of doubt returned a determined, 'That's the only
arrangement possible for the road and they'll have
to take it.' And they did -- and, as usual, liked
Baldwin better than ever. He would not concede
any right of the road in a matter of discipline,
and yet I never knew of an instance of resent-
ment. All respected his unflagging industry and
open, healthy life."

This leaves much to be accounted for. It sounds
in its bare statement familiarly autocratic. But it
does not sound like Baldwin. It assumes that his
own decision was the sole factor in the dispute. It
is not thus that men get on with human nature as
represented in labor organizations. It was moreover
against principles that were as the breath of life in
his whole attitude toward the trade-union. He was
at times a very stormy critic of abuses in these asso-
ciations. But he was never guilty of flaunting his
belief in unions and then secretly fighting those
features on which group efficiency depends. He
refused to adopt a method, much in vogue just now,
of selecting the more skilled and influential among
the workers with the secret purpose of beating the
union by paying those selected above the union
scale.

He took the open, high ground that if the labor
organization was faulty, the business management
should honestly try to coöperate with all that was
best in the union in order to rid it of its weaknesses.

-144-