which the criticism of my having ‘labor leaders’ to lunch, shrinks into the same insignificance as the criticism in a different type of paper about my having ‘trust magnates’ to lunch.  While I am President I wish the labor man to feel that he has the same right of access to me that the capitalist has; that the doors swing open as easily to the wage-worker as to the head of a big corporation—­and no easier.  Anything else seems to be not only un-American, but as symptomatic of an attitude which will cost grave trouble if persevered in.  To discriminate against labor men from Butte because there is reason to believe that rioting has been excited in other districts by certain labor unions, or individuals in labor unions in Butte, would be to adopt precisely the attitude of those who desire me to discriminate against all capitalists in Wall street because there are plenty of capitalists in Wall Street who have been guilty of bad financial practices and who have endeavored to override or evade the laws of the land.  In my judgment, the only safe attitude for a private citizen, and still more for a public servant, to assume, is that he will draw the line on conduct, discriminating against neither corporation nor union as such, nor in favor of either as such, but endeavoring to make the decent member of the union and the upright capitalists alike feel that they are bound, not only by self-interest, but by every consideration of principle and duty to stand together on the matters of most moment to the nation.”

On another of the various occasions when I had labor leaders to dine at the White House, my critics were rather shocked because I had John Morley to meet them.  The labor leaders in question included the heads of the various railroad brotherhoods, men like Mr. Morrissey, in whose sound judgment and high standard of citizenship I had peculiar confidence; and I asked Mr. Morley to meet them because they represented the exact type of American citizen with whom I thought he ought to be brought in contact.

One of the devices sometimes used by big corporations to break down the law was to treat the passage of laws as an excuse for action on their part which they knew would be resented by the public, it being their purpose to turn this resentment against the law instead of against themselves.  The heads of the Louisville and Nashville road were bitter opponents of everything done by the Government toward securing good treatment for their employees.  In February, 1908, they and various other railways announced that they intended to reduce the wages of their employees.  A general strike, with all the attendant disorder and trouble, was threatened in consequence.  I accordingly sent the following open letter to the Inter-State Commerce Commission: 

February 16, 1908.

“To the Inter-State Commerce Commission: 

“I am informed that a number of railroad companies have served notice of a proposed reduction of wages of their employees.  One of them, the Louisville and Nashville, in announcing the reduction, states that ’the drastic laws inimical to the interests of the railroads that have in the past year or two been enacted by Congress and the State Legislatures’ are largely or chiefly responsible for the conditions requiring the reduction.