THE INJUSTICE OF INJUNCTION

The Gauntlet Is Thrown

It was an unusually cold Tuesday morning on March 3 as Reuben arrived at the Illinois statehouse. Wrapped in a borrowed overcoat, he hurried up the steps to the Judiciary Committee meeting. As he entered the chamber he removed his weather-worn jacket to reveal a pressed suit and white button-on collar closely hugging his neck: the day was especially important because the Committee would hear his Injunction Limitation Bill, which needed their approval to move to the House floor.

The storm clouds had been gathering for years over the courthouses and labor halls of Illinois, and labor and manufacturing alike braced for the next legislative battle over the widespread use of workplace injunctions. In the 1920s, Reuben saw anti-labor injunctions used to stop workers from simply gathering together to discuss their workplace plights. Manufacturers often locked out workers and then immediately imposed injunctions preventing them from gathering together, emasculating laborers both financially and politically. Injunctions could kill a strike in its infancy under the pretext of procedural protection. “They tell us to go to the higher courts for a remedy,” testified ISFL President John Walker, “But the damage is done with the issuance of the restraining order. The workers are overawed by it, and the strike is broken. All we ask is that the legislature define the ways in which the injunction may be used so as to preserve for the workers their rights of peaceful assemblage.”[1] Reub’s ally and Secretary-Treasurer of the ISFL, Victor Olander, highlighted the hypocrisy of such “protections,” noting “It is a significant fact that the injunction as issued in labor disputes is always directed against the working people and never against the employer. That indicates quite plainly that it is an instrument designed to maintain the interests of one class of citizens against the interests of another class of citizens and is thus foreign to the purposes and intent of both the state and federal constitutions.”[2]

And so Reuben was determined to eliminate injunctions from Illinois once and for all. On January 27, he introduced the Injunction-Limitation Bill, designated House Bill 28 (HB 28). Drafted by the ISFL and the Joint Labor Legislative Board, the act:

—Declared the right to organize “inherent and unalienable”

—Denied injunctions barring free speech, free press, or peaceable assembly from being granted

—Limited injunctions in labor disputes to “irreparable injury to property or a property right for which there is no remedy in law”, with the irreparable loss particularly described in the application

—Defined human labor is “an attribute of individual life” which cannot be treated as a commodity or property

—Prevented injunctions from barring people from collectively performing activities that would be lawful individually[3]

It was an audacious and ambitious bill, one that had failed the previous time Reub presented it. This time, however, he had some new tricks up his sleeve.

Round One: Committee Standoff

Soon after his arrival to the Judicial Committee, over thirty representatives took their seats to hear testimony from the opposing parties. Reading the ISFL Weekly News Letter, one can easily imagine the scene in the paneled hearing room. In labor’s corner sat John Walker and Victor Olander from the ISFL alongside Father John Maguire, a Priest and Instructor from St. Viator College. Each man cut a strikingly different pose—Walker stewing with anger from many years of oppression by injunction; the diminutive father quietly carrying an outsized aura of authority in economics and religion; and of course Victor, sitting as a giant of a man both in intellect and physical size. Across the room sat three attorneys, one from the District Attorney’s office, another from the Associated Employers of Illinois and another from Glenn’s Illinois Manufacturers Association, all of them watching as Walker opened the testimony. As the ISFL Newsletter chronicled, “Walker discussed the development of the injunction system as used against labor during industrial controversies and pointed out that while peaceful persuasion during strikes had been recognized as lawful by the law side of the courts it was being held unlawful on the equity side. The injunction writ, he stated, is being used as a strike breaking instrument.”[4]

Committee Representatives opposed to labor did not sit quietly as Walker made his case. Early in his testimony, they began “hurling a volley of questions” at the ISFL President. Giving as good as he got, he was, in Reub’s words, “intensely human…carrying forward the story of labor” in every response.[5]

Speaking after Walker, Father Maguire made the moral argument for the bill. In a manner at once both cerebral and compassionate, Father Maguire “Urged the need for social justice and in the course of his address stated that this was an effort to restore human rights that have been invaded by the courts and that the giving of lawmaking power to one judge deprived men of the right of trial by jury…He further stated that the right of the working man to a living wage was “as sacred as the right of a property owner to his building.”[6]

As Father Maguire sat down, the opposition came forward. First up was Cyrus Dietz, a lawyer for the Associated Employers of Illinois, who immediately attacked Reub’s bill on constitutional grounds, declaring that the legislature had no right to encroach upon the powers of the judicial branch. Comparing striking workers to abusive husbands and deadbeat tenants, he sneered, “It is absurd for the workers to ask for special protection from the injunction, as if all persons engaged in divorce suits or all tenants disputing with their landlords were to combine for the purpose of fighting the use of restraining orders in that sort of litigation.”[7] He then turned on Father Maguire’s comparison, declaring labor was property as well. This argument seemingly invalidated Reub’s bill, which held human labor to be “an attribute of individual life.”[8]

At this point, The ISFL Weekly News Letter reports, a pro-labor legislator energetically engaged in the discussion, and it is reasonable to conclude that this man was Reub. The Association’s man was cross-examined: “If labor is property, who owns it? How is it transferred?” Dietz replied that the work of a man was owned by his employer, paid for by his wage. “But you’re speaking to the product of a man’s labor, don’t you see?” came Reub’s quick reply. “What of the labor itself?”

It was an answer Dietz had not anticipated. Nervous, he tried to repeat that what a man makes is owned by his employer. Reub cut him off. “You’re failing to make the distinction between ‘labor’ and the ‘products of labor.’ I ask you again, sir, if labor is property, then who is the owner? Is it not the working man who owns his labor, and who is thus entitled to the freedom, liberty, and equality extended to him by this bill?” Dietz declined to make the distinction and sat down. Otto Jaburek and Colin Fyffe, attorneys for the AEI and IMA respectively, followed Dietz, but neither offered much of a defense after being so aggressively questioned by Reuben Soderstrom. Victor then closed the case for labor. Putting his formidable memory to use, he “Presented into evidence a number of specific injunctions, including the Rock Island garment workers’ case, the carpenters’ case against the Citizens Committee in Chicago, the Streator cases, the Chicago garment workers and other cases with relation to the so-called ‘yellow-dog’ contracts in which workers are compelled to sign away their rights, closing his address with a reference to the British Trades Disputes Act.”[9]

Reub’s bill was recommended to the House for passage by a vote of 17 to 13. As the Alton Telegraph reported at the time, “Soderstrom himself seemed quite optimistic of the success of the bill, after it was recommended by the judiciary committee late yesterday afternoon. He thought it would go through the house without much trouble, and said that it would probably come up for passage within two or three weeks.”[10] The committee meeting, however, proved only the first of many battles to come.

Round Two: Early Voting

As the Soderstrom bill came to the House floor for the first time, Reub readied himself for a wider fight. Reub had to be especially vigilant; for as the ISFL correctly noted “the second reading is the stage at which bills are frequently subjected to attack by the submission of amendments calculated to defeat original purpose and effect of the measures at which the amending motions are directed.”[11] However, Reub was “prepared for all emergencies when the bill was called upon. He stood ready…to defend the bill with facts and figures sufficient to convince any thoughtful and unprejudiced lawmaker. The enemies of the measure made no move, however, and it passed up to the order of third reading with silence among the opposition.”[12]

The lack of amendments didn’t signal a dearth of opposition. Rather, it demonstrated the complete contempt the manufacturers had for the act and their confidence that the legislation would never pass. They had reason for their smugness; not since the Workman’s Compensation Act of 1911, passed in the wake of the Cherry Mine Tragedy by Reub’s mentor, John Williams, had a major piece of pro-labor legislation been put into law. Glenn and his boys had no need to amend the Soderstrom Bill because they had determined early on to never let it see the light of day, and were certain they had their hands in all the right pockets to make sure it stayed dead.

Reub knew better. He’d spent the last several years carefully cultivating relationships that he now believed could wrangle him the votes he needed. His legislation already had the backing of many Democrats, whose constituencies wanted the bill. With a Democratic base solidified, Reub used his Republican status to quietly build a coalition of Republican lawmakers willing to support the act. He wasn’t alone; both Governor Small and Speaker Scholes, both Republicans, were supporters of Labor, and weren’t afraid to whip up the necessary votes. Small had let it be known publicly that he wanted the bill to pass.[13]

Key to Reub’s strategy was shoring up the new class of legislators who’d received labor support. In the weeks leading up to the 1924 election, the ISFL had endorsed a crop of young legislators in their freshman and sophomore bids, helping them to win tight races. Now it was time to collect. Day after day, Reub crossed the floor of the house taking meeting after meeting with new Representatives. He dominated the conversations with arguments both rational and personal, alternating between the demonstrable need for reform and his own experiences in Streator over the last two years, when multiple injunctions had left him a virtual prisoner in his own hometown. Over the next two weeks Reub collected private assurances right under Glenn’s nose, readying himself for the vote.

On the morning of Tuesday, March 31, Reub took to the House floor and called the bill up for a third reading and roll call. He watched closely as every vote was cast, carefully checking the tally. As the ayes started to mount, IMA lobbyists ran to their men, mixing promises and intimidation to stem the tide; they at least secured nine “silent” votes—Representatives declaring themselves absent—in an effort to prevent Reub from reaching a mandated majority of the 77 yes votes required for passage.

As the count wore on, Reub paced up and down the aisle of the general assembly and looked worriedly at several empty chairs. Seven of his own men, sure yes votes, were not in the chamber. As the vote neared closing, he sat down and realized he didn’t have the votes necessary and immediately took action. As The ISFL Weekly News Letter Describes:

When it became evident that the bill would be three votes short of the constitutional requirement, Representative Soderstrom…sprung to his feet and presented a motion to postpone consideration of the bill to a future date. Speaker Robert Scholes put the Soderstrom motion to a vote and declared it carried. This action prevented a defeat and made possible another vote on the measure…when it is hoped that several representatives who were absent will be present to vote for the bill.[14]

The vote was rescheduled for later that April.[15]

Reub fell two votes shy. He needed to regroup. Where could he find two more votes? And why were seven “yes” votes suddenly absent?

Round Three: Intimidation

Glenn had been caught off guard. Reub, a stubborn nobody from a town he thought he’d taken out of play years ago, had come out of nowhere and nearly beat him on the single most important piece of legislation in Illinois. As a result, Glenn sent out a special bulletin to all IMA members warning them of this “communistic and unwarranted attack upon property rights.”[16] Praising injunctions as “the great bulwark against the unlicensed assaults made upon the rights of property and the integrity of the independent worker against the encroachment of the labor union dictatorship,” he called on his full membership to write and wire their representative instructing them to reject this “vile act.”[17]

With his base ginned up, Glenn brought the hammer down in the Assembly. He personally visited all the freshman and sophomore representatives who’d voted against the IMA. Though missing Reub’s heart, Glenn matched him in conviction; his lack of compassion was compounded by a spirit of viciousness. A “complete partisan in methods and spirit,” Glenn reminded the representatives they were in competitive districts.[18] While the endorsements they’d gotten from Labor might have helped them squeak by in the past, labor’s support meant nothing compared to the weight of the Manufacturers’ power. He made sure they knew that a second yes vote would turn substantial dollars against them in ’26.

Glenn was effective. By the time of the second vote on April 28, five of the Freshman representatives Reub courted—Anderson (D), Hoff (D), Martens (D), Babb (R), and Waller (R)—voted either absent or against the bill, despite endorsements from labor in their elections. Another two sophomore representatives, Lohmann (D) and Kribbs (D), also voted against the bill, despite voting mostly with labor in the previous term.[19] As the vote closed, Reub pleaded and assailed them in turn, trying to find any way in to get their vote. It was no use; Glenn had them now, and there would be no prying them loose. In the end, Reub’s bill HB 28 lost by an even greater margin than it had the first time: 74 to 62, with fourteen “silent” votes.[20]

JM Glenn most certainly sat back in his chair in the Assembly galleys and allowed a small smile curl up on his lips.

Round Four: Building the Vote

Reuben refused to lay down and die. Mulling over the roll calls, he realized that the path to success in the House went directly through the Senate. As he later recalled:

The injunction bill came up, and it got some 75 votes...when I brought it up again it got 74 votes. I sat down and analyzed the two roll calls…I went down to the Governor’s office (I was friendly with Governor Small) and I requested him to call his group (I think I used the word gang) in the Illinois Senate, and urge them to pass the injunction bill, see. The Senators over there are likely to pass it because they’ll say it’s been killed twice in the House and for that reason it can’t pass. But Governor, here are the two roll calls, and I know I have 77 votes. I think if the Senate bill will come over with all of this information and the argument that I have for this type of legislation, and I think we could pass it. And he smiled at me, and he said all right.[21]

Reub and Governor Small tapped Senator Daniel Weber of Chicago, a legislator trusted by both the Governor and labor, to introduce the bill in the Senate. They soon brought in Senator Cuthbertson, and by late May the Cuthbertson-Soderstrom bill made its way out of committee. Reub meanwhile began feeling out representatives, particularly those who’d voted “no” or “silent” the two times previous to see what it would take to bring them on board. His search led him to a group of diverse Republicans with some common concerns about the bill. This grab-bag group included men such as Ed Ryan, a sophomore legislator and farmer from Lawrenceville, and C.E. Sawyer, representative from Kankakee. Ryan and Sawyer had different constituencies and mixed voting records when it came to labor, each supporting some bills while opposing others (both had voted against Reub’s One Day Rest in Seven bill).[22] But saliently, both had the same concern with the Injunction Limitation Bill; they worried that it would give license to violent brawls like those seen on the streets of Streator during the Open Shop Campaign. In an attempt to win their vote, Reuben talked with them at length, giving assurance that this bill only limited abuse of injunctions, and only prevented them from being used for illegitimate concerns. Despite his best efforts, they still hedged their support, claiming private assurances weren’t enough.

It is at this point where one can imagine Reuben sitting alone at the little wooden desk in his Springfield hotel room, reflecting on the role of assembly in a democratic society, and society’s need for safety and security. The newspapers were rife with reports of barbaric behavior from striking workers across the state. So Reub dug deep and made a substantive adjustment to labor’s thinking about strikes: if workers did not want to suffer injunctions, then their gatherings would have to be peaceful. The next day, he and Senator Cuthbertson amended their bill; it now read that injunctions could not be used to restrain people from “peacefully and without threats or intimidation” recommending, advising, or persuading other to join in a strike. In what the ISFL called an “excess of caution,” the Senate inserted the language four different times in the 150-word act.[23] Striking laborers would have to resort to peaceful protests, and Reuben was content with the change.

Round Five: Unions and Race

The Soderstrom—Cuthbertson bill passed the Senate. But as it wound its way through Senate speeches on its way to passage, another, even deeper division emerged. During the bill’s final reading in the Senate, Adelbert Roberts, the Senate’s only African-American member, stood at the lectern and heaped criticism on both the bill and unions in general. According to the ISFL, “Senator Roberts said, in substance, that his opposition to the trade unions was based upon the claim that the unions discriminate against Negro workers.”[24] The tremors of this speech shook Reuben. No one could credibly argue that there weren’t deep racial divisions within labor. As Bob Gibson, a future AFL-CIO Treasurer later recalled, “We used to have separate locals based on ethnic and racial lines. There was the Italian carpenters union, the Irish carpenters union, and the Black carpenters union.”[25] As Senator Roberts revealed, the black workers in Illinois did not see labor unions as a welcoming home of workers’ rights but rather an unruly instigator of racial divisions. Roberts’ opposition in the Senate gave voice to this tension, and he wasn’t alone; as Reub went back and scanned the rolls of the previous House votes, he saw that all four African-Americans there had voted against the bill. As ISFL President Walker explained to Ben Ferris of the Chicago lathers, after speaking with the black legislators:

The colored representatives voted against our injunction-limitation bill…because, they said, that they dare not go home to their districts (my information is that they are living in districts that are largely populated by colored people) if they voted for any measure which the trade union movement was supporting, on account of the fact that their people said that the Trade Union Movement is trying to prevent them from making a living in Chicago, particularly citing the action of your local union which refuses to permit colored lathers to belong to their union, and which they say, even where they do belong to a colored local union of your international organization, prevents them from getting work in the general construction work in which members of the labor movement are employed in Chicago… Senator Roberts (colored) from Chicago…says he wants to vote for labor’s measures…but on account of union labor being opposed to it [anti-union bills], that if he voted in opposition to it, that it would mean his political finish with his people; he says they tell him that the unions are all against them in Chicago.[26]

Reuben realized the Illinois labor movement needed to wake up to the cause of the black worker, to embrace him as an important and valuable constituent. Those four votes in the House could make the Injunction-Limitation bill a reality. Labor needed the Negro vote. Labor needed to welcome the Negro worker. The ISFL began reaching out to African-American representatives, attempting to address the discrimination their communities faced. Although lacking the political authority to force unions to adopt colored workers, President Walker committed his moral authority and considerable powers of persuasion to create change. As he continued in his letter to Ferris:

I sincerely hope that you will be able to get your local union to change this attitude, because it is not only injurious to all working men and women, and their families in this state, but it is wrong from the point of view of the Trade Unionists everywhere. The Trade Union Movement does not believe that a man should be discriminated against, just because of the color of his skin. It was founded for the purpose of protecting those who were unable to protect themselves—the weak and helpless, and it should not be used as an instrument of oppression or persecution of the weak and the helpless.[27]

Walker also highlighted the contribution of “colored workers” to the AFL in the Illinois chapter’s Weekly News Letter. He gave special attention to an address given by T. Arnold Hill, director of the Department of Industrial Relations of the National Urban League, on the disposition of “the colored workers toward unions” before the AFL Executive Council. In it, Hill cited a declaration made by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) at their 1924 convention which read, “Intelligent Negroes know full well that a blow at organized labor is a blow at all labor. That black labor today profits by the blood and sweat of labor leaders in the past who have fought oppression and monopoly by organization.” He declared that “colored workers were anxious to organize as they believed they should receive the same wages as white workers.”[28] This message—that unions could and should be natural allies of the black community in their fight for equality—was one Walker made sure all union members in Illinois heard loud and clear.

Victor Olander, meanwhile, attempted to make the case that unions and the black community held common cause. He published a major work drawing direct connection between injunctions, which barred union members from striking or stopping work, and the depravity of American slavery:

What is it that separates the free man and the slave? It is this, that the man who is free has the right to refuse to remain in the service of others, to withhold his labor, to consult freely with his fellows and to join with them in bringing about improved standards of life and work. The slave is a slave because he is by law prevented from leaving the service of those for whom he works without their consent. He may not withhold his labor. He is not permitted to consult freely with his associates…Whenever an injunction judge issues a so-called restraining order…he is endeavoring, either consciously or unconsciously, to tear the robes of liberty from the shoulders of free men and women effected by this order and compelling them to accept the shameful garb of slaves.[29]

Paramount to all, in a meeting on the evening of May 29 at ISFL headquarters, a committee of 26 African-American trade unionists adopted a memorial urging all lawmakers of color to pass the Soderstrom-Cuthbertson Bill. It is unknown whether Soderstrom, Walker, or Olander were present at this meeting, or were instrumental in its organization, but it is not merely coincidental that African-American votes were important in the immediate session. The committee selected four of their own to act as a special envoy to personally petition Representatives Warren Douglas, Charles Griffin, William King and S.B. Turner. The memorial read in part:

The American Federation of Labor, in the obligation presented to every man who joins in direct membership through one of its directly affiliated local unions, calls for this promise as condition of membership: “To be respectful in word and action to every woman; to be considerate to the widow and the orphan, the weak and defenseless; and never to discriminate against a fellow worker on account of creed, color or nationality.” An examination of the records of the American Federation of Labor will show that it has always stood for justice to the Negro workers…

Please understand that, as thoughtful members of our race, conscious of its needs and problems, that we are not assuming to take the position that discrimination does not exist. But we insist that the way to remedy that condition wherever it does exist is not by arousing additional antagonism by taking a stand which would be injurious to our white brothers, but, rather, while insisting upon justice for members of our own race, we also insist upon justice for all others…

We desire to direct your attention to one very important measure which has already passed the Senate and is now pending in the House. It is Senate Bill N. 442, generally known as the Injunction-Limitation Bill and frequently referred to as the Cuthbertson-Soderstrom Bill. In effect it provides that no injunctions shall be issued enjoining working people when on strike from ‘peaceably and without threats or intimidation, recommending, advising, or persuading’ others to join with them…the purpose (of injunctions), of course, is to discourage strike activities and thus to, by indirection, do something that under the constitution of the United States cannot legally be done directly, namely, to put pressure upon men, through government authority, to keep them at their work. Now let us call your attention to the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States prohibiting involuntary servitude and slavery. That great amendment grew out of the misery and suffering of our race. Of all the people of the United States, we should understand it best…

Shall it be said that members of our race in the Illinois legislature have persisted in taking the position that will prevent passage of a law in harmony with our own pleas for freedom? Shall it be said, when the General Assembly adjourns in a few weeks hence, that the injunction-limitation bill, designed to promote the freedom which we all crave, was defeated because the Negro representatives in the lawmaking body voted against it? We hope not, and in the faith that a consciousness of the great need of our people to be better understood by all of the other people of our state and nation, you will stand for the fullest measure of freedom and liberty for all, we submit this memorial to you.[30]

With that ringing endorsement in hand, Reuben headed directly back to Springfield, where his bill had passed the Senate and was again to be introduced to the House for the third time that session.

Round Six: Knockout!

As soon as the doors to the Illinois House galleries opened on June 10, 1926, JM Glenn promptly filled the room with his men—swarms of industrialists brought in from all corners of the state at his personal call. In his 26 years as permanent secretary of the Illinois Manufacturers Association, Glenn had never lost a match against the ISFL, and he’d be damned if he’d break that streak in the 1925 session on a thrice-introduced bill by a pesky legislator from Streator who had already lost an election just a few years earlier, only to bounce back into the statehouse with verve and tenacity.

Reuben confidently took to the floor and “opened the discussion by an eloquent portrayal of the important role played by trade unions in the progress of human society, and the manner in which injunctions had been misused to check that essential progress.”[31] He implored the legislature to restore the rights of its citizens:

The constitutional rights of free speech and free press are violated by the sort of injunctions complained of, and the right of trial by jury is denied to accused workers…Equal justice for all can be established in Illinois only though such legislation as is proposed by (this) House Bill…The working people have fought their way upward from bondage and slavery to the point where the law recognized their right to organize for the purpose of helping each other to secure improved conditions, of life and labor, but this very essential right of organization, established in law, is now being denied by injunction judges.[32]

With the full attention of the House, Soderstrom dramatically pulled from his jacket the injunctions issued against himself in Streator, Illinois, and held them high in the air as he spoke. With words full of the pain and heartache that these sanctions had caused, Reub made an impassioned plea. His sister Olga recounted:

Reub had a number of injunctions served on him and he was limited to just certain areas in Streator where he could walk or visit. One area ended at the Santa tacks; he could not cross them so he couldn’t even visit his mother. He took these injunctions with him to Springfield, waved them in the air in the Assembly Hall so all his co-legislators could see them and made them aware of the fact that one of their honorable legislators was under this strain, of what he felt was illegal…Injunctions were used among the workers, they were deprived of their rights, no freedom of speech or peaceful assembly, or a free press was not to be allowed “Labor!”[33]

With the room in rapt attention, Reub then retired to his seat. Glenn’s move was next and he went straight to the heart of Reuben’s new found constituency—the Negro worker. As The ISFL Weekly News Letter reported, “The opposition opened its attack upon the bill through one of the Negro Representatives, Sheadrick B. Turner, of Chicago. Representative Turner made a furious onslaught against organized labor and charged that working people of his race were being discriminated against by the American Federation of Labor, saying that for this reason he would vote against the Limitation Injunction Bill.”[34]

Glenn sent one Representative after another to eviscerate the bill’s supporters. Debate raged for over two hours, with those for and against the bill launching heated rhetoric late into the afternoon:

[The vote fight] in the legislature was a veritable tug of war between the Illinois State Federation of Labor and the Joint Labor Legislative Board on one side, and the lobbyists of the Illinois Manufacturers’ Association, the Illinois Chamber of Commerce and the Associated Employers, on the other…When the final scene was staged on the floor of the House as the roll call began the situation was as tense as ever witnessed in the legislature…the ‘ayes’ and ‘nays’ responded sharply to the droning call of the clerk until the last name had been uttered. The affirmative vote had reached only 74![35]

Reub took the results like a blow to the chest. He’d failed to swing a single vote, despite all efforts! The employers’ lobby in the galleries, meanwhile, looked relieved. They’d survived the call without a single defection. Only Glenn appeared tense, all attention focused on the action below. For a moment, all appeared lost. But it lasted only a moment. Speaker Scholes, who supported the bill, demanded a call of absentees. There would be no “silent” vote this time; he would call and call again until every member present went on record as to where they stood. Reub sprang into action, heading straight to Representative Ryan to make his case. Ryan was a farmer, an honest man who made his way through hard work. Sure, farmers and labor hadn’t always seen eye to eye—neither had he and Reub—but a vote for this bill was a vote to let honest men and women peaceably advocate for their right to a fair wage for hard work. Could he in good conscience deny this right? The Speaker was calling for a vote; which side could he take, look his constituents in the eye, and tell them it was just?

Again the clerk began droning out names—73, 74…75! Labor had gotten the opposition to break ranks! The chamber began to buzz with excitement, hope and fear. Two more votes were needed. Could Reub succeed?

The crowded galleries were straining to watch the proceedings on the floor. House members were on their feet, congregating in groups, arguing and pleading with each other. Representative RG Soderstrom, sponsor of the house bill, moved swiftly from one to the other and despite the intense excitement maintained the pleasing smile which had won him scores of friends.[36]

Glenn watched helplessly from the galleys as Reub worked the room. Despite Turner’s attack, Reub made his way to the remaining black Representatives, imploring them for their vote. He went to Representative Douglas, one of the best orators in the House, and made his appeal. Yes, discrimination and division existed within labor as regards race, but this bill would protect all workers, including those of color. The core mission of the AFL was one of equality, fairness and freedom and committed to becoming an ally to the black community. All hinged on their vote, on his vote. When the day was done, what would be said of the “Negro vote”— that it had made protection of workers’ rights possible, or sealed their loss?

After several painstaking moments, Douglas replied that “he hoped the door of opportunity would open wider to the people of his race in the future.”[37] Reub didn’t know what to think of this response; did the Representative just declare support for the bill or for the opposition? Before he could ask he was overwhelmed by shouts from the floor:

“Verification! Verification!” cried supporters of the bill, seeking to gain more time. “The clerk will verify the roll,” responded the strong voice of Speaker Scholes, whose own vote had been cast in favor of the labor bill. Again the clerk began droning out the names. Another member recorded his vote for the bill! 76! One more was needed and only a moment remained before verification would be finished, the vote closed and the result announced. The house and galleries were in a fever of excitement. Then came a gasping shout, with a note of triumph and relief: “77! 77! Was it true? Who voted? Who was it?” Friend and foe voiced the query. “77,” came the answer, “No-78-78-we win—we win!”[38]

The chamber erupted. Removed from the chaos below, Glenn stoically bit his inner lip and held his hat in hand. All these years he’d succeeded in denying his enemy any quarter, only to be beat by a kid, a young man who seemed to embody everything he’d taught his flock to fear. This laboring, self-educated son of an immigrant preacher had bested him by every measure. Reub, for his part, was completely caught up in the moment, which he later described:

After a tremendous fight on the floor the bill finally got 77 votes and the tenseness and the type of legislative fight that it was so exciting that the members on both sides, both those who voted for the bill and those who voted against it, somehow started to cheer. The House was a bedlam. The Speaker couldn’t get order. He tried several times to gavel the thing into some semblance of décor but failed entirely and he had to adjourn the Illinois House of Representatives. I’d say it was the greatest labor victory in the history of the state.[39]

CELEBRATION

A Win Declared Across The Nation

Reuben’s victory was met with jubilation. Papers across North America featured front page stories on the bill’s success. The Trade Union News of Philadelphia’s editorial board proclaimed the law “a notice to all the courts of the state,” while the Los Angeles Citizen marveled at its opposition: “The Illinois measure…was opposed by powerful interests, much money being spent, it is reported, to accomplish defeat of the bill.”[40] No less a figure than AFL President William Green telegrammed to express his congratulations on the bill’s passage, stating “The enactment of this injunction limitation bill will increase the prestige and influence of organized labor in Illinois and throughout our entire jurisdiction as well.”[41]

Messages of thanks and support extended beyond just the labor community. Religious organizations such as the National Catholic Welfare Conference praised the win, denouncing the use of unfair injunctions as a practice that “causes a great deal of discontent, invades the civil rights of the working people and perpetuates the injustice of industry.”[42] Victor Olander, noting such broad support and connecting the bill’s passage to recent Supreme Court decisions and a House bill making judges more directly accountable, predicted a broad “turning of the tide” against the enemies of labor.[43]

Labors’ enemies saw the same trend, and it filled them with a wild mix of vitriol and fear. The Employers’ Association of Chicago took to the pages of their Employers’ News publication to declare “The battle is on, or will soon be on, and we think we can predict with reasonable accuracy the result. If employers have been apathetic to conditions that have been imposed by union labor merely because they were not materially affected, they will soon recognize that the fires they have helped kindle have become a devastating flame.”[44] Glenn and the IMA likewise declared a renewed battle against labor, promising retribution.

A Hero’s Welcome

On Sunday, July 19, 1925, Reuben came home to the cheers of a hero’s welcome. Trade unionists from throughout the district swarmed to Streator to signally honor RG Soderstrom for “the great service he had rendered to organized labor in bringing about the passage of the injunction limitation law.”[45] They packed the local Eagle Hall in a “smoker” held in his honor as Thomas Kelly of Streator, the First Vice-President of the ISFL, opened the meeting. After brief remarks from Mayor Sam Myer the podium was given to Attorney Jim Conway, who had represented Reuben and the Streator Labor Council during the dark days of the Open Shop war. His speech, intensely human and tender, brought the raucous crowd into a rapt hush as he described the man who had become both his compatriot and leader:

We have come here today to perform a duty which we owe to a good, clean, decent citizen to express our appreciation for the faithful services he has rendered us as our representative in the Legislature of Illinois…

Our distinguished fellow citizen and guest of honor, the Honorable Reuben G. Soderstrom, has but quite recently returned from the field of his titanic legislative struggles in our behalf….While the legislature was in session he was always to be found there at his desk watching with unflagging zeal the interests of us at home who sent him there…He has always espoused the cause of that class of citizens who were believers in personal liberty: I mean that class of citizens who believe that every man and woman in this country has and ought to have the inherent right to eat and drink what they please without the supervision of any moral censor…To those of you who place the love of humanity above the lust for gold, Reuben G. Soderstrom stands forth as your Premier Representative in our legislature…

To you, Reub, I will say you have fought the people’s battles well but no golden reward therefore is yours. You or yours will not enjoy the luxuries of life that are always awarded to the rich man’s tools, but you will enjoy the possession of that self-respect which money cannot buy; you will enjoy a confidence, the esteem and love of your fellow man whom you have faithfully served. After you have completed your earthly activities and passed the veil to receive your well-merited reward, your children will point with pride to the record of their honored father.[46]

Then, with the audience spellbound, Mr. Conway bestowed upon Reub a beautiful diamond ring to commemorate not just his legislative success but the affection of all those present. Turning from the crowd, Conway spoke directly to his friend has he delivered the thanks of so many to the man who’d given so much:

To you, who fought tyranny and injustice so fiercely and with all strength of your rugged manly nature, and yet again, to you, whose heart is as tender as a mother’s tears, to you, whose intellect is as brilliant as the scintillations of this magnificent jewel, the gift of your admiring friends, I have the pleasure and honor on their behalf, and as their representative, of presenting this token of their affection and esteem. May you accept this token and ever wear the same as an evidence of your appreciation of the affection and esteem of your friends. May you retain that affection and esteem as long as this beautiful jewel, which I now present you, shall continue to reflect from its prismatic depths the scintillating rays of the eternal sun.[47]

Overwhelmed, Reub humbly accepted the gift as the crowd rose in applause. He had not expected any of this honor; he thought the smoker was to celebrate the Injunction-Limitation Act, not for him personally, and he could barely contain the pull of emotion evoked by this unexpected honor. In the words of a reporter from the Streator Independent Times covering the event, “Representative Soderstrom is a ready talker, and can express himself freely and clearly, even under severe pressure, but it took him some time to recover from the magic words of praise and appreciation expressed by Mr. Conway.”[48] After an extended period of cheering and applause, Reuben addressed the crowd, fighting back tears as he spoke:

I feel almost unable to talk. Am somewhat dizzy. The kind of things that have been said about me, the splendid beautiful gift that has been given to me, the kindly expression that I see on every face overwhelms me. I did not know that this occasion was to be decorated with anything as pleasant as this…. I can’t find words off-hand to express my appreciation of your generosity and sincerely hope you will somehow understand how happy and proud I am of the beautiful ring presented to me and the kind words spoken and the wonderful labor-smoker held in honor of our victory.[49]

Reflecting on the struggle recently behind him and the many more soon to come, Reub appeared fresh for the fight. He relished the struggle, and even went so far as to credit the strength and intransigence of his opponents for fostering a dynamic conversation:

It seems that the worker, the labor movement, the human race, has to have oppression, misery and suffering in some acute form before legislation can be secured… Victor Olander, one of the most remarkable men in Illinois and a man whom I love as tenderly and affectionately as I do President John. H. Walker, once said to me that “the enemy is our best friend.” In a certain sense that is true. He is our critic. We need constructive criticism. We invite it.

But the open shop association in their published program did not offer constructive criticism. Their published declaration of intentions was cowardly and beastly…. It meant a reduction in wages, the lengthening of hours, the lowering of standards. It meant less food, less clothes and less shelter for the toilers. It meant the destroying of homes and starvation of the mother and innocent babes—it meant the destruction of normal progress and the disruption of the labor movement itself. Every decent, red-blooded citizen protested against it and organized labor, after due deliberation, accepted their challenge and gave this community and the labor movement of Illinois the thrill of a century when it flung back into the face of the open shop challenger the dramatic and historical answer of the workers— “that we accept your challenge, we’ll fight the open shop to the last ditch, be the consequences what they may!”

The great cause of humanity thrives on opposition. Every effort that has been made here to deprive humble citizens of a living wage and their sacred constitutional guarantees has made the labor movement stronger. Economists, professors, attorneys and even preachers rallied to the standard of organized labor from far and near and gallantly stood by the courageous trade unionists in the Streator struggle. It attracted nation-wide attention and before the conflict is finally ended here more good will result from the sacrifices made here than has come to the men of labor from all the disasters, catastrophes and labor opposition of the past. Oppression brings reform. Opposition has brought progress. The great resolve to oppose the oppressors was commendable indeed and recent developments to prove that the struggle was not in vain. Labor is victorious. The injunction-limitation bill is a reality![50]

In closing Reub, the unyielding advocate, pledged himself to the men and women of labor:

And may I say this to you, President Walker, and to you, Secretary Olander, with reference to my own faithfulness, to the fundamental principles, and the highest aspirations of labor and the labor movement, I want to here voluntarily pledge to you, and through you to the men of labor, and the women of toil, and the children, too, who are to take their places as they grow up, that there will be neither a wrongful nor a dishonorable act, on my part which shall in the least detract from the greatest triumph that can come to labor of the cause of labor as long as I am permitted to remain in public life.[51]

After Reuben’s acceptance, the crowd was treated to powerful speeches by President John Walker and Victor Olander. Walker paid a glowing tribute to Reub, while Victor warmly painted a picture of Reuben as the “smiling warrior.” With the speeches concluded, Reuben and his compatriots joined the rest of the Hall, chatting and smoking deep into the evening hours. It was a moment to savor, and for once Reub—who so often spent his hours and attention focusing on the next day, took the time simply to relax and enjoy the company in the hot summer night.

* * *