$2.20 to $2.60, and for men, $9.05. In the same industry for the entire United States the average weekly wage for women in 1890 was $5.53, ranging from $5.17 to $10.44. In 1831 men's wage was twice as great as women's; in 1880 it was less than one third greater. Between 1831 and 1880 men's wages had increased 38 per cent; women's, 149 per cent. . . . A careful examination of the actual earnings of women discloses the fact that in many industries their average earnings equal or exceed the earnings of men. This is especially true of the pieceworkers. In general, however, it must be said that woman's wages as compared with man's is considerably lower. But this is easily explained, when we consider the fact that she has stepped out of industrial subjection and come into the industrial system as an entirely new economic factor. If there were no other reasons this alone would be sufficient to keep her wages low and prevent their very rapid increase.

Professor Mason, in his book on Woman's Share in Primitive Culture, devotes a chapter to woman as a jack-atall-trades, and remarks that in the entire course of human history the combination of abilities in one woman stands in sharp contrast with the co-operation of many individuals at one duty or activity among men. "In co-operation," he says, "women have always been weak. There are few duties that they have in common. Even as beasts of burden they seldom worked in pairs." Unless we can realize what must be the effect of centuries of isolated work, we can hardly explain the ill success of women's trade unionism, nor appreciate the progress already made by women in co-operating with one another for various other purposes. "In industry, women, as a class, are just beginning to understand the power and the force which come from organization," says Mr. Wright. This is true; but woman's entrance into labor unions took place before she became conscious of her class.

The employers' persistence in keeping women at the trades, wherever wages could be saved, and the workingmen's conviction that they must either leave their trades or admit women to their unions was the real cause of women's first connection with unionism. There was, of course, a strong

opposition. The eighteenth century trade clubs of hatters, basket makers, or compositors would have instantly struck against any attempt to put a woman to any part of their craft. The intensity of resentment or abhorrence with which the average workingman regards the idea of woman entering his trade equals that displayed by the medical practitioner of the last generation. The Lancashire weavers alone never made any sex distinctions. The various organizations of weavers have from the introduction of the power loom included women on the same terms as men.

The typical status of woman in the male occupations may be illustrated by the following resolution adopted by the London society of compositors, 1886: "While strongly of opinion that women are not physically capable of performing the duties of a compositor, this conference recommends their admission to membership of the various typographical unions upon the same conditions as journeymen, provided always, the females are paid strictly in accordance with scale." The standard rate practically excludes sex competition, while it does not debar a woman from a man's work, provided she wins her way by capacity, and not by underbidding.

In Germany, the workingmen for a long time believed that the employment of women could be restricted. But, in spite of all efforts of restriction, the employment of women increased constantly, until five and a half millions, according to the census of 1882, were wage earners. Then only did the workingmen realize that women workers were no longer a factor to be neglected, and that equal duties toward society gave them equal rights. At their parteitag, or annual congress, held at Halle in 1890, the social democrats, therefore, passed a resolution demanding the full equality of the sexes in the state and society; and the next year at Brussels, the International Socialists' congress adopted the same resolution unanimously. After 1892 women were permitted to choose delegates to the annual congress, and now the members of the working women's association are an integral factor of the social democratic party.

In the United States, the Knights of Labor and the granger associations of the western farmers formulated (1870) a prin

ciple that no grange should be organized or exist without women. The more conservative men, too, began about 1884 to receive women in their unions. The rapid advance here made is evident in the United Garment Workers' union. In its establishment (1891) women bore no part, either directly or indirectly, says Miss Hurd. In April, 1902, the union was composed of 179 local bodies, of which 83 admitted men only, while 96 were made up either exclusively of women or of both men and women. Their number of delegates at the conventions increased from 2 out of 53 in 1894 to 18 out of 56 in 1900 and 23 out of 88 in 1901. "An interesting phase of the changing attitude of women toward unions is revealed," says John Mitchell, "by the action of the Chicago Federation of Teachers. The teachers of Chicago, recognizing that they were wage earners and realizing the similarity of their aims and ideals with those of the great body of trade unionists, threw their fortunes in with their fellow workers and became affiliated with the Chicago Federation of Labor." That woman as a factor in organized labor is considered important, the words of the most prominent labor leader of to-day amply testifies: "The future will undoubtedly show a vast strengthening of the labor movement through the compact organization of the women employed in American industries."

Vol. 8-25

THE EVOLUTION OF NEGRO LABOR.

BY CARL KELSEY.

[Carl Kelsey, sociologist; born Grinnell, Iowa, September 2, 1870; educated at Iowa college, Andover Theological seminary, University of Gottingen and University of Pennsylvania; is assistant professor of sociology in the University of Pennsylvania and assistant director of the New York school of philanthropy. Author, The Negro Farmer.]

Few questions now before the American people are of more general interest than that which relates to the rôle the negro is to play in the great industrial advance of the southern states. That there is much in existing conditions both of encouragement and discouragement is patent to every careful observer. Unfortunately most of those discussing the questions close their eyes to one or the other set of facts and are wildly optimistic or pessimistic accordingly. As everyone has his standpoint, let me say that I agree with Dr. J. L. M. Curry, who states: "I have very little respect for the intelligence or the patriotism of the man who doubts the capacity of the negro for improvement or usefulness." The civilization of a race has taken place many times in the history of the world. How long it may take for any given people, or whether the development may be stopped by unpropitious conditions, no one can tell. It took the Germans hundreds of years to absorb the Roman culture, and the immoralities of the May days were the despair of the Puritans almost a thousand years later. One trouble regarding the negro is that we have no standard for comparison. It may be that if we knew the rate of progress of other primitive peoples we should find his progress remarkable.

We know comparatively little about the ancestry of the American negroes. They came, originally, from the west coast of Africa, but it is not known how far into the interior the slave trade had extended. Western Africa was inhabited by many tribes, some of which were much superior to others. It is certain that Semitic blood had been infused into the more

northern tribes. All these tribal distinctions, however, have been hopelessly lost in America and to increase the confusion no small amount of white blood has been added. The number and relative position of negroes as contrasted with mulattoes, etc., no one knows, and the census does not attempt to ascertain. The traveler through the south is impressed by the fact that the leaders in industry and education are not pure negroes. It should be remembered that a black skin is no guarantee of the pure negro. Crossing with the whites may show itself in shape of skull and features as well as in color. While ethnologists may not yet predict the results of race mixture, it is safe to say that it is unscientific to use the achievements of a score of half breeds as an index of what may be immediately expected of the original stock.

In Africa the negroes had established no enduring state. At the time when the slave trade was at its height the strong hill tribes of the east had been crowding the weaker tribes to the low west coast; slavery in its worst forms was universal and slave raids were known long before the advent of Europeans. Cannibalism was prevalent; religion a mass of grossest superstition, with power of life and death in the hands of the priests of the mystic rites of the Voodoo and Obea. The sexual passions were strongly developed. Marriage was a living together for a longer or shorter time. Life and property were in subjection to the chiefs, consequently very insecure. Wild animals were dangerous. The damp tropical climate made great provisions for the future unnecessary, not to say impossible, while social conditions did not favor the accumulation of property.

The transfer to America made a sharp break with the past. Simple dialects were exchanged for a complex language. Physical health was carefully safeguarded; life became more secure. An emphasis previously unknown was placed upon the permanence of marital relations. In return the negro, for the first time, was made to work. Admitting, as all do, that slavery was an economic mistake, from the negro's standpoint it conferred a great benefit by teaching him to work. Booker T. Washington has said: "American slavery was a great curse to both races and I would be the last