In unity there is strength. What grand thoughts of enthralled labor's rise to freedom, power, glory, do not these simple words, the very corner-stone of our trades union structure, inspire. Yet to poets and dreamers must we leave indulgence in such reveries, while we, as practical workers in a work-a-day world, turn to consider the very latest operative device wherewith to effect that unity of our industrial forces wherein fullest strength is to be found.

The circle check is a small blank card issued, at present, to dealers selling union goods by the central labor bodies at Newark and New Brunswick, N. J., and Danbury, Conn., and soon to be issued by those at Omaha, Neb., Denver, Colo., and other places.

Union men, their relatives, wives and friends trading at such union houses, on making a purchase, call for a circle check. The dealer notes upon this check the amount of the purchase, stamps it with his name and hands it to his customer. The latter takes it to his union as proof that he has done his duty by the union cause in bringing business support to his fellow unionists in his own and other trades. The unions in turn send these checks in to the central body to prove that they are helping other unions.

The demand for the checks proves to a union dealer that some portion of his trade comes from the friends of unionism, and the greater the call for the checks the more union goods will he be disposed to keep and the greater heed will he pay to the fair requests of organized labor. Should he attempt to become unfair, hire non-union help or put in scab or counterfeit label goods, the central body recalls his checks, or stops giving him more. Union buyers will soon notice that something is wrong through their failure to get checks, they will go elsewhere in search of them and the unfair dealer will speedily discover the error of his ways and proceed to make reparation.

The circle check has the general appearance as shown in the next column.

This card, with the amount left blank, is yellow in color. In addition, smaller red, blue and lavender

No. 3.

checks are used, bearing the respective denominations

of five, ten and twenty-five cents.

CIRCLE CHECK.

TRADESCUR COUNCIL

Name of Central Body.

CONSUMER'S CIRCLE SYSTEM.

AMOUNT OF PURCHASE, $.

ISSUED BY

'BUYER'S LEAGUE.

INTERNATIONAL UNION

Where these checks are issued as mere memoranda, dealers will soon begin to distribute them promiscuously as advertising cards. To stop this abuse and at the same time strengthen their treasuries, central bodies can exact a small discount from dealers on all checks they issue. This will effectually prevent the checks being issued for any but bona fide purchases. Central bodies adopting the check system should be careful to keep this discount low, as otherwise it might tempt dealers to raise prices on the consumer. This discount, be it borne in mind, is only incidental to the main purpose of a solid and effective agitation for union made goods.

In New Brunswick, N. J., the circle checks sent to the central body are redeemed by the dealers at two per cent. of their face value. This money goes into a fund from which the members receive in case of sickness a benefit of three dollars a week.

In Newark, N. J., and Danbury, Conn., the trades councils collect from the dealers three per cent. on the checks. In Newark one-half of this amount is divided among the unions in proportion to the checks turned in by them, while the other half remains with the council to cover the cost of printing, collecting, reporting, advertising, etc. Properly pushed, this system can bring in to each union, small though its discount may appear, an amount sufficient to pay all its running expenses, and so clear its members of all necessity for paying direct dues.

In placing the checks with dealers it will be found advisable for central bodies to select a few of the most popular friends of unionism in each line of business. Make a big display of signs bearing the words: Call for the Circle Check." That will concentrate union trade upon these houses, enable it to make a good showing, and lead to a demand for the checks on the part of other dealers. Central' bodies should add new

houses to those upon the check list only as fast as the members become interested in calling for the circle check. One hundred men pledged to call for the check will produce a better and quicker effect where the checks can be found in only five houses than where these checks are distributed among two hundred dealers. The solidly organized union trade is then spread out too thin, with the result that dealers will grow indifferent, earnest workers will become discouraged, and only because good judgment was not exercised at the start.

Again, when placing checks central bodies should not make the requirements to which a dealer must conform too severe. The standard for a check house

should be a progressive one, rising with the power of the organized union buyers.

In Newark, dealers to get the checks must keep straight on just one union requirement. For instance, no grocer, druggist or saloonkeeper can handle the checks unless he sells none but union cigars. Later, two union requirements will be established, such, for instance, as selling union cigars, having all printing done in union offices, allowing no signs to be displayed unless printed in such offices, etc. Then three requirements, four, five, six, etc., until eventually the entire stock of the dealers handling checks will get to be outand-out union.

As to the celerity and certainty with which the check system operates, many instances could be cited, but I shall limit myself to three typical cases.

In New Brunswick, N. J., a clothing house had in its employ several non-union tailors. It wanted the checks. As it was paying the standard rate of wages, etc., it claimed that it was unfair to require it to send its men to the union. The organized union buyers did not see why they should support any but those distinctly with them. No checks. Their money did not go to this store. Trade fell off there. The nonunion men, without further ado, marched into the union on a hint from the house. It then got the checks.

In Newark a cigar manufacturer who, for six years, had successfully resisted all attempts on the part of the cigarmakers union to compel him to make his shop union, surrendered unconditionally to the organized union buyers after a circle check campaign of only two weeks' duration.

In Danbury the saloonkeepers were notified many months ago that union beer had a more grateful taste to the union palate than scab beer, but no move was made on the part of the dealers to get rid of the objectionable stuff. When the circle check was introduced in the town it was found that only two saloons were sufficiently "fair" to handle it. In the next few days no less than thirty-three saloonkeepers began throwing out their scab beer to replace it with the union made article, and solely under the pressure of

the check.

The demand for the circle check gives every union man, no matter what his shop, trade or general affili

ation may be, as well as every other man or woman at all friendly to the cause of unionism, just one specific line of actual, positive work to do. It establishes a practical uniformity in deed, the moral power of which, as leading on to a thorough unity and complete solidarity of interests among all branches of industry, cannot be overestimated. All buyers have but one thing to attend to, and that is to get their check. They have no longer any need to become posted on a multiplicity of union labels, for each trade having jurisdiction over all stores so far as its own interests are affected, can report to the central body whether its labels and goods are given proper recognition or not by certain dealers, and the central can then grant or withhold the blank checks, as may be right.

As a means of simplifying and lightening the work of furthering the interests of unionism in the several departments of agitation, education, organization and co-operation, the circle check has already amply proven itself a device of incomparable value.

The consumer, the man with money to spend, has a tremendous power in shaping just business conditions, if he can be once thoroughly aroused to make intelli

gent, orderly use of the same. That is the purpose of

the circle system, of which this custom check is but one of the component parts. In future articles more of the details of this system will be presented.

Our April Number Reviewed.

BY JOSEPH A. LABADIE.

I have just finished reading the April FEDERATIONIST, and then wondered if any of its readers would be interested in learning what I thought about it and the reasons why. "The way to find out is to do it," I said to myself, and here I am at it.

"Unity" is a good little poem and illustrates very pleasingly the value of association. But I wondered why the author didn't say something about passing a law to compel the snowflakes, and the maple leaves, and the grains of sand to co-operate.

46

The Law of the Land" is full of good satire, and after I read it I wondered why so bright a fellow as T. J. Morgan could not see the futility of "law making" as a means of bettering the conditions of the people. There was a time when I was just as good a state socialist as Mr. Morgan ever was, but I soon saw through the political game and got against it. It is a "skin" game; the politicians are always the winners. With them it is heads I win, tails you lose. Mr. Morgan quotes disapprovingly the decision of the Illinois supreme court in the eight-hour law case. I like the decision. It is sound and healthful. No maudlin hypocrisy about it or silly sentimentality. It is cleancut justice. And the quotation from the attorney of the manufacturers' association is a real gem, with the exception of this: "The moment the liberty of labor is restricted, impaired or infringed upon by legislation, just at that moment is the whole structure of government undermined." The facts do not bear out this statement. The liberty of labor has always been

restricted, impaired and infringed upon by legislation, and I am sorry to say that the structure of government is not undermined yet. But this decision of the court does not fully establish the equality before the law of woman with the man. Man has the ballot as a power to oppress his neighbors; woman has not this power. It is not likely, however, that either the court or the attorney would agree with me when I say that the land must be free to whomsoever will use it, and none to have more than he uses; that patent rights must be abolished as a means of abolishing the monopoly of machinery; and that the making of the medium of exchange must be taken from congress before the freedom of contract can attain its full fruition. There is no freedom of contract now between the owners of the tools of production and the users of the tools. But the way to get over the fence is not to pull on your boot straps.

"The Ruling Power," by my old friend Leffingwell, reads well. His writings always do read well. He is an eloquent sophist. His melange of truth and error is always done in beautiful English; and while I admire his phraseology I take decided objection to many of his statements and to his logic. His definition of a state is incorrect. Those who either directly or by their representatives take part in the government of a country are the state. Their families or their children are not in it," strictly speaking. Only a small portion of the people, even in this country, compose the state. "The people of a state should be controlled by fixed laws,' says Samuel. But, Samuel, they are now controlled by "fixed" laws, and yet there is no protection against the demagogue-the charlatan. Why should the formulation of law be at the "dictation" of the many as against the few? Should not the formulation of law rather be in harmony with facts and reason, and not at the "dictation" of either the many or the few? "Education and good morals go to make the good citizen," says our old friend. But what kind of education, and what are "good morals?" I have not the space to point out all the good and the bad, but I have space to take positive issue with the statement about politics in the trades unions. In the first place, he distorts the meaning of "politics." Politics is "that part of ethics which has to do with the regulation and government of a nation or state," and a "union of workingmen in any trade or calling" is not a nation or state. A trade union is regulated by rules adopted by a certain number of specified votes, usually a majority of those at a meeting when there are enough for a quorum. Every member of the union is supposed to acquiesce in the rules so adopted. If the union has power to regulate or direct, not the opinions but the actions of its members on anything that affects their "economic welfare, well-being and prosperity," why would it not have the power to regulate the actions of its members on political matters if politics were allowed to " crawl" into the union? Does not politics affect the "economic welfare, well-being and prosperity" of members of trades unions as well as non-members? There is fear

of internal strife from politics; it has already created breaches that can never be healed, and is likely to cause more before the folly is over. But I must drop "The Ruling Power" here.

Hoenes says many good things in "The Free Coinage of Silver." The money question takes rank with any other economic question in importance.

Frank Myers falls into a popular superstition in his "Honest Elections." Votes may elect honest men to office, but honest men have been elected to office, lo! these hundred years, and still we have no relief from bad legislation.

Johnson is right about the national debt exploiting the laboring classes for the benefit of the moneyed class. "A national debt a national blessing" is a bald-headed fallacy.

Jose Gros is an entertaining writer and is doing good work in showing the weakness of the present political system. I expect to see him outgrow the ballot superstition before long.

Frank Valesh in "Labor Legislation (?)" suits me very well, but I am sorry he mars his excellent article with this sentence: "I do not mean to disparage the efforts for child-labor, factory and mine inspection, sanitary, prison reform and similar laws."

་་

The editorials are very fair. With the exception of a few objectionable sentences, "Ripe for Action” is good, and the criticism of Burns is timely and merited. 'Notes" are very good. They "scratch me just where it itches." Maas' "Chicago Notes" are always readable, and it would not be a bad thing if some one in each of the larger towns would send notes also.

The Problem of the Cities.

BY ELTWEED POMEROY.

That our city governments are failures is a fact that is becoming more and more widely recognized. Many of them are so corrupt that the services they render their citizens are poor compared with the services given by the city officials in semi-barbarous countries like Turkey and Russia. That the chief of police in San Francisco formerly kept a gambling house, and that the police of Chicago licensed brothels unofficially, for their own private pocket, would seem to indicate that the lowest depths had been reached. But there was a still lower one proved before the Lexow committee, in New York, where it was shown that the police were in league with a professional abortionist. Is this rottenness due to democracy? This is the first question to answer. Statistics prove that our population is moving rapidly into the cities. The country is being depleted to build up the city. More and more people are gathering in the cities. The life of our nation is bound up with the life of the cities. They are becoming more and more powerful, not only as population centers, but also as centers for the diffusion of thought and opinion, intellectual, social, economic and politi

NOTE-For most of the facts in this paper, I am greatly indebted to Mr. Alfred D. Chandler, of Brookline, Mass., as given by him in an address before the Library Hall Association of Cambridge, March 25th, 1895.

cal. As our cities go, so goes the nation. If our municipal governments cannot be made pure and efficient, then good-bye to the republic.

The second question is: How can our municipal governments be purified and strengthened? These questions are of vital interest to readers of THE FEDERATIONIST, as nine-tenths of them are city dwellers. I propose to state some facts by way of answer.

The town of Brookline, Mass., has a population of 15,000. Within a radius of ten miles of its town hall is a population of nearly a million, increasing at the rate of 2,000 a month. The town is entirely surrounded by the cities of Boston and Newton. It is a part of the county of Norfolk although entirely cut off from it by the counties of Suffolk and Middlesex. It is within the metropolitan district of Boston, but is not a part of the city of Boston. It is a town within a city. The social and economic conditions are identical with other parts of the city of Boston. If the results of the government of Brookline are different from the results of the government of Boston, surely it can only be due to a difference in the methods of government and to the principles at the bottom of those methods.

Boston is not as badly governed as some cities, nor as well governed as others. It has its corruption, its bosses, its rings and its unsolved problems. Almost annually does it apply to the state legislature for the solution of some of these problems, and the legislature almost as often puts an inch plaster on a gaping sore. The other times it either does nothing or turns out one set of officeholders to put in another. The city is abused by its West End street railway, and its gas companies charge one rate in one part of the city and a higher in another part, getting all the traffic will bear. It is a fair example of our municipal bad government. It has a mayor, aldermen, etc., as do other large cities.

Brookline is a New England town, with the New England town meeting, in which any voter can take part, can ask any question of the five selectmen (who are the town's chief officers, elected annually) and of the other officers; he, with nine others, can secure the insertion of any proposition in the warrant for calling the town meeting, where it will be discussed and voted on. The people appropriate every dollar that is spent. It is the most democratic system of government that can possibly be devised.

It may be said that the business is limited, that the money passing through their hands doesn't amount to much, and that if it did the system would break down.

A warrant for the yearly town meeting lies before me; it contains eighteen propositions calling for action. Accompanying it is a pamphlet of seventeen pages, being the "Report of the Selectmen of Brookline on the Articles in the Warrant;" and a book of 452 pages, with 164 additional pages of assessors' reports, and eighteen more pages of index, which is the "One Hundred and Eighty-ninth Annual Report of the Town Officers of Brookline." The business is not limited.

I find on page 343 of this report that the receipts last year were $1,795,217 and the payments $1,795,530. This is nearly three times the receipts and expenditures of the state of New Hampshire and about the same as the state fund of New Jersey. The entire debt of Brookline amounts to $2,146,284, with sinking funds and cash against it of $407, 105. In the warrant are proposals to give the treasurer power to borrow, for certain specified purposes, $154,500, and, with the approval of the selectmen, to borrow up to $300,000, in anticipation of tax payments. During the past year he did borrow $604,600, and in most of these cases he was directed not to pay over 4 per cent. interest on loans, and really did pay 31⁄2 per cent. to 3 9-16 per cent. The credit of a purely democratic government is thus shown to be of the very best. The United States paid a higher rate of interest on its last bond issue. The appropriations asked for in the warrant foot up to $928,252. This is nearly $3,000 a day for running expenses. Other facts could easily be cited to prove that the amount of money involved is not small, but these are sufficient.

How is it done? During the decade from 1784 to 1795, the town meetings averaged seven a year. Although the business has increased two hundred times during the century, there were during the decade from 1884 to 1895 an average of eight town meetings a year, and if adjournments and general elections are omitted, there were four a year. The meetings begin at 7 p. m. and are usually over between 10 and 11 p. m. The town has a population of 15,000. The polls assessed are 4,163. Nearly all of these are voters. At the election last fall, 1,932 votes were cast for governor and about the same for the other officers. The town hall will seat between 1,000 and 1,200, and occasionally is filled, but usually there is between 200 and 300. Policemen are at the door with a check-list, and only voters and reporters are allowed on the floor. The galleries are open to the non-voting public. Thus by the law of natural selection, the public-spirited voters attend and the lazy and indifferent stay at home, while there is enough of the cantankerous element to prevent stagnation.

There is little tendency to oratory and many questions are asked. The previously circulated reports are very full and accurate, but occasionally a question will bring out an unseen point and an appropriation will be withheld. There is no foul log-rolling. The dif ferences between different sections are adjusted man to man, face to face. There is a fair reciprocity. No one section feels safe to act the part of the dog in the manger.

There is a distinct tendency to economy. This makes the selectmen careful in recommending appropriations. The first question asked is: "Will it pay?" If yes, the appropriations are liberal. Thus the owners of land along Beacon street wished to widen it from fifty to 160 feet, with a parkway in the center. There was an amicable co-operation between them and the town, and it was done in 1886 and, 1887 at an expense of

$615,000, of which the town paid $465,000. Boston controls Beacon street before it enters and after it leaves Brookline, and was compelled to follow the town's lead.

A pure democracy leads in improvements a community governed by a centralized, delegated body. In six years the property immediately on each side of this parkway had increased in value so much that the town was collecting an additional annual revenue of $51,000, a handsome return on an investment of $465,000. So it is all through the town work. A cursory glance at the many reports shows at once that the people are not niggardly in voting appropriations where they are convinced that it will do good.

Of course there are differences of opinion. But they are usually settled by discussion before a vote is had. On looking over the records of the seven town meetings of last year, I find several propositions passed over to the next meeting for more consideration, a few indefinitely postponed, but most of them passed unanimously without the taking of the yeas and nays, and where the yeas and nays have been taken only one vote is recorded in the negative. A full and free discussion of things which directly concern them develops harmony of opinion and action.

Only a few more advantages of this democratic government can be touched on here.

More than a tenth of the appropriations are for the schools. These have increased from $39, 100 in 1884, to $97,715 in 1895. The schools are, from this report, very well managed. Besides the primary and grammar schools, they include a high school, manual training school, a chemical laboratory, art and music instruction, physical training and evening schools, free to all, of course.

The report on the water works is almost a model. Brookline claims to have far better water than Boston. The board of health report shows that sickness and the death rate are decreasing. The librarian's report shows a circulation of 5.2 books per inhabitant this year, against 4.52 last year. So one might go through these various reports, which gauge the progress of a democracy in good government. Only two other items will be given: Five hundred dollars are appropriated for a public bath house for the boys. The assessor's report gives the names and residence of each taxpayer, with the polltax, the total personal estate and its value, a description of the real estate and its value, and the total tax. A democracy wishes to know its resources and to have them publicly known.

Twenty years ago the real and personal estates in Brookline were assessed at about ten millions each The assessed valuation now is: Personal estate, fifteen millions; real estate, forty-two millions; total fiftyseven millions, or an increase of nearly 300 per cent., and in the last ten years the number of real estate holders has doubled, showing a wider distribution of real property. Mr. Chandler, an old-time resident, says of this: "Owners of real estate now find that

it is they who must bear, by far, the largest part of the taxes, hence a growing disposition, and with many

an imperative necessity, to put their lands on the market."

The assessments of adjoining localities tell a different tale. West Roxbury and Brighton gave up their town governments in 1873 and joined Boston. In 1880 they had a combined valuation of thirty-three millions and Brookline twenty-three millions. In 1891, the first two had a valuation of fifty-one millions and Brookline of fifty-three millions. A better distribution and a more rapid increase in wealth under democratic rule than under delegated government.

The average rate of taxation from 1874 to 1885 was $11.95; for the last ten years the average rate has been $10.90, a large decrease, and it was a decade of the boldest improvement. The rate is so much less than the surrounding city of Boston that it attracts many people of the very best class, and in Boston, Brookline is called the tax-dodgers' paradise. A pure democracy lowers the taxation and keeps the rates low. It is a great improvement over a delegated government in this respect.

Are there any scandals in Brookline municipal government? None. Some few were charged in the Boston papers a few years ago, investigated and disproved. The same officers are re-elected again and again without much change and irrespective of their party affiliations.

How do the inhabitants regard it? They have been urged repeatedly to join Boston, have fought against it in the legislature and the courts, have voted on it and always voted it down by large majorities.

* * *

Mr. Chandler sums the facts up well in a recent number of the New England Magazine: "If it is painful to be impressed with the failure of Americans to govern their large cities well, it is with relief that we turn to the example of about six square miles of area in the very heart of a great metropolitan city district in America, which area represents a larger proportion of homes for all classes, of superior schools and public library, better roads, better water and sewers, and more efficient and honorable management than is found elsewhere, with a consequent accumulation of taxable property exceeding that of any other municipality in the world of the same population."

Equally favorable facts could be garnered from the history of hundreds of New England towns, but Brookline was taken because it was inside of a city and had all the problems of a large city save those of bad government. Boston gave up the town meeting in 1822, when it had a population of 40,000, yearly expenditures of $249,000, and a debt of $100,000. In the face of these facts, you may say that delegated government is a failure, but you cannot say that democratic government has failed.

Mr. Chandler has spoken of the adaptability and elasticity of the town meeting, and has said that it can be applied to almost any volume of business, though not in its primitive state to a very large population.

What is the principle at the bottom of the town meeting? It is that the officers are the servants and not the rulers of the people, who have the direct and