago, when
a final decision was to have been rendered by the striking trolleymen,
an agitator from Bridgeport not only agitated, but nearly managed to
turn the balance toward an irreparable break in negotiations. We
remember that New Haven people absolutely lost all patience at that
juncture, and would have stampeded from their thorough sympathy with
the trolleymen's cause had not better wisdom finally prevailed. Mr.
Irvine seems to have occupied that gentleman's shoes at the Saturday
night meeting, and to have acquitted himself much more to the taste of
the public. His interest was, we take it, purely that of any citizen
who has studied labour questions sufficiently to arrive at a fair and
unprejudiced point of view, and who, moreover, possessed the requisite
balance of mind and sincerity of purpose to counsel, when his counsel
was asked, judicially. There was absolutely lacking, in his whole
connection with the case, any of that sky-rocket, uncertain theorizing
that makes the attitude of so many labour 'organizers' so detrimental,
in the public eye, to real labour benefit. New Haven has considerable
to thank Mr. Irvine for in his attitude in the past crisis. More sound
advice and friendly counsel and wise sympathy from such men as he are
needed in labour troubles."

Another New Haven paper, commenting editorially on my attitude toward
a strike carried on by the bakers' union, said:

"We commend to the Connecticut Railway and Lighting Company, which has
now practically four strikes on its hands, in two Connecticut cities,
the sentiment of the Reverend Alexander Irvine, in his sermon last
Sunday night in reference to the striking bakers of this city who
declared against a proposition to arbitrate with the bosses. 'If they
have nothing to arbitrate,' said Mr. Irvine, 'they have nothing to
strike about.' The proposition would seem to involve a sound principle
of business ethics. An honest disagreement is always arbitrable. A
body of workmen who make a demand which they are unwilling to submit
to the judgment of a fair and intelligent committee deserve little
sympathy if they lose their fight, and an employer who refuses to
entrust his case to the honesty, fairness and justice of a committee