﻿Three In The Bull Pen and One on the Job 
By T-BONE SLIM 

“Tom Mooney is about to be freed by the Supreme Court.” I am told. The pity of it is, Tom Mooney had to fight for his freedom almost alone. Erratic, skipstop support. Now (as the foreign movie man says). “Those who have something to say, shut up.” This lack of support rates Tom Mooney a clean break from The Bench. 
Strictly speaking: If injustice be a measure, Mooney and Billings should have been freed ten years ago—for the cup of infamy was then full; Justice cannot apply at this late date or at any date after the first acceptance of perjured evidence to convict them. Greenhorns did not try them. Injustice is here. 

There’s the Mexican Oil waitingan offer from the highest bidder—a sitdown where private owners refused to abide by the laws of a people’s government and the government had to pull a strike against industrial autocrats. A form of sitdown. Only the form is open to question and mebbe the Mexican government should have thrown the offenders in jail instead of merely shagging them off the property. 
We have the same trouble in this country to a greater extent and after many efforts of grand larceny, bearding of laws, treason, etc., it is a wonder our oil companies have they not stolen our Capitol. Or have they? Sounds like it down Washington way. Ail our oil operators are out of jail at present and are probably on the loose; here, there and everywhere. 
Metropolitan Area, April 1, 1938 (Special to Industrial Worker) —It looks (only looks) as if Doctor Herbert Hoover is setting his cap for Miss Presidency, the reigning belle of the U. S. A. 
That settles it. I’m in favor of one-year terms for presidents. I have my reasons. Four years is too long a time to remember all the faults of a former president and he might slip in while we’re trying to figure out “where have I seen that guy before?” (When in doubt choose Dorothy Thompson.) 
Yes; didn’t FDR have to run twice before our memory blinded, went out. laid down on us, and never returned? 
Doctor Hoover would no doubt accept of employment as our president but he has no sawing partner since Curtis went to the happy hunting ground. 
I want a one-year term. What’s that? He can’t get warm in one year? You don’t get the point. I’m going to elect four presidents and rotate them, one year each, and three in the bull pen warming up. 
I say— if Hoover can pick up a sawing partner in Kansas (Walt Mason, for instance), put him in as a member of our national quartette—give a lad a trial. 
That’s as far a I’ll go and if Calvin Coolidge comes up for a bow I’ll draw the line. 

Neither the theory of abundance or that of scarcity can have a bearing upon the welfare of mankind under capitalism. 
The presumption in the case of the “theory of abundance” is that selfish interests cannot walk away with much as easily as with little. All that it requires is a bigger shovel; iron ore was more plentiful so they used a clam shell (steam shovel). In this case the abundance threw the workers for a compound loss, i. e., reduced pay and half crew. 
Theory of scarcity’ is an alibi for the employer, inasmuch as abundance and hunger doesn’t make good sense. Little or much, they take it all, the ultimate discomfiture lies at i the end of the trail, forbidding, overwhelming, and ruthless. 
It is immaterial to a stickup whether you have nickels and dimes in your pocket or dollars and bills—he takes them all, and it is illogical to think he would leave you the change if you had an abundant roll of bills. ‘Twould be bad luck! Besides, he believes like all selfish interest believes: “If I don’t take it, someone else will.” 
Thus it is that the two theories are without premise for the presumption in both cases is that all men are honest and that capitalism is an equitable system. 
Capitalism then, not scarcity or abundance is the issue and industrial autocracy is its vulnerable point.