The strike of the textile workers has lasted more than a week, and no end is yet in sight. With respect to the extent of the strike, so many conflicting reports have been sent out that the public cannot form an accurate picture of it. Meanwhile, no one is in doubt that the struggle is being conducted with great bitterness. This is shown by the repeated clashes and by the number of dead and wounded. That our whole economic life is made to suffer gravely beneath the strike needs no proof.

The efforts of the reconciliatory board nominated by the President have been, until now, in vain. Taking the issues of the struggle under consideration, it becomes inconceivable that no understanding can be achieved. George Sloan, president of the Institute of Cotton Textiles, named five points as having to do with the struggle. It seems, however, that only the second is of actual importance. This point may be formulated in the following manner: Can the 2employers be compelled to deal with any workers' organization concerning their employees if those employees have not authorized that organization to represent them--either by joining said organization or by voting it their spokesman?

This question is answered by various employers with a decisive "No". In answer to this, the leaders of the strike contend that Sloan gave a false wording to the issue involved in the strike. According to them, it should be shaped as follows: Can employers compel their workers to abandon their right for collective bargaining by insisting that they should join a "company union" (so-called) which is in reality nothing but a make-believe union, instead of joining a union which is actually in a position to represent the employees and to protect their rights?

Thus, the issue of the strike is fully and clearly defined. The employers intend to negotiate with the employees only when the latter are organized in company unions. The leaders of the strike insist that the workers join unions belonging to the American Federation of Labor. Judging the situation impartially, 3one must needs arrive at the conclusion that both are wrong. Neither the employers nor the strike leaders have the right to decide what sort of union the workers should join. This right should be solely reserved to the workers themselves.

It accordingly becomes apparant that the cessation of the strike could be brought about with no great difficulty, provided a sincere desire for peace exists on both sides. In such a case, it might be sufficient for the board of conciliation to arrange for a vote by the workers, the result of which would show what sort of union they prefer. Naturally, no unanimity may be expected to result, but in such cases the majority always decides, just as happens in all organizations.

The leaders of the strike, however, contend that company unions are no true unions, but here, too, the decision should not rest with the strike leaders, but with the workers exclusively. If the majority of the workers prefer company unions, no one has the right to compel them to join other unions. On the other hand, should the workers decide in favor of unions belonging to the American Federation of 4Labor, then the employees should yield, for the right of the worker to organize must under no condition be denied.

If the board of arbitrators should not succeed in bringing about an understanding on this basis, the struggle will have to be continued to the bitter end. This would have catastrophic effects upon the textile industry and upon the economic life of the whole country. Much attention is given in England to the outcome of this strike; the textile industry there is already figuring on exporting to countries which get those goods from the United States. Once these markets are lost, it will be almost impossible to regain them.