The wage-worker should not only receive fair treatment; he should give fair treatment.  In order that prosperity may be passed around it is necessary that the prosperity exist.  In order that labor shall receive its fair share in the division of reward it is necessary that there be a reward to divide.  Any proposal to reduce efficiency by insisting that the most efficient shall be limited in their output to what the least efficient can do, is a proposal to limit by so much production, and therefore to impoverish by so much the public, and specifically to reduce the amount that can be divided among the producers.  This is all wrong.  Our protest must be against unfair division of the reward for production.  Every encouragement should be given the business man, the employer, to make his business prosperous, and therefore to earn more money for himself; and in like fashion every encouragement should be given the efficient workman.  We must always keep in mind that to reduce the amount of production serves merely to reduce the amount that is to be divided, is in no way permanently efficient as a protest against unequal distribution and is permanently detrimental to the entire community.  But increased productiveness is not secured by excessive labor amid unhealthy surroundings.  The contrary is true.  Shorter hours, and healthful conditions, and opportunity for the wage-worker to make more money, and the chance for enjoyment as well as work, all add to efficiency.  My contention is that there should be no penalization of efficient productiveness, brought about under healthy conditions; but that every increase of production brought about by an increase in efficiency should benefit all the parties to it, including wage-workers as well as employers or capitalists, men who work with their hands as well as men who work with their heads.

With the Western Federation of Miners I more than once had serious trouble.  The leaders of this organization had preached anarchy, and certain of them were indicted for having practiced murder in the case of Governor Steunenberg, of Idaho.  On one occasion in a letter or speech I coupled condemnation of these labor leaders and condemnation of certain big capitalists, describing them all alike as “undesirable citizens.”  This gave great offense to both sides.  The open attack upon me was made for the most part either by the New York newspapers which were frankly representatives of Wall Street, or else by those so-called—­and miscalled—­Socialists who had anarchistic leanings.  Many of the latter sent me open letters of denunciation, and to one of them I responded as follows: 

THE WHITE HOUSE, WASHINGTON, April 22, 1907.

Dear Sir: