896 to the charity organization societies
of the country, asking whether these societies approved of supplying
workers to take the place of striking employees. The answers, as
reported in the proceedings of the Twenty-third National Conference of
Charities,[5] seem to take it for granted that either all strikes are
equally justifiable or else equally unjustifiable; the fact being, of
course, that some strikes are entirely justifiable, that others are
quite the reverse, and that still others, which are justifiable at one
stage, become unjustifiable at another stage, where the ground of
contention has been shifted.

It is about such complicated relations as these that we must inform
ourselves when we dare to interfere, and charitable societies cannot
afford to adopt any patent formula with regard to them; they must be
courageous enough and intelligent enough to bear their part in the
solution of industrial questions. The individual friendly visitor may
be called upon at any time to advise an unemployed {32} workman whose
only immediate chance of work is in replacing a striker. His family
may be destitute, and their troubles may press heavily upon the
visitor, who sees in the offered work an easy solution of their
difficulties. But the visitor's duty toward the family does not end
with their material needs, and, unless the man who replaces the striker
is sure that the strike deserves to fail, he will have done an unmanly
thing in betraying his natural allies. All question of the right of
individual contract aside, he will have injured himself, he will be a
meaner man and a less worthy head of a family. Charity cannot afford
to ignore this possible result for any temporary and material
advantage. Nor will it be enough for the friendly visitor to believe
that the particular strike is an unjustifiable one; the man himself
must believe it.

Other things being equal, a man is stronger and steadier for having a
trade that is well organized, one that has its trade code of ethics.
It is safe to say, therefore, that a visitor is justified in advising
non-union men to join trade-unions, and that he is not {33} committing
himself to an endorsement of every act of every trade-union in so doing.

But applicants for charity are not usually skilled workmen, and most of
the work of the friendly visitor will be with those whose occupations
are still unorganized, with porters, day-laborers, stevedores, etc. In
spite of many asser