brought up. A number of moulders were on strike and the federated employers received a letter from their secretary with a list of names enclosed. The letter said a strike was on at a certain mill. That letter was signed. Another letter unsigned with a list of 133 names of the men on strike was enclosed. Not one of the 133 could get work in a federated workshop. There was no public statement of the fact; no possibility of legal remedy. That was the danger of accepting what was legal equality in the eyes of the law. We said we would take the position we had taken all the way through; that they could not make us equal in law, and if they could not make us equal in law we would retain our old position. Individual members of the union are liable for any personal act of their own. Citizenship carries its own responsibilities eveywhere, in the workshop, the school or the street, and we do not demand that any privileges be given to individual trade unionists that is not given to every one."

THE OSBORNE CASE

With the enactment of the Trades Dispute Act 1906, the English trade unionists fondly believed they had settled the legal status of the trade unions. But much to their surprise they have since then found out that the law courts have yet another hold on them. The practical work of obtaining the passage of the Trades Dispute Act 1906 was done by members of Parliament who had been elected to office by the efforts of the British trade unionists and who while serving as such members of Parliament were being supported with funds raised by the trade unions. For this purpose the various unions levied and collected assessments from their members.

Osborne, who for a number of years had been a member of a local union of the Amalgamated Society of of Railway Servants objected to the payment of these assessments and brought suit to prevent their collection. The case was carried on appeal to the House of Lords who decided:

"1. That there was nothing in the trades union acts from which it can reasonably be inferred that trade unions, as defined by Parliament, were meant to have the power of collecting and administering funds for political purposes.

"2. That a rule which purports to confer on trades unions registered under the act of 1871, the power to levy contributions from members for the purpose of securing parliamentary representation, whether it be an original rule of the union, or a rule subsequently introduced by amendment, is ultra vires, and illegal.

"Since the rendition of the Osborne judgment, British trade unions have not been allowed to use any part of their compulsorily raised funds in support of political labor action. A bill was introduced into the House of Commons last year (1912) with a view to reversing this judgment, but it failed to

pass owing to pressure of other business. Th year (1913), the bill has been introduced under title of the "Trade Union (No. 2) Bill."

In an article entitled "Trade Unionism England," published in the AMERICAN FE ERATIONIST for March, 1913, was t statement:

"The measure is very far from being all that :: Labor Party desires, but in a qualified way it give our (English) trade unions the right to en in politics and to nominate candidates and main them in connection with local and imperial legisla bodies. Before this can be done, however, a ma ity of the members must show themselves in fi of the union taking political action. The fundra or collected as the result of the ballot must go a separate political fund, and on no account .. any member be penalized who has secured exe tion from contribution because of conscient: objections."

what is perhaps the most remarkable cha;* In the foregoing pages we have tras in the history of English law. While changes that have been wrought in :

criminal as well as the civil branches of ti law came as the natural result of the chan economic conditions which followed in: wake of the factory system, yet to student of law there must come a degree of satisfaction and a commend:" pride that the law of England, which to great an extent is also the law of the Unit States, kept pace with the progressive a velopment of the country.

"This remarkable history sets in a clear light the most characteristic features of English crit. (and civil) law-its continuity; the way in whi the existing law connects itself with the past hist of the country and in particular with the hist of its opinions and theories; the character of the mon law and nature of what is described as its c ticity; and finally, the extremely detailed grana nature of the changes in the law, which are affe by acts of Parliament eagerly advocated and tan opposed. From a legal point of view no part of whole story is so remarkable as the part play by the judges in defining, and, indeed, in a it, I think, too widely; but that their definition creating, the offense of conspiracy. They de substantially right is proved by the fact that the of 1871 has made provision for punishing practic. all the acts which they declared to be offenses common law." (Stephen's History of Crim Law, vol. 111, p. 226.)

Mr. Stephen's clear observations down in the foregoing excerpt from history are not weakened but rather gy added force by the most recent addit to the statutes regulating the English La Unions and their relations to the law.

AT

T A TIME when workmen's compensation laws have already been enacted in twenty-two states and agitation under way to extend these laws and roaden their provisions, it is remarkable hat the old assertion that alcoholism is reponsible for the bulk of industrial accidents : being disseminated with a continued irulence.

Were it not that this apparently systematic ttempt to represent the workers as drunkrds imposes upon many people who do not now the facts, it would hardly be worth he effort of serious attention. But it is an ssertion that unfortunately has its ramications of influence. It is to be met with 1 books which, although of an obviously hallow order and full of the most glaring eneralizations, pass in some quarters as authorities," and in that capacity are lemnly and freely cited. It is an assertion nspicuously appearing in resolutions, peeches or statements emanating from indiduals or organizations having either the antiest or most prejudiced knowledge of he workers or bent upon deliberately preading an impression hostile to labor. All these generators and circulators of this ssertion are by no means influenced by the ame design. Some are merely ignorant; thers are both ignorant and intentionally areless of what the facts are, finding it asier to make conventional generalizaons than to spend effort in ascertaining the acts; others unscrupulously find such an sertion useful in promoting some ulterior et reform such as prohibition laws; still thers, particularly certain corporations, welcome diffusion of the assertion believing but it removes the odium that would othervise be thrown upon employers for the sponsibility of conditions leading to indusrial accidents.

The cumulative outpouring of the asserion that alcoholism causes most industrial accidents has undoubtedly had its effect pon that part of the public not familiar vith industrial conditions. It is an effect ot to be ignored. It creates and sustains

prejudice, if not antagonism, of a positive kind against labor. It has a strong tendency to place Labor on the defensive in a direction in which Labor has every just reason to regard itself as the injured party and be the aggressor for rectifying measures. Also it greatly tends to divert attention from the actual causes of the bulk of industrial accidents, and has a retarding effect upon the progress of legislative action aimed at the vital causes.

Considering that there now exists a mass of official data on the subject accessible to any inquirer for the facts, it is amazing to note the bold frequency with which this assertion is even now constantly circulated in some emphatic form or other. Always in these productions it is the same inimical note: the workers themselves are responsible if they are maimed or injured in industrial accidents; the cause lay mostly in their personal fault in being addicted to intoxicants. No mention whatever is made of the combination of causes which every official report on the subject shows bring about the vast proportion of these accidents-unsafe machinery, lack of proper safeguards, flying objects, hazards of trade, dangerous speeding up and other factors. These causes, operating either singly or together, in so great a number of cases, are ignored, and the situation is so twisted and so misrepresented that these perverters make a sweeping case indicting the workers as the chief culprits, and virtually saying that if they did not get drunk, there would be few or no industrial accidents.

One particularly audacious example of this variety was recently exhibited in the newspaper press of the United States which reported that at a session of the National Council for Industrial Safety, at Chicago, L. R. Palmer, chief inspector of the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Safety, assured the delegated that 60 per cent of the industrial accidents in the United States were charged to liquor. This was the bare form in which this assertion went out to the newspaper press readers; it can be easily

imagined what effect such a statement would have upon many good people accepting it as a fact. Nor was this all. At this same convention a high sounding convention that nominally might be expected to have some knowledge at least of what caused industrial accidents and what factors really imperilled safety-A. T. Morey, of the Commonwealth Steel Company, and chairman of the committee on resolutions, introduced this resolution:

"WHEREAS, It is recognized that drinking of alcoholic stimulants is productive of a heavy per cent of the accidents and diseases affecting the safety and efficiency of the workmen; be it

"Resolved, That it is the sense of this organization to go on record in favor of eliminating the use of intoxicants in the industries of the nation."

This all-inclusive resolution, so benevolently worded as though the whole motive was an infinite solicitude for the welfare of the workmen, was merely a formal expression of the kind sentiments of the committee. In urging the adoption of the resolution, Mr. Morey had more to offer in the way of comments; he become more positive and gravely declared that "it is recognized that most industrial accidents are brought about through the use of alcoholic stimulants." Just where this alleged fact "is recognized" Mr. Morey did not pretend to say. Had he been cross-examined an edifying farce would have developed; all that would have been necessary would have been to confront him with a few score official reports and his declaration would have collapsed. However, this situation did not come about but another did. After committing themselves to this wonderful resolution the delegates, upon adjournment, repaired to an elaborate banquet at which a variety of the choicest liquors was served,

It is this brand of assertions that published broadcast in newspapers, affects the opinions of large numbers.of readers. Very curious it is, too, that newspaper editors with their universal knowledge and a capacity to write learnedly on every conceivable subject do not seem to have the simple desire to challenge and examine assertions usly concerning the welfare American workers. of millig numbers injured manife

Vast

rs are annually killed or al accidents, yet no aim is out why and wherefore. are at ha any num

ber of investigations and reports, but they are never consulted. Finance budgets, diplomatic documents, political papers scientific reports all are carefully scrutinized so as to compare assertion with fact and exultingly expose error, yet no attempt is made to do so in the case of matters causing death and injury on so enormous a scale as in the industrial arena. Let any corpora tion or partisan speaker or writer give out for public consumption the fiction that drink causes most of these casualties and it is published unquestioned; though an old fiction and one exploded by the facts it still does impressive duty.

This was further illustrated recently when various railroad companies and different component companies of the United States Steel Corporation ostentatiously issued or ders prohibiting employes from using intoxi

To discourage intoxication is of itself a laudable undertaking, but the purport and effect of these orders was some thing quite different than a mere moral and unselfish aim. The manner in which these orders were issued was adroitly calcu lated to give out the impression that railroad and industrial accidents were caused by drunkard employes, and that if employes would only cease getting intoxicated, then there would be no such shocking accidents. By implication the whole responsibility was thrown upon the workers. Many of the newspapers which conspicuously published articles dealing with these orders discreetly refrained from asking embarrassing questions. These would have shown that stockjobbing mismanagement and managerial incapacity, perilous speed demanded of em ployes, inherent risks of trade, obsolete and dangerous equipment, defective roadway, the hiring of inexperienced men and other factors were the most vital causes, and that there was an evident campaign to conceal these by concentrating attention upon the element of liquor.

These inexcusable distortions are seen in their fullest tragic light when we consider the huge sacrifice of human life on what are called industrial accidents. Mr. Freder ick L. Hoffman, one of the foremost statistcians, estimated several years ago that the number of fatal accidents to adult workers in the United States was between 30,000 and 35,000 a year, and that there was an

innual total of 1,250,400 non-fatal accidents n the United States. In an address recently given before the National Association of Cotton Manufacturers, Mr. Carl M. Hanen, Secretary of the Department of Accilent Prevention, Workmen's Compensation ervice Bureau, estimated that from 40,000 6 50,000 wage workers were killed by accilents in industries in the United States early. The Massachusetts Industrial Accient Board places the number of workers a the United States yearly killed by accient at 75,000 and the number annually njured at 3,000,000.

If most of these casualties are the result of koholism, as certain special pleaders airily ssert, then employers must necessarily head guilty to the charge of employing and etaining great numbers of drunkards in heir employ. This charge, however, the mployers would be the very first to resent. But when we further reflect that great arts of the United States are under probitory laws and that among the casualties re those of large numbers of women, ildren and youths, it is self-evident that here is, considering these facts alone, a dossal libel in attributing the bulk of indusrial accidents as the result of drink.

Speculation is unnecessary on these points or on any others regarding this question. ficial data conclusively show what aproximate factors do cause these accidents, and of some of these findings we shall give a ummary.

A recent federal report dealing with the perations of the federal Workmen's ComDensation Act covering the government mployes shows that of the total number of laims-2,499—allowed during the year, here were 406 disputed cases. Of these 406 ases, the charge of intoxication was raised n only one case and that charge was disissed.

The 1914 report of the [Massachusetts Industrial Accident Board shows (p. 10) that during the years 1912-1913, there were in that state, 84,694 non-fatal accidents, "of which 72,862 were insured, and 474 fatal accidents, of which 290 were insured. Only 156 of these cases were contested by appeal to the Arbitration Committee or to the courts, and of these 156 cases there were only two cases of proved intoxication. The Massachusetts Industrial Board describes in this report, how "dusty trades, industrial poisons and occupational diseases are responsible for an annual loss in the United States of $750,000,000 through needless diseases and disablements, and Massachusetts has her proportion of this enormous waste. The great majority of wage-earners spend at least one-third of every twentyfour hours in the factory, mill or shop. Conditions in many of them are such that the worker is unable to attain fullest efficiency by reason of the conditions which surround him, and this has a direct bearing upon the number of accidents or the quantity of the output of the worker."

The Industrial Insurance Commission of the State of Washington states, in its 1913 report, that of 11,896 claims submitted during the year by injured workmen, only twenty-three appeals were taken to the courts, thus showing that charges of "wilful misconduct," including intoxication, were insignificant. Under the head of "Personal Fault," the report states (p. 97) that: "It appears that 69 per cent of all cases [of accidents] were ascribed to risks of trade and not to personal fault. Only 11.2 per cent of the injuries are here charged to personal fault." In a previous report the Commission declared, "the records of this Commission do not show many cases of intoxication."

The Industrial Commission of Wisconsin reports a total of 8,224 accidents reported during the year 1912-1913, of which number 4,526 cases were subject to compensation. Inasmuch as of 3,571 cases of accidents in establishments of private employers, 2,781 were at once settled and compensation paid by those employers without an order of the Commission, this is the clearest possible proof that intoxication was entirely absent as a factor. Under the Wisconsin Workmen's Compensation law intoxication is penalized 15 per cent. Of the sixty-two

contested cases of accident awards from September 1, 1911, to June 30, 1913, the question of intoxication was raised in only one case, and this solitary charge was not sustained by the Supreme Court. The 1914 report of the Wisconsin Industrial Commission shows further that intoxication is an almost negligible factor.

The New Jersey Workmen's Compensation law specifically says that if the injured employe was intoxicated at the time of the injury, recovery of accidents claims is thereby barred. Yet the New Jersey EmYet the New Jersey Employers' Liability Commission states in its 1913 report (p. 5) that of 5,750 cases of nonfatal accidents and 233 cases of fatal accidents reported for compensation during the year, 93.2 per cent were settled automatically. This shows fully that intoxication or other form of "wilful negligence" was lacking.

In California, 10,835 industrial accidents were reported in the year ended December 31, 1912. The California Industrial Accident Board declared on the subject as follows: "Our statistics show that in California we kill four times as many as we should, but California has done nothing in the way of safeguarding its working people against needless dangers. There are literally no laws requiring machinery to be made safe. If the legislature will give the Industrial Accident Board power and authority to make the employments and places of employment as safe as they reasonably can be made, it will undertake, within five years, to reduce by one-half the number of serious and fatal accidents that would otherwise take place."

The soundness of this plea was recognized by the California legislature which passed an act, to take effect in 1914, authorizing the Industrial Accident Board to establish a Bureau of Safety.

The Iowa Employers' Liability Commission recently made a similar declaration. "If the members of the General Assembly," it reported, "will provide efficient and adequate means for the enforcement of laws relating to accident prevention, injuries to employes in this state can be reduced, in a very conservative estimate, 50 per cent, and thereby very materially reduce the cost of any new system of compensation." The Iowa Workmen's Compensation law went into effect on July 1, 1914.

In the report of the Pennsylvania Acci dents Commission, a legislative inquiry body, the causes of industrial accidents were recently stated as follows: "It may be stated with fair exactness that 20 per cent of all factory accidents are primarily due to the negligence of the employer, or of those representing him in positions of supertendence; that 25 per cent are chiefly due to the negligence of the injured man himself; that 20 per cent are due to the nega gence of a co-employe of the injured man while 35 per cent are due to what may be called the hazard of the industry." Furthe this Commission explains that, "many acc dents, which in statistical tables are ascribed to the negligence of the workman himself. are in reality entirely due to overwork. A this is particularly true of women, whose incapacity for long-continued toil, partic larly at periods of illness, is strikingly shown by these statistical reports."

An investigation recently made by the Factory Inspection Department of the Boar of Public Welfare of Kansas City, Ma showed that in 33.8 per cent of the cases accidents, defective equipment was respon sible, and in 8 per cent, defective equip ment in conjunction with negligence of ti workmen. This made 42 per cent in whe. the employer was wholly or partially respo sible. In 22.7 per cent of cases, accordita to this report, fault on the part of the workmen such as carelessness, disregard instructions, etc., was responsible. T report stated, however, that 76.8 per cent the accidents investigated were due to cond tions over which the worker had no contr and it pointed out "how large a proportion the accidents are due to the risks of trade

Mr. Don D. Lescohier, Expert of th Minnesota Bureau of Labor, states that hazards of industry cause 71.6 per cent, and contributory negligence, 5.2 per cent. M Lescohier points out that in their returns accidents, Minnesota employers admitte: that 60 per cent of all accidents were due t inherent dangers of industry. The Miz nesota Bureau of Labor holds that more tha 50 per cent of these accidents were preventable. Mr. Lescohier reported that "th principal causes of accidents found respecsible in whole or in part for the 38 per cent of the accidents attributed to the workmen were youth, ignorance of the English language, incompetence, carelessness rang