The life of John Worth Kern

by Claude G. Bowers

II

It was in connection with labor legislation that Kern at this time fashioned his reputation as a public man—a reputation that was to make him ardent friends and powerful foes. Throughout his life his instincts had always impelled him to take up the cudgels for the lowly and oppressed. Even before entering the state senate he had written many bills for the legislative committee of the state federation of labor and the working classes naturally looked to him for leadership. The first battle along these lines in which he participated was in connection with legislation relating to the legal status of the labor union. In the first part of the session a bill had been introduced to legalize the unions and this had been instantly met by the introduction of a bill “for the protection of non-union laborers.” The Democratic caucus quickly disposed of the latter by rejecting it, and Francis T. Hord, its sponsor, threatened for a time to resign his seat. The former bill was bitterly contested and Kern had charge of the measure when it reached the senate. The “business interests,” as they called themselves, were greatly outraged at what they pretended to look upon as a direct interference with their rights. The purport of it was to make it a misdemeanor punishable by fine or imprisonment for any employer of labor to discharge or threaten to discharge an employee because of his connection with labor organizations, or to exact a pledge from them that they would not affiliate with the unions. Only a little while before Pinkerton detectives had shot down the laborers of the Carnegie plant to the applause of that element in the country which pretended to conservatism and respectability. That Kern’s views on the labor question were early formed, deeply felt and consistently held will be seen in the rather fiery speech he made in advocacy of the Deery bill:

“It is a crying shame that in this year, 1893, and in Indiana, there should be a demand for legislation of this kind. It is outrageous that the representative of a great corporation, created by public favor, clothed with the extraordinary power of eminent domain, grown fat and rich by favorable legislation, should have the hardihood to strike at the liberty of its workingmen by demanding of them that they give up membership in their unions, to which they are as devotedly attached as they are to church or party, under penalty of dismissal from employment. In other words, the alternative presented is “renounce your allegiance to your union or go forth without employment to face possible penury and want. ‘I hold in my hand the constitution of one of these organizations in which the purpose of its existence is set forth. It is a high and noble purpose—to rescue our trade from the low level to which it has fallen, and by mutual effort to place it on a foundation sufficiently strong to resist further encroachments; to encourage a higher standard of skill, to cultivate feelings of friendship, to assist each other to secure employment, to relieve our distress and to bury our dead.’

“This is the creed of the men whose organization is imperiled by the arrogant demands of corporate power and wealth and who are compelled to come to this body to ask protection. Mr. President, the paramount object of law is to protect the weak against the strong. Here is a case in which the protection of the laws is most properly invoked. It is an undisputed fact that in this city, where more than 10,000 labor union men are engaged in daily toil—earning a livelihood and piling up wealth for their employers—all loyal and law-abiding citizens, a great corporation, through its authorized agents, drives out its employees, faithful and honest, for the avowed reason that with true American spirit they declined to surrender their sovereignty and at the bidding of the master give up cherished principles and attachments.

“This anti-Pinkerton law was conceded to be and is a most beneficial measure, yet according to the arguments here it would fall under the ban of class legislation. So of the anti-pluck-me-store law and every other enactment in the interest of labor. Organized labor is the outgrowth of organized capital. Labor was organized in self-defense. For years and years and years organized capital was fostered and fed by favorable legislation, until it grew defiant and insolent and refused to treat with decent respect to the rights of the men whose toil gave them wealth. As a result labor organized that it might live—that it might have a share of its production. Its organization brought respect and dignity with it. It Americanized the laborer who had long been denied many of the rights of citizenship. Better work, better morals, better men, happier homes and firesides have resulted. The bill is right. No man who loves liberty should oppose it.”

This extract will suffice to indicate the general character of Kern’s defense of labor unions, and the speech was received with hearty commendation in labor circles throughout the country.

To appreciate the courageous nature of Kern’s act it should be borne in mind that organized labor was in its infancy; that the Knights of Labor only a little while before had gone to pieces; that the national government but four years before had not hesitated to turn the guns of American troops upon striking unionists; and that men calling themselves “conservative” were bitterly opposed to the new movement resulting in the organization of the American Federation of Labor four years before. But in addition to all this, there were local conditions which made Kern’s act one of rare courage. Scarcely a year before, when an effort had been made to organize employees of the street railroad company, the employers resorted to extreme methods to prevent the organization. A serious strike resulted. For several weeks Indianapolis was without street car service. The press, the business element, the “conservatives,” denounced the strikers and finally brought such pressure to bear that the mayor reluctantly consented to furnish police to accompany the cars. The strike was lost. The feeling was bitter. The most powerful influences in Indianapolis were uncompromisingly opposed to unions.

Kern’s speech was consequently notable, not only because it was a supremely courageous performance, but the first one ever uttered in the state senate of Indiana in advocacy of union labor.

The bill was passed and became a law. Labor never forgot the service—and neither did the enemies of labor.