"These arms and ammunition have doubtless been procured through interstate commerce*...."

Would Prohibit Use Of Firearms In Strike Wars

Secretary Wilson Rebukes Employment of Armed Guards
and Detectives

Men Without Authority Have Used Guns With Disastrous Effects

   Washington, Feb. 5.--Protest against the use of firearms and the employment of armed guards and private detectives  in labor disputes and strikes was made by secretary W.B. Wilson, of the Department of Labor, in his first annual report, submitted to President Wilson. He recommends congress enact legislation "within its constitutional limitations to regulate this business in the interest of public peace and order."

   "The use of firearms," said Secretary Wilson, "in a species of private warfare in connection with labor strikes, calls for serious consideration. Groups on both sides, without military or police authority for it, have used firearms with fatal effect in the coal strike in southern Colorado. These arms and ammunition have doubtless been procured through interstate commerce*; and many of the armed men are said to have been imported into Colorado from other states, through a business concern engaged commercially across state lines in supplying corporations with an armed and trained private soldiery, or police, in numbers running into hundreds and even thousands. In connection with the Pere Markuette strike in Michigan, armed guards, furnished by agencies in other states supplying men to take the place of local strikers, accompanied those men to Grand Rapids. They were turned back by the United States marshal under instructions from the district judge. In the Calumet copper-mining region, armed guards under contract with the employer were forwarded to the locality by agencies in other states."

   On relation of capitoal and labor, Secretary Wilson takes advanced ground. "The relation of employer and wage-earner," says he, "is no longer personal or individual," because both employers and operatives act in groups.

   "It is obvious," the report says, "that this method of employment generally necessary for success in modern industry, may give to employers great contractual advantages over wage earners. Unless wage earners also act collectively through their own agents, they are often at a practical disadvantage. Employers who act collectively in hiring wage earners are often averse to dealing with agents of wage earners who collectively offer their services. They desire to contract with wage earners individually. It is upon this point that labor disputes frequently spring up and become acute. In most instances in which employers accord workmen practical re[c]ognition of the right of [c]ollective exercise, fair relations
are maintained.

   "In any circumstances, differences must be expected to arise. In such cases the department of labor might possibly find a common ground for agreement which the disputants, in their eagerness for advantage or in the heat of their controversy, had overlooked."

   [Ed. Note: Yeah, like congress permitting industries to ship almost all of our manufacturing overseas. Or, to Canada and Mexico. Thereby destroying We The People's economy, as well as making our future very intangible. They chose to serve 'mammon' rather than their rightful masters - We The People. And this by combining with 'industry' in a conspiracy to undermine some of the very declared reasons for the forming of the Constitution of our Union. Such as; "in Order to form a more perfect Union", insuring "domestic Tranquility", and promoting "the general Welfare". Not to mention that congress, the courts, and the executive branches. Have seemingly done everything in their powers to make INSECURE "the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".]

   In that connection, it is suggested that congress clearly define the functions of the department of labor in the mediation of labor disputes and vote an appropriation adequate to meet the requirements of mediation work. In that way, it was suggested "the welfare of wage-earners could be fostered while the prosperity of employers and the peace and good order of society at large were conserved. Amicable settlements between the parties themselves, without mediation, are manifestly first in the order of preference. Mediation comes next. Arbitration third. But any of the three is preferable to strikes or lock-outs."

   The success already achieved by the department of labor, in the adjustment of labor controversies, demonstrates, in the judgment of Secretary Wilson, that such disputes nearly always may be adjusted to the profit of all interests; and he believes that the department "properly equipped, should be able to make mediation progressively popular with both the employing and the wage-earning interest of the country."

   The report contains a review of the labor controversies in which the good offices of the department of labor were exercised during the 10 months of its existence. In practically all of them, agents of the department were successful, although in the Colorado coal strike and in the Michigan copper strike no peaceful solutions yet have been reached, because, it was pointed out, parties to the controversies could not be induced to accept mediation.

   During the fiscal year ended June 20, 1913, 1,197,872 immigrants came to this country, an increase of 359,720 over the previous ye[ar]. Of those 986,355 were between 14 and 44 years of age, 147,158 were under 14, and 64,379 were 45 or over. Twenty-six per cent of the aliens admitted were believe in totally illiterate. The bulk of the immigration came from the countries ot southern and eastern Europe, only 15 per cent coming from northern and western Europe.

   While the immigration increased 43 per cent during the last year, the number of exclusions of arriving all ens increased only 24 per cent. That was due, the report indicates, to the financial and physical inability of the Bureau of Immigration properly to supervise the great number of arriving aliens.

   Under existing arrangements of the 6,859 Japanese who applied for admission during the year, 88 were excluded.

   Difficulties in enforcing the so-called Chinese exclusion law were discussed, with a view to the enactment of additional legislation and the getting of more money with which to protect the borders of the country. It was said that Chinese continually were being smuggled across tooth the northern and southern borders of the country, and that they come to the ports of entry as "merchants," students," "natives," and "sons of natives," when they really are laborers.

   Recommendations made by Commissioner General Caminetti of the Immigration Bureau, were called to the attention of congress, but were not submitted in the secretary's report.

   "With the sympathetic co-operation of congress," says Secretary Wilson, in conclusion, "the department of labor can effectively serve industrial interests, not only without injury to any, but with benefit to all."

- Bismarck Daily Tribune, Bismark, North Dakota, Friday Morning, Thirty-Fourth Year No. 82. February 06, 1914. Pg. 8.

* - Speaking of "constitutional limitations", it cannot be argued that Congress doesn't have that delegated authority of regulating "interstate commerce". For the Constitution expressly declares, in Article I, Section 8, that; "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". However, Congress also is expressly prohibited from interfering with arms in the hands of We The People. In that, in article two of amendment to our Constitution, it is expressly declared that; "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". And "regulation", by whatever term you want to phrase it, is most definitely an "infringement". The power of congress to "regulate" is confined to the "militia". The right to keep and bear arms is an expressly reserved individual right of We The People. It is corollary to the reserved right of "self-defense". It is a right intended to be employed against the government itself in the event it becomes tyrannical. It is a right that cannot ever be taken away by any legislative enactment. Nor by judicial decision, or even by presidential dictation. As is verified by Mr. Hamilton here:

   "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government . . . The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms..."--Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers No. 28.

   And by one of our first Presidents, who was also at the debates on the Constitution during its forming and adoption:

    "The right of self-defence never ceases. It is among the must sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals."-- President James Monroe, Nov. 16, 1818 message to the U.S. House and Senate. [Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, November 17th, 1818..]

   As well as by a Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, also present at the debates on our Constitution, here:

"Also, the conditions and circumstances of the period require a finding that while the stated purpose of the right to arms was to secure a well-regulated militia, the right to self-defense was assumed by the Framers."-- Chief Justice John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court. [As quoted in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846); State v. Dawson, 272 N.C. 535, 159 S.E.2d 1, 9 (1968).]

   In addition to a well learned United States Senator here:

   "From among the rights retained by our policy, we have selected those of self defence or bearing arms, of conscience, and of free inquiry, for two purposes; one, to shew the vast superiority of our policy, in being able to keep natural rights necessary for liberty and happiness, out of the hands of governments; the other, to shew that this ability is the effect of its principles, and beyond the reach of Mr. Adams’s system, or of any other, unable to reserve to the people, and to withhold from governments, a variety of rights."-- John Taylor, Revolutionary Soldier and U.S. Senator, (1792 – 94, 1803, 1822 – 24). [An Inquiry into the Principles and Policy of the Government of the United States: Section the Sixth; THE GOOD MORAL PRINCIPLES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, (1814).]

   The fact that congress was restrained from using one article of the constitution in order to override another. Was made crystal clear by a United States Supreme Court Justice here:

   "An amendment of the constitution is of still higher authority, for it has the effect of controlling and repealing the express provisions of the constitution authorizing a power to be exercised, by a declaration that it shall not be construed to give such power. 3 Dall 382."--U.S. Supreme Court Justice BALDWIN, Circuit Court of The United States, [PENNSYLVANIA APRIL TERM 1833 BEFORE Hon. HENRY BALDWIN, Associate Justice of the [U.S.] Supreme Court, Hon JOSEPH HOPKINSON District Judge, Johnson v Tompkins, (13 F. Cas. 840 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1833)), and others.]

   In addition, the United states Supreme Court had also ruled that:

   "The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States."--United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).

   "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."--Miranda vs. Arizona, U.S. Supreme Court, 384 US 436, 491, (1966).

   It is also worthy to be remembered, that our first President had also declared to Congress that:

   "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end, a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent of others, for essential, particularly military, supplies."--George Washington, Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, Jan. 8, 1790.

   It is thus made quite clear that the federal government has grossly overstepped its bounds. And is not only exercising powers not delegated to it. But has tyrannically exercised authority that was expressly denied to it in We The People's Constitution. We The People are living in a tyranny, and it is up to us to throw it off....