The manufacturers were now, naturally, more deeply distrusted than ever on the East Side.[29] The doctrine of the closed shop became almost ritualistic.  Early in September, one of the Labor Day parades was headed by an aged Jew, white-bearded and fierce-eyed,—­a cloak maker who knew no other words of English than those he uttered,—­who waved a purple banner and shouted at regular intervals:  “Closed shop!  Closed shop!” That man represented the spirit of thousands of immigrants who have recently become trade-unionists in America.  Impossible to say to such a man that the idea of the closed shop had been an enemy to the spread of trade-unionism in this country by its implication of monopolistic tyranny.

Impossible, indeed, to say anything to Unionists whose reply to every just representation is, “Closed shop”; or to employers whose reply to every just representation is, “We do not wish other people to run our business.”  This reply the Marshall conference still had to hear for some days.  It was now the first week in September.  There was great suffering among the cloak makers.  On the manufacturers’ side, contracts heretofore always filled by certain New York houses, in this prolonged stoppage of their factories were finally lost to them and placed with establishments in other important cloak making centres—­Cleveland, Philadelphia, Chicago, and even abroad.  Two or three large Union houses settled for terms, in hours and wages, which were satisfactory to every one concerned, though lower than the demands on these points listed in the cloak makers’ first letter.

Curiously enough, wages and hours had been left to arbitration, had never been thoroughly considered in the whole situation before.  Neither the workers nor the employers had clearly stated what they really would stand for on these vital points.  No one, not even the most wildly partisan figures on either side, supposed that the first demands as to wages and hours represented an ultimatum.  The debaters in the Marshall conference now agreed on feasible terms on these points,[30] though, curiously enough, the rates for piece-work were left to the arbitration of individual shops.  In spite of this fact, the majority of the workers are paid by piece-work.  The former clauses of the agreement relating to the abolition of home work and of subcontracting remained practically as they had stood before.[31] As for the idea of the preferential Union shop, it had undoubtedly been gaining ground.  Naturally, at first, appearing to the Vorwaerts’ staff and to many ardent unionists as opposed to unionism, it had now assumed a different aspect.  This was the final formulation of the preferential Union shop in the Marshall agreement:  “Each member of the Manufacturers’ Association is to maintain a Union shop, a ‘Union shop’ being understood to refer to a shop where Union standards as to working conditions prevail, and where, when hiring help, Union men are preferred, it being recognized that, since there are differences of skill among those employed in the trade, employers shall have freedom of selection between one Union man and another, and shall not be confined to any list nor bound to follow any prescribed order whatsoever.