“It is further understood that all existing agreements and obligations of the employer, including those to present employees, shall be respected.  The manufacturers, however, declare their belief in the Union, and that all who desire its benefits should share in its burdens.”

As will be seen, this formulation signified that the Union men available for a special kind of work in a factory must be sought before any other men.  The words “non-union man,” the words arousing the antagonism of the East Side, are not mentioned.  But whether the preference of Union men is or is not insisted on as strongly as in the Brandeis agreement must remain a matter of open opinion.

This formulation was referred to the strike committee.  It was accepted by the strike committee, and went into force on September 8.

The Vorwaerts posted the news as a great Union victory.  At the first bulletin, the news ran like wildfire over the East Side.  Multitudes assembled; men, women, and children ran around Rutgers Square, in tumult and rejoicing.  The workers seized London, the unionists’ lawyer, and carried him around the square on their shoulders, and they even made him stand on their shoulders and address the crowd from them.  People sobbed and wept and laughed and cheered; and Roman Catholic Italians and Russian Jews, who had before sneered at each other as “dagoes” and “sheenies,” seized each other in their arms and called each other brother.

Now that the men and women have returned to their shops, it remains for all the people involved—­the manufacturers, the workers, the retailers, and the interested public—­to make a dispassionate estimate of this new arrangement.  Is the preferential shop so delicate a fabric as to prove futile?  Has it sustaining power?  Will the final agreement prove, at last, to be a Union victory?  Will both sides act in good faith—­the manufacturers always honestly preferring Union men, the Union leaders always maintaining a democratic and an inclusive Union, without autocracy or bureaucratic exclusion?  Undoubtedly there will be failures on both sides.  But the New York cloak makers’ strike may be historical, not only for its results in the cloak industry, but for its contribution to the industrial problems of the country.

No outsider can read the statement of the terms of the manufacturers’ preference without feeling that a joint agreement committee should have been established to consider cases of alleged unfair discrimination against Union workers.  On the other hand, no outsider can hear without a feeling of uneasiness such an assertion as was made to one of the writers—­that strike breakers had been obliged to pay an initiation fee of one hundred dollars to enter the Cloak Makers’ Union.