knowledge, however, that in many strikes of national dimensions, most of the participants were immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe.

The Immigration Commission has given expression to the popular condemnation of the Southern and Eastern European immigrants for their alleged "tractability" and their "willingness seemingly to accept indefinitely without protest certain wages and conditions of employment." It is worthy of note that the same criticism was directed against English immigrants when they were among the "new immigration." The following, from a labor paper published in 1845, has a familiar sound:

Capital is striving to fill the country with foreign workmen. English workmen, whose abject condition in their own country has made them tame, submissive and "peaceable orderly citizens"; that is, work 14 and 16 hours per day, for what capital sees fit to give them, and if it is not enough to provide them a comfortable house to shelter their wives and children and furnish them with decent food and clothes, why they must live in cellars, go hungry and ragged.

To-day the complaint against the immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe who are "mainly, unskilled laborers," is that "on the whole" they "have not shown the same readiness to join trade-unions . . . as have those coming from the older immigration from the north and west of Europe." In general, as shown, the supposed connection between trade-unionism and the points of the compass is not sustained by the statistics of the Immigration Commission. In regard to unskilled laborers, in particular, it must be borne in mind that "on the whole" they are not eligible "to join trade-unions," the latter being confined mainly to skilled crafts.

There is a tendency among certain theorists to idealize

• Reports of the Immigration Commission, vol. 1, pp. 531, 541. Jenks and Lauck, loc. cit., pp. 191, 206-207.

Documentary History of American Industrial Society, vol. viii., 18401860. Voice of History, Fitchburg, Massachusetts, Oct. 9, 1845. 3 Jenks and Lauck, loc. cit., p. 207.

the trade-union in the abstract as the economic organization of "the working class." The craft union, as it exists in real life, not in theory, partakes of the nature of the mediaval guild: its object is to assure work to its members. To accomplish this purpose, it seeks to limit the number of competitors.1

To criticise individual union leaders for this attitude is to betray a misconception of the essence of the craft union: its exclusiveness is not an "abuse," it is a policy. To organize "the working class" is not the aim of the trade union. 2 It strives only to organize as many fellow-crafts

The policy of the flint-glass workers' union is thus described in the Reports of the Industrial Commission, vol. xv., p. 325: "Being a highly skilled trade, it is not troubled by the immigration of unskilled laborers. Those who come to this country are mainly from Norway, Sweden, and Alsace-Lorraine, where they have learned their trade. There are two considerations which restrict the entrance of immigrants. First, the initiation fee imposed by the union. This fee was formerly $100 for foreigners, and $3 for Americans. The fee has been reduced to $50 for foreigners, the American fee remaining at $3. There is an opinion in the union that this extreme discrimination against foreigners is not advantageous, as it compels them to enter non-union shops instead of joining the union. This is known to have been the fact in at least one large non-union establishment manned mainly by foreigners." In this case discrimination was practised against highly skilled immigrants from Northern and Western Europe, usually classified as "desirable."

The philosophy of trade-unionism is expressed without equivocation in the following quotation from the testimony of Mr. A. A. Roe, representing the railway brotherhoods, before the committee on Immigration and Naturalization:

"Mr. Roe. I take this position, without any hesitancy at all, that as I see it, the influx displaces the workman of this country, the wage-earner, and causes a competition for his position, increases the number of applicants for work. This brought into existence the organizations, drove men together. They had to get into the organizations to give them power to maintain their position, to save the comforts of their homes, and if you say that is a good thing, well and good.

"Mr. Sabath. It is a good condition: organization is a good con. dition, and if they are responsible for any improvements in the condition of the workingmen, then they are entitled to thanks.

"Mr. Roe. A better condition would be one that would not require the

men as are necessary to control the trade. There is no place for the unskilled laborer in the trade-union of the prevailing type. There are situations where the interests of the craft union may be antagonistic to organization among the unskilled, as has been exemplified in the recent Lawrence strike. The United Textile Workers' Union of America, of which Mr. John Golden is president, for many years previous to the strike, had at Lawrence an organization confined to the skilled men in the mills. It was easy for the mill owners to satisfy the demands of the few skilled men, who were but a very small fraction of the whole labor force. They were willing to remain at work. The demands of the thousands of unskilled workers, however, could not be satisfied without a greater financial sacrifice than the mill owners were prepared to make. The suspension of work caused by the strike of the immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe and Asia Minor was an injury to the members of the United Textile Workers' Union, who had nothing to gain from the success of the strike. Viewing the controversy not from an altruistic, but from a business point of view, they naturally sided with the mill owners against the strikers, "comforted that the whirligig of time was bringing them around as bulwarks of conservatism even in the eyes of the employers." This diversity of economic interests of the aristocracy of skilled labor and of the masses of unskilled men, women, and children accounts for the fact that "the English-speaking labor men have not been urged by such a missionary zeal toward the recent immigrants as should have been theirs on human grounds no more than on the basis of sound association among the whole labor force.

112

organization; would not make the organization necessary. A better condition would be one where hours, conditions of employment, and wages were such that organization of labor for these purposes was unnecessary." -Hearings before the Commission on Immigration and Naturalization, House of Representatives, Sixty-first Congress, p. 256.

Robert A. Woods: "The Clod Stirs," The Survey, March 16, 1912, pp. 1930-1931. 2 Ibid.

Discussing the possibilities of organization among the unskilled, a student of organized labor says:

The immigrant is usually accustomed to some form of social organization. He is not as individualistic as is the typical American. He can be organized with others into labor unions; and when the unskilled immigrants from a variety of birthplaces are thus associated, the resulting union is usually strong, coherent, and easily directed by capable and enthusiastic leaders. The McKees Rocks strike furnishes an excellent illustration of the solidarity of the unskilled when organized.'

On the home training of Italian immigrants in organization the report of the Immigration Commission contains interesting material, which unfortunately has been disregarded in its conclusions.

In recent years the labor-union movement has grown rapidly and to large proportions among the industrial as well as the agricultural workers of Italy, and it is said that the activities of the unions have helped to advance wages in both fields. In 1907, according to Annuario Statistico for 1905-1907, there were 2950 industrial unions in the Kingdom, with a total of 362,533 members. From 1901 to 1904, inclusive, there were 3032 industrial strikes, involving 621,737 workers, and in the various years from 63 to 80 per cent of the strikes were reported as "successful" or "partly successful.”2

The most noteworthy feature of this movement is the progress of organization among farm hands, which has no counterpart in the United States. The statistics presented in Table 105 show that even the despised South Italian farm laborer is capable of organization and concerted action.

On the labor movement in Russia, a compilation of statistics from Russian official sources has been published by the United States Bureau of Labor.

Previous to the revolution of 1905, labor organizations and strikes were treated as conspiracies in Russia. During the revolution the severity of the law was relaxed for a short time, but with the suppression of the revolution the old repressive policy was resumed. Thus the only oppor

2

Carlton: loc. cit., pp. 346–347.

• Reports of the Immigration Commission, vol. 4 (in press).

TABLE 105.

AGRICULTURAL LABOR UNIONS AND STRIKES AMONG AGRICULTURAL LABORERS IN ITALY.1

tunity the wage-warners of the Russian Empire had to show their capacity for organization and concerted action was in 1905. According to the statistics published by the Russian government, the total number of strikers in factories and mines during the year 1905 was 2,915,000. This figure does not include the railways and the postal-telegraph service, which were completely paralyzed by the strikes of 1905.3 According to the census of 1897, the total number of railroad employees, exclusive of administrative officials, was 682,000 and the total number of employees in the postal-telegraph service, exclusive of higher officials, was 75,000.4 The total number of strikers for the year 1905 may therefore be conservatively estimated at 3,672,000. The highest number of strikers recorded in the United States for any one year between 1881 and 1905 was 533,000, in 1902.5 The strikes in the factories of the Russian Empire in 1905 affected 32.6 per cent of all establishments under

I

Reports of the Immigration Commission, vol. 4, Table 17 (condensed). 2 Of the 1105 strikes among agricultural laborers a large majority were reported as successful or partly successful.

3 Bulletin of the Bureau of Labor, No. 86: I. M. Rubinow, Foreign Statistical Publications, Russia, p. 284.

Prémier Récensement Général de la Population de l'Empire de Russie, 1897, vol. ii., pp. 11, 250-251.

s Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1909, p. 240.