Attention was called, on the other hand, to the warm tribute given by the Federal Fuel Administrator to the bituminous coal miners who had brought production past the 13 million ton mark in the second week in July, 1917, and the exceptional efforts of diligent and patriotic workers in the shipyard. A portion of the press emphasized the unreasonableness of striking while the laboring people enjoyed, during war time, immunity from service and immunity from the pressure of competition for wages. The Springfield Republican protested against applying to the workingmen exaggerated standards of economic rectitude.
"It is easy to be harsh in one's judgment even in the case of the strikes that occur. Why do they strike at all while the war continues? Have they no capacity for self-sacrifice for the country? These questions will be asked by many people whenever war work anywhere is checked in the least degree by workmen dropping their tools.
"On the other hand, let us not be unjust to labor, for in the American Army in France labor is represented by multitudes of youth upon whose gallantry and steadiness all our hopes of victory depend. No class here at home gives 100 per cent. efficiency or commits itself to 100 per cent. of sacrifice in the winning of the war. Why demand it of the wage earners or the labor unions?
"Simply because of its organization and its machinery of leadership, however, labor enjoys an exceptional opportunity to contribute to the winning of the war. This is the first great war in history in which labor has been organized into an economic unit, and that is the reason for some special war problems today which were never encountered by governments in previous wars. But there can be gains even more than losses to the national strength by reason of this organization, if the opportunity be accepted to promote labor's contribution. This is a task especially for the leadership of organized labor. It is certainly no exaggeration to say that in no way can labor be advantaged after the war so much as by the wholehearted acceptance of its opportunity for loyal service to the nation during the war. Let labor splendidly do its part in bringing victory and its future influence will expand beyond the dreams of its prophets....
"Labor and victory are inseparable; nay more, the one may command the other, and thus it may control the fate of the world."
INDUSTRIAL MEANING OF WAR
Mr. H. E. Coffin, Chairman of the Committee on Industrial Preparedness, described the European War in its last analysis as a war of munitions, a war of factories, of producing powers, of sweating men and women workers. When the United States entered the war there were four main things required of its government and its people, viz., ships, munitions and materials of war, food and soldiers. It can be seen that three out of these four factors are matters that belong to the economic history of the war. Fortunately for our Government, it had the experience of foreign countries to learn from, and learning was an essential part of war preparation in spite of the resources in hand in the United States; as Mr. Coffin said:
"A close observation of the experience in foreign countries has shown us the vital necessity for a peace time prearrangement for conversion in all industries. Wars, as now waged, involve every human and material resource of a belligerent nation. Every factory and every man, woman, and child are affected. Every sinew of industry, of transportation, and of finance must be harnessed in the country's service. In England two years and a half ago there were three government arsenals. Today thousands of England's industrial plants are being operated as government factories for the production of war materials, and many other thousands of plants, still under private control, are centering their energies in this same direction.
"We have here in the United States vast resources in manufacturing and producing equipment, but they are unorganized and uneducated for the national service. Our observations of the European War have taught us that it is upon organized industry that we must base every plan of military defense. In the event of trouble with any one of the several first-class powers, between 80 and 90 per cent. of our industrial activity would of necessity be centered upon the making of supplies for the government. We have learned also that from one to two years of time and of conscientious effort are needed to permit any large manufacturing establishment to change over from its usual peace-time commercial line to the quantity production of war materials for which it has had no previous training."
In certain respects the position of the United States was unique, not only because of its resources but because it was to a certain extent self-dependent as a belligerent. England was able for some time to import large quantities of munitions and supplies from other countries. In the case of the United States when it entered the war, munition and food supplies had to come from its own resources. Practically all of the war materials had to be ultimately produced in the United States. Many observers were optimistic because they had a sanguine opinion of the efficiency presented by American industrial democracy. But efficiency alone could not win the war. There were certain limitations to the sphere of efficiency. This was pointed out by Mr. H. G. Moulton in an address on "Industrial Conscription," delivered before the Western Economic Society, at Chicago, in 1917: