caused to the workmen, arising out of the fruitless journeys they were compelled to take, might all be avoided, and the compulsory registering of a man in one district should be removed.

T. E. Naylor, of the London Compositors, declared that London trade unionists had had some experience in the manner in which the exchanges were being used against the trade unions during a dispute. He declared that although instructions had been issued to exchange superintendents to observe absolute neutrality, the fact remained that when a strike was in progress an employer who was in dispute with his workmen had only to send to the nearest exchange to get as many blacklegs as he wanted.

The Sailors and Firemen's delegate complained that trade unionists had not received their proper representation upon the Advisory Committees. Havelock Wilson, it may be mentioned, was the only member of the House of Commons who voted against the creation of the exchanges. Havelock Wilson at the Congress explained that his reasons for objecting to these institutions was because seamen had had experience of labor exchanges, called shipping offices, for sixty years, and it had been a most unsatisfactory experience.

Ben Cooper, of the Cigarmakers, declared that the exchanges were constantly offering facilities for cheap employers to fight labor for the purpose of undermining the trade union position in this

country.

Some other delegates defended the exchanges and declared that some of the sweeping charges that were being made were without foundation. Representative of these was Allen Gee of the Weavers and Textile Workers. He declared that in the West Riding of Yorkshire whenever a dispute occurred word was sent round to the nearest exchange and from there to the other Yorkshire exchanges to the effect that there was a dispute in operation in that particular trade, and that more than that could not be expected from the labor exchanges.

H. W. Howes, of the London Printing Machine Managers, supported the compositors' delegate in his statements to the effect that exchanges had been used against the trade unions in the then recent printing trade strike in London.

Eventually the condemnatory resolution was agreed to by 1,097,000 votes to 273,000. From this brief abstract of a big debate the general attitude of the British trade unions toward the exchanges can be seen. They are not opposed to them, but they see serious defects in working which they claim should be remedied.

The first labor exchanges were opened, to the number of eighty-two, in February, 1910. On January 1, 1911, a new system of counting applications was put into force, and a separate register was introduced for certain casual employments. As uniform figures for a period of twelve months are therefore not yet available, the latest statement issued covers the nine months ending September 29, 1911 (when 239 exchanges were at work), and therefore includes the results of the working of the exchanges since they have been calculated on a revised basis. The general register is based on the "AdultsTrade Table," published monthly in the "Board of Trade Labor Gazette," in which trades are grouped.

I

IN GREAT BRITAIN an attempt is to be made to prevent strikes, by conciliation-a euphemism for arbitration, as it seems to me. The Government has published a provisional list of the members of the new Industrial Council, which is, in effect, a National Conciliation Board. The council consists, in the first instance, of thirteen representative employers and an equal number of leading trade unionists, who will hold office for a year. Their chairman is Sir George Askwith, the most famous of industrial peacemakers, and he will bear the title of Chief Industrial Commissioner. The council is to take voluntary action in the composing of disputes in the leading industries or in ancillary trades, before or after the breaking out of actual war, and its main function, according to the Liberal Nation, will probably be to bring the parties together and to smooth away difficulties of procedure. Its personnel on both sides is powerful and solid, and on the whole the reception on both sides is friendly. The advance section of labor is critical, on the ground that its intervention will mar the effectiveness of a strike, and the General Federation of Trade Unions, an experienced body, takes this ground and also complains of lack of representation.

The settlement of strikes, or attempts thereat, has heretofore been part of the duties of the Board of Trade, but this, in addition to other duties, wore out the members. Nominally the new office remains attached to the Board of Trade, as some Minister must be responsible for it in Parliament, but probably in practice there will be little if any interference with its work. There was a suspicion of politics whenever the Board of Trade took up strike matters. The head of the Board, being a member of the Cabinet, was always accused of playing to the groundlings. The ultra Tory London Saturday Review says of the Board: "Its work, from the nature of the case, must essentially be preventive; it is in no sense an arbitration panel. It may, and possibly will, be convened two or three times a year for general discussion, but its great value is through its members to be the eyes and ears of the industrial world, to see signs and to hear grumblings and mutterings long before real friction comes, to anticipate, and so to prevent trouble. It will embody that rather elusive but very strong factor in English life-public opinion, and any attempt on the part of employers or employed to pass it by will meet with instant public disapproval. Halcyon days no one can prophesy, but even if the new conditions are means of preventing one great strike only the change will have been justified. But there is a big fight ahead. Modern trades unionism needs to purge itself of disloyalty to its own leaders. In many cases a minority of extremists, judging rightly the apathy of the bulk of its fellowmembers, has captured the machine and used its power to engineer a strong political alliance with the Socialistic group. At last, however, the quieter

*St. Louis Mirror.

and more solid element seems to be breaking through the froth. Trade unionists are at the parting of the ways; face to face with a question they can not evade. They must either accept the principle of collective bargaining or cease to meet the employers. There must be some definite understanding that their leaders have authority not only to make agreements, but to bind their followers. The only alternative is the hopeless one of indiscriminate and unreasoned striking. They must make up their minds whether the unions are to be real trade societies, honestly struggling to improve the conditions of labor in their trades, or simple political machines masquerading as workmen's associations."

This, be it repeated, is Tory sentiment. Toryism is hostile to Labor in politics. Therefore it welcomes the Board, as possibly a means to getting Labor out of politics. Labor has gone largely Socialist in Great Britain, and this accounts for the refusal of workers to abide by their union leaders as distinct from Socialist agitators. It is hard to see how the arrangement of a Conciliation Board is going to work out if it shall have no power to enforce its decisions or rulings-for it must decide something in each case. The talk of preventing trouble, without some element of arbitration entering into the action, is altogether absurd. And Labor Unionism is not going to back out of politics. Rather it will go further into politics. And the deeper it goes into politics the less likely it will be to stand for coercion into collective bargaining. Labor will not give up "the right to strike," nor should it do so.

"The fundamental problem of industry, after all, is not merely," says the Nation, "to secure uninterrupted regularity in business, but to gain for the mass of the people continuous employment at a living wage." And in England, as shown by the figures given by Mr. Seebohm Rowntree in the current number of the Contemporary Review, "a substantial proportion of the working classes, even of those in regular employment, and while in such employment, do not earn enough to provide sufficient food to maintain a family of two adults and three children in health. This is a perfectly definite denial of the existence for this part of the working class of a living wage, and until the living wage is attained labor conditions will be, and ought to be, in a state of unstable equilibrium.

"That combination alone has force enough to restore the equilibrium would be a rash assertion. Much will also have to be done by fiscal measures, which will either lighten the burden of house rent by bringing land into the market and by reducing the pressure of rates on building, or will restore to the worker, in the form of provision for sickness and unemployment, a portion of that which he expends on rent. But hitherto, apart from abnormally sweated industries, the State has not attempted to touch wages directly, and the work of

raising the standard has been left to voluntary combination. This is why every careful student of our industrial conditions is forced to attach such importance to the principle of combination, with its corollary, the ultimate right to strike. This is why we are bound to resist all proposals, however plausible, for knocking its one ultimate weapon out of the hands of labor, or paralyzing its arm in the use of it."

President Taft, following the lead of the President of the French Republic, has gone on record, as to the proposal to unionize the post-office employes, to the effect that such organization is not permissible, because the Government can not recognize the right to "tie up" such a great, universal utility. Winston Churchill, in England, as Home Secretary, now First Lord of the Admiralty, in the same vein, declared that in a service of the first necessity to society, like the railway system, the right of collective bargaining must be partially withheld. The Nation admits that the exercise of such a right may be fraught with the gravest inconvenience, but the question is, what equivalent the State will or can give. "The principle does not apply to railway men alone. It applies, for instance, with almost equal force to coal miners, whose organization is far more complete than that of the railway men, and who could, if they were resolute, bring about a stoppage not only of the railways, but of all industries that depend on the supply of coal. If coal miners and railway men are not to defend themselves by combination, how are they to be defended? It is easy to say that in an ideal State their interests would be safe in the hands of an impartial authority representing an enlightened public opinion. But in an ideal State all things are easy. The hard fact remains that, at present, we have not evolved any such organ of protection for the rights of workers, and are not, in fact, within sight of any such achievement. Until the time arrives, until Mr. Churchill, or another, can formulate the scheme which will guarantee to the men on whose work we all depend conditions of employment which they can recognize as fair, they must rely on their own strength."

These considerations apply here not less forcibly than in Great Britain. We hear a great deal here of compulsory arbitration, but Mr. Gompers, Mr. Mitchell, and others stand out for "the right to strike." We can not deny that right. Will it be abused? Yes, but at the striker's peril of lost pay and lost job. There is a deterrent of strikes. We must not hastily suppose, says the Nation, that to insist on the right of striking is to leave industry at the mercy of hot-headed, self willed men. To do anything effective these men have to convince great numbers of their fellows of the necessity of clemming.' The appeal is to the tightened belt. Now, in all ordinary industrial disputes, it is the workman alone who does the 'clemming,' and the rest of us look on, annoyed, perhaps, but well fed. If the trains cease to run, we, in turn, are threatened with 'clemming,' and we see, even afar off, how very unpleasant it is. Let us rest assured that the individual striker who knows from the moment that he lays down his tools that the hour of clemming' is at hand, is not going repeatedly to throw them down in a hurry, nor will he leave them down without a motive. He may make mis

takes en masse now and again, but he has a very stern schoolmaster, with a very long rod, ready to lash him into the acknowledgment of error." In short, the workingman will not get what is coming to him unless he fights for it, and he must learn to fight for that only and to fight fair. Conciliation or arbitration is not the cure for labor trouble. There is no cure but justice, and that denied must be fought for.

LESSON IN ECONOMICS FROM A COAL MINE.

Secretary David Ross, of the State Bureau of Labor Statistics, Springfield, Ill., is in receipt of the following communication from T. G. Hebenstreit, Superintendent of the New Staunton Coal Company, Livingston, Ill., relative to the tonnage of that mine:

"Livingston mine hoisted during the last half of October 54,6491⁄2 tons, working thirteen and ninesixteenth days, making an average of 4,029 tons per day. Our record hoist, September 29, is 4,265 tons, making 1,492 dumps or hoists, loading 105 railroad cars in eight hours. The above for your information. We claim the record for the State."

Concerning the facts herein reported Secretary Ross makes the following comments: "The statement of Superintendent Hebenstreit touching the hoisting record of that mine, which is unsurpassed in the annals of Illinois mining, is significant, not only as indicating the present producing capacity of some of our mines, but as illustrating the wide divergence between mere theory and the actual facts as developed by experience. Among the demands made by the miners during the general suspension of 1897 was that for an eight-hour workday. Following the termination of that contest this was conceded and since then has formed a part of the annual and biennial agreements between the miners and operators of this and competing States. Up to that time it was the general opinion that a reduction in the working hours from ten to eight per day would very materially reduce the volume of production, and, notwithstanding the present day demand to limit, through agreements, the output in accordance with the consumption, many mine owners opposed the shorter day for the reason that it would have that effect. Since the adoption of the eight-hour day most of the mining properties in this State have increased their output from fifty to three hundred per cent. The agencies that have made possible this augmented production were not, in our theoretical conclusions, taken into consideration. The early advocates of the eight-hour workday were deceived in the same manner as shown by their contention that its direct effect would be to furnish employment to more men, thereby absorbing the surplus competitive labor while maintaining a corresponding relative production. Contrary to preconceived notions the shorter workday has resulted in notably increased production. If we can only succeed in inducing the public to consider, not the supposed immediate, but the ultimate results of our economic evolution, much will be accomplished in the way of destroying blind, unreasoning antagonism to present and future industrial reforms."

TH

LONDON, December 1, 1911. HE principal industrial question occupying the attention of labor in the United Kingdom at the moment of writing is the ballot of the members of the four railway unions as to whether they will accept and give a trial to the recommendations of the recently held railway commission or whether they will "withdraw their labor" to enforce a national program of improved wages, shorter hours, and better conditions of labor. The result of this ballot is not expected to be known before the middle of December. It is occasioning the most extreme interest in all parts of the country and among all classes.

A foretaste of what a national railway stoppage meant was given in the summer, when two days' withdrawal of railway labor were sufficient to paralyze the country's communications. In the meantime, before the ballot began to be taken and during its taking, four or five of the leading railway systems in this country have voluntarily made wage increases to large sections of their employes. If the railway commission did nothing else it proved conclusively that railway workers are among the most poorly paid of all our great industrial classes. Increases of from 25 cents per week have now been made, to affect easily 100,000 workers. These gifts, however, do not go far enough. Railway labor is aroused at last and all the grades appear to be on the whole united for better conditions. It is confidently expected that the majority of the members, as I have indicated, will vote for a withdrawal of labor, although certain great railway centers like Crewe have overwhelmingly gone the other way.

Coal miners also continue to show substantial unrest, although a national convention of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain, held in London on November 15, appears to have removed for the time being the danger of a national coal strike. The delegates from the important South Wales coal fields were in favor of a strike, but delay appears to have been enforced by the Scottish districts and the miners of England, apart from those of Northumberland and Lancashire. Peaceful negotiations are to continue, and the reason for this amicable arrangement is to be found in the concessions by the coal owners in the English conciliation board area on the principle of the minimum wage. Just what the wage should be remains to be determined. The coal owners are asked to fix a date before December 20 for a further discussion of this rate. British trade unions are of course greatly interested in Lloyd George's new state insurance bill for the provision of payment to workers during sickness and invalidity. This bill has already been described in these columns when it was first before the House of Commons, but briefly it may be stated that for the sum of either six or eight cents a week, with very similar sums contributed by the employer for each worker and also by the State, the male or female worker will receive free doctoring, free drugs and medicines, a weekly allowance during the time of sickness, and other attendant and contingent benefits. The trade

union view appears to be that the bill will want careful watching and amendment, but that if the trade unions take hold of its provisions and utilize them there is no reason why it should not be to their advantage.

The insurance bill will permit trade unions, as well as insurance societies and fraternal societies and other similar organizations, to become "approved agencies" for the distribution of the benefits provided by the act. The Amalgamated Carpenters and Joiners' Society prints an article in its monthly journal showing that the society's funds would benefit and that certainly the union would be put on a sounder financial basis than it has ever before been, and that is saying a good deal.

The United Society of Boilermakers and IronShip Builders reports that in the quarter ended with September nearly $45,000 were added to the reserve funds, in addition to which there was a reduction of almost $25,000 in members' arrears. Few members were on the unemployed and sick funds. This was the union so very badly hit over the great boilermakers' lockout of a year ago. The union has had a most interesting history, owing its tremendous growth and influence almost to one man, Robert Knight, the famous old boilermakers' Secretary, who retired some years ago. It has been stated truly that he found the trade disorganized, poorly-paid, and weak, and he left it with almost the rank of a profession. This society has now settled its inter-union dispute with the Shipwrights' Society, and in the shipbuilding yards at Sunderland, where hitherto only members of the Shipwrights' Society have been allowed to work, the boilermakers will be admitted. In return the boilermakers will admit the shipwrights into their yards.

The Associated Blacksmiths and Iron Workers' Society also shows a net gain to its funds upon last figures and notifies a further acquisition of strength so that the membership is now 2,354. This association has now quite $100,000 to its credit but it points out that the question of arrears of dues is one that members should take in hand, as altogether at the present moment over $4,000 is owing to the society in this country.

The Ship Construction and Shipwrights' Association reports a surplus of $19,000 over the September quarter. This would have been a more substantial saving had there not been rather heavy outlays for dispute and accident benefits. Reserve funds have now nearly reached the $100,000 mark. A net gain in membership during the quarter of 431 has brought the total up to 22,711.

The Steam Engine Makers' Society reports trade good, but regrets to find too many of its members failing to find other than casual employment, a system that appears to be a growing evil. Referring to the widespread demand by British trade unions for "recognition" this society rightly points out that unless the workers have behind them an organization of a sound and suitable character recognition is not worth the paper it is written upon. This is one of those well-known facts that can not too often be reiterated.

I

NA report recently issued by the "General Commission of Trade Unions," the total membership of the trade unions in Germany in 1910 is returned as 2,688, 144; of this number 2,017,298, or about 80 per cent, belonged to the unions affiliated to the General Commission. Other important groups are the "Christian Trade Union Federation" with 295,129 members, and the "Hirsch-Duncker Federation" with 122,571. The independent unions affiliated to none of these groups had 253,146 members. A measure of growth of trade unionism in Germany during the first decade of the twentieth century is afforded by the following table, showing the membership of the first three of these groups. Comparable figures with regard to the independent unions are not available.

64,372,190 marks, that of the Christian unions 5,490,994, and of the Hirsch-Duncker unions 2,926,693. The unions belonging to the General Commission expended 57,926,566 marks, the Christian unions 4,916,270, and the HirschDuncker unions 2,532,361. Of the total amounts there were expended for strike, lockout, and victimization benefit by the unions affiliated to the General Commission 20,413,343 marks (or 10.12 per member), by the Christian unions 1,239,500 marks (4.20 per member), and by the HirschDuncker unions 339,931 marks (2.77 per member). At the close of 1910 the aggregate funds of the unions affiliated to the General Commission amounted to 53,000,000 marks, as compared with 6,000,000 in the case of the Christian unions and 2,000,000 in the case of the Hirsch-Dunckers.

Factory operatives Other occupations..

The membership of these three classes of unions' in the aggregate, has risen from 858,942 in 1901 to 2,434,998 in 1910, an increase of 183 per cent in this period. Only in 1908, a year of very bad trade all over Germany, was there a decrease in membership of the unions affiliated to the General Commission and of the Christian trade unions. The increase of the Hirsch Duncker unions was comparatively slight.

In addition to the groups enumerated above, there exist Roman Catholic and Protestant unions, with 197,840 members (in 1910). "Patriotic" unions, with 33,284 members, and "yellow" unions with 79,991 members. While these organizations may be called "labor unions," they are not trade unions in the true sense of the word, because their purpose is to foster "harmony" between labor and capital. The yellow and patriotic unions largely consist of notorious strike breakers. Their leaders assert that their object is to oppose "frivolous" strikes, and to fight for "genuine" freedom of combination-by which they mean the freedom not to join the great representative trade unions. In the second table the membership in 1910 of the three principal groups of unions is classified according to trade.

But it is not only numerical strength that counts. If we go into the details of financial power and general efficiency, the unions affiliated to the General Commission leave the other groups still further behind them. Their income in 1910 was

Total...

Of the 57 unions affiliated to the General Commission, 50 paid strike benefit to their own members amounting to 19,068,972 marks, 44 assisted other unions involved in strikes with a sum of 534,633 marks, and 43 expended for victimization benefit 809,738 marks. The expert in trade unionism knows that such sums can not be spent unless there are obvious compensations on the other side. In 1910 these compensations consisted in obtaining increases of wages for 827,627 persons and shortening the hours of labor of 344,570 persons; besides, a large number of wage-earners was otherwise benefited in consequence of trade union effort. For benevolent benefits the unions under consideration expended, in 1910, the following amourts: Out-of-work benefit, 6,076.000 marks; traveling benefit, 1,016,000; removal benefit, 316,000; sick benefit, 9,029,000; invalidity benefit, 505,000; distress benefit, 549,000; legal assistance, 330,000; death benefit, 884,000. Only five unions pay invalidity benefit, and the sick benefit is, in seven-eighths of the unicns having introduced it, only a small supplement to the sick pay the members get under the compulsory insurance law. MUNICH, BAVARIA, December, 1911.