take advantage of every institution which may further their ends. Besides the trade union itself, there is the trade guild, in which membership is compulsory. This regulates apprenticeship and purely trade matters. The masters, or employers, are also members of the guild. I will speak of its peculiar functions in another place, but merely wish to mention now that the craftsmen are quietly getting a controlling influence in the guilds and using them for trade union propaganda.

Next is the compulsory sick insurance societies, promoted by the government. I will explain them fully in another connection. The trade unionists find the sick insurance societies very convenient for other things besides their original purpose. The boards of control are composed of trustees. The employers elect one-third and the workmen two-thirds of the members. So, when a man makes himself so prominent as an agitator that he is blacklisted, his fellow-workmen elect him a trustee to one of the sick insurance societies. Here he gets a fair rate of wages and can still do valuable work for the unions.

The unions themselves have a national organization; also a national federation like our American Federation of Labor, and, besides that, federations of similar trades. Each group, or federation, is formed of allied trades. The tailors, glovemakers, hatters, shoemakers, shirtmakers and similar clothing trades form one group; all wood-working trades another; the metal trades still another. There are fifteen such groups in Austria. Each elects one member to the national federation executive board.

Such federations are very successful in promoting their general interests and aiding each other in case of strike. Of course, each trade manages its own local affairs without interference from the others. The federation looks after the common interest. These federated trades manage excellent trade papers, and a national official trade organ, “Die Generkschaft," is published in two languages.

To give an idea of the membership of the unions, I quote some statistics furnished by the Vienna unions for that city:

Seventeen thousand trade unionists are claimed for Vienna. The figures in the following column give some idea of the numerical strength in the whole country. This number represents only a little over three per cent of the entire force employed in these trades. The work of organization is now progressing so rapidly that another year will show an immense gain. The present movement of trade unionism only started in 1889, when they were given a legal status. When we consider the obstacles, it must be admitted that satisfactory progress has been made. With the substantial

The wages and standard of living are so low that Americans will hardly comprehend how bitter is the struggle for a bare existence. I will give the wages and cost of food, but I must confess that I have not been able to understand how people live on such a pittance.

Miners, for instance, must patronize truck stores. In many cases they are in debt to the store at the end of the month, instead of having any wages coming. They are paid from $4 to $10 a month, the larger number receiving only $6 and $8.

Brewers work twelve and thirteen hours a day and are paid $12 a month. Ornamental iron workers who do very fine work receive from $4 to $6 a week.

Cigarmaking is a government monopoly. Wages do not rise above $2 a week. The printers have a scale with the employers. They are able to fix the minimum scale at $5.20 a week and the maximum at $6. Goldsmiths making fine jewelry get from $5 to $5.60 a week. Clothing workers often earn less than 40 cents a day. A ladies' tailor making extra fine goods is paid from $6 to $7.20 a week.

The building trades seem very badly off. Bricklayers get from $3.60 to $3.84 a week. Much of the stone and ornamental plaster work is done by workmen from the country districts, who are paid from $2 to $4 a week. Stonecutters making ornamental facades get a trifle over $7 a week. Glassworkers, from $2 to $2.40 a week. Laborers in brick yards, 40 cents a day.

Textile workers in Vienna get $2 a week. In some parts of Bohemia it falls to So cents a week. I could go on indefinitely, but have tried to give a few typical examples. Six dollars a week is considered exceptionally high wages, even in a skilled trade. More than half the wage-workers in Vienna cannot average $3 a week. In the case of unskilled and female labor the price falls often below 25 cents a day.

Necessarily women work after marriage. The combined earnings of husband and wife will hardly equal that of a day laborer in the United States.

Although the standard of living is low, there is more home life than among the French, and the Austrians look sturdy and well-fed. The children are not usually sent away from home. The mother often takes

the baby with her to the factory, and where there are several, the older ones soon gain a sort of pathetic maturity and care for the others. Living in crowded quarters and growing up without parental care, the children do not get a fair start in life. It is rarely, however, that the parents can afford to hire anybody to look after the children.

A wage-worker seldom has more than two rooms—a bed-room and a kitchen, or living room. The houses all look very handsome outwardly. Even in the poorest quarters the houses are uniformly five stories in height, have ornamental facades, and look clean. There are inner court buildings, but the law is strict about overcrowding the building space. The houses have city water and sewerage. The rooms are nearly always of a fair size. At first glance, one would think the Austrians well-housed. In reality they suffer all the miseries of tenement life. A two-room tenement rents from $2.80 to $4 a month. Very few can afford a tenement for their own family. A bed will be put in the kitchen and rented to a lodger. Another in the family sleeping room may also be rented. Men without family seldom rent a room, but merely a bed in a room occupied by several others. So the tenements become wretchedly overcrowded. I have seen fourteen families on one floor of a building. Sometimes two families will take two bed rooms and a common living room. This will cost about $7.50 a month. Two or three beds will be rented extra to lodgers for forty cents a week each. City water costs each tenant twelve cents a month extra. The janitor of the building is paid from eight to twelve cents a month by each family in the building. This is his only wages. matter of course, people have not the time nor energy to keep these homes tidy, nor can they afford more than the barest necessities in the way of furniture. The Austrians have large families. It is usual to see from four to seven children in a household. The care of these children makes the problem of living still more difficult.

As a

In some places the employers provide so-called "model" tenements, cosy in appearance and only one story in height. The rent, however, is so high that several families crowd into one house and divide the expense. At Incensdorf, near Vienna, where bricks are made, I have seen four families occupying one room 15x20. Chalk marks on the floor divided the tenements. A large stove in the middle of the room was used in common. One window at each end gave light and ventilation for the seventeen persons living therein. In other houses, low railings divided the large room. Again, twenty-five or thirty men will use one of these large rooms as a sleeping and living apartment.

While most people live in crowded, uncomfortable quarters, yet in Prague I saw a very pleasant tworoom house. The couple had no children. The large room was nicely furnished; the kitchen a model of neatness. This couple paid their rent, had what they considered a sufficiency of good food and dressed com

fortably on an income of $5.60 a week. Excellent housekeeping accounted for part of the wonderful result, for prices of food are not as low as I supposed. In my next letter I will give the prices of food and clothing and describe some special features of the Austrian movement.

The Conflict of the Ages.

BY DR. U. M. WEIDEMAN.

There is not in the world's history a scene more grand and imposing than the uprising of the English people against the usurpation and tyranny of Charles I. Stern, firm and united they stood through a struggle which, for a long time, seemed hopeless. They had the king, the aristocracy and the exchequer against them, but the indomitable Anglo-Saxon sense of right against wrong was universally aroused and a chapter was written in the history of England-written in the blood of thousands of her sons so indelibly that monarchy and tyranny can never blot it out; a chapter which sealed for all time the fate of English absolutism. How it contrasts in its moderation in victory with the sad tale of the French revolution and the bloody sans culottes. But no English writer has yet dared to tell all its inward truths or to do anything like justice to the character of the mighty man of the people-Oliver Cromwell-the Washington and Lincoln in one, who rose to absolute power, but was always simple and true to his duty and his convictions to the last. Uneducated, rude toward the diplomats and courtiers of his time, he bowed humbly as a child to God, and died poor in a plain, old house in Westminster square, leaving his country an inheritance of constitutional liberty that will endure as long as time

lasts.

How absurd, how fallacious, the notion that wealth can ever long hold dominion in any Anglo-Saxon country. Homestead, Pullman, the strike of 1869 in the Pennsylvania coal regions, conclusively show that the manhood of the Anglo-Saxon is immortal. Carnegie may endow libraries and build colleges, but no munificence of his can wipe out the memory of his merciless dealings with his men.

Cromwell found his country in an era of extravagance, pride, arrogance and godlessness that was almost a parallel to France in 1792. He left it abounding in tranquility, with religious toleration for all men, with labor of all kinds well paid, industry respected, and England so democratic and so permeated with the spirit of freedom that despotism was henceforth impossible there, and the men of freedom from that day sprung from the ground like Rob Roy's men at the sound of his whistle. So that with all her great faults it must be admitted that England has done much to humanize and uplift mankind. Daniel DeFoe, the author of "Robinson Crusoe," lost his ears and stood in the pillory for the workingmen of England, but the brutality of the authorities always made their own cause weaker in the end, just as has been the case in all the great conflicts of the people against

the powers of wealth and monopoly from time immemorial.

The unjust and arbitrary decision of a western judge in a recent uprising of labor in its own behalf in this country has given to that judge an immortality of infamy that will last as long as that of Benedict Arnold.

With every passing year the sense of the utter worthlessness of mere earthly wealth grows deeper in the American mind and the value of manhood rises in the scale.

This country is now in the midst of a revolution as great as that which dethroned King Charles, and exactly the same causes are at work now as then. It is the common people against an intrenched enemymoney and landed monopoly-but this is a war of manhood and inspiration, the revolution of peaceful methods, and the victory is as sure as that of Cromwell's, for not one of our great conflicts for labor has been in vain—not one was without its lasting fruits.

I was in Scranton at the time of the miners' great strike of 1869 and saw the tremendous exertions of the coal companies to overcome those men, and at the last their victory was as barren as that of Homestead was to Carnegie-a loss of millions and a sense of defeat, moral and financial defeat and loss, and to this day they dare not throw down the gage of battle to those stern, determined miners since that time.

German Trades Union Congress.

BY EMILY GREENE BALCH, MEMBER FEDERAL LABOR UNION 5915.

The second congress of German gewerkschaften— that is, trade and labor unions-has been sitting just now in Berlin, and some account of the meeting surely belongs in these columns, but perhaps a little preliminary explanation of how things stand with labor organization in Germany may make this both more intelligible and more interesting.

Besides certain organizations in which employers and employed are united, 'and a few independent unions, there are in Germany two federations of trade unions opposed to one another in principle and practice. The so-called "Gewerk-Vereine," also known from the names of their founders as Hirsch-Dunkersche unions, represent the conservative element. They go back to the year 1868, when they were called into existence with the idea of reproducing the successful organization of labor in England. They stand on an individualistic basis. In 1876, indeed, the signing of a declaration of non-adherence to socialism was made a condition of membership. These unions are generally stronger as benefit societies than as aggressive champions of better conditions for labor, for which task the mixed organization of some of the branches unfits them. They have, however, done some work in regard to reform legislation. Their growth is not rapid, and their members did not, at last accounts, number 70,000.

On the opposite ground of socialism stand, for the

most part, the unions known as gewerkschaften, or fachvereine. When, in 1868, Dr. Hirsch was bringing forward the subject of trade unionism, the socialist leaders of the day saw at once that the proposed organization was of great strategetic importance, and proceeded to organize socialist unions, forstalling in their activity Dr. Hirsch himself. These first organizations were, however, short-lived, and in 1873 the industrial crisis, which was severely felt in Germany, put an end to most of them then in existence. The law against the socialists, which was in force from 1878 to 1890, and which made other forms of socialist organization impossible, furnished, however, a new and powerful reason for their formation. By carefully refraining from political activities, and by observing great caution in their press, they could organize unions, not only local, but national. Since 1890 the case lies somewhat differently, and there is a difference of opinion as to what the relations of the unions to the social-democratic party should be. The law governing associations is, for the most part, very repressive in German states, so that it is a choice between local, unfederated unions and the giving up all concern with political questions.

It is not now the case that all members of the gewerkschaften are socialists, though they are undoubtedly preponderatingly socialistic. The practical activity in matters of detail and the forced abstention from political discussions or efforts tends, however, to lessen that attitude of German social-democracy which makes it throw over the half loaf when it cannot have the whole.

The first congress of the German gewerkschaften met in Halberstadt, two years ago, and appointed its next session for this year. Meanwhile, its affairs were entrusted to a "general commission" of seven members, first instituted in 1887, and charged with duties of correspondence, agitation, tabulation of statistics, and general. administration. It also publishes the organ of the body, the Correspondenz Blatt,* and keeps up international relations as far as may be. The seat of this board is at Hamburg.

The second congress came together on Monday, May 4, for a five days' session. The meetings were held in one of the convenient halls which abound in Berlin. These halls, scattered in all quarters of the city-capacious, comfortable and simply appointedare a great advantage to all forms of popular propaganda, and are doubtless the cheaper because they are always connected with a restaurant, and almost every listener has his mug of beer before him.

The delegates present numbered about 140, representing fifty-six organizations—some of them, like the Hamburg Seamens Union, only a hundred or so strong; some, like the printers, woodworkers, metalworkers and masons, counting their tens of thousands. Of the 140 representatives, sixty-three belonged to the large

*Correspondenz Blatt der General Kommission der Gewerkschaften Deutschlands. Published by C. Legien, Wilhelm str., 8. I. Hamburg.

organizations. The presence list is not complete. For eight organizations, represented by fourteen delegates, no figures are given. Its total of 232,423 is, therefore, probably too low. This conclusion is borne out by the best obtainable figures.* The statistics of membership, from 1885 to 1891, show a growth of from 85,687 to 244,683. The industrial depression here made itself felt, though comparatively slightly, and the lowest point was reached at the beginning of 1893 with 215,817 members, to rise since to 253,226 (date not given). The statistics of strikes, as given by the general commission, are also of interest, and may be given here: For the period 1890-91 to 1895, expenses for 541 strikes, lasting 3,302 weeks, and including 58,242 persons, were $676,464.50. Of these strikes, 302 were defensive in character, and 242 were aggressive. The aggressive strikes were the more successful-90 successful, 91 partly successful, 57 unsuccessful, against, for the defensive strikes, 89 successful, 78 partly successful and 119 unsuccessful.

The choice of subjects to be discussed by the congress was limited by the law governing associations, which forbids associations in which political questions are discussed to federate themselves in any way or to have women members. Even the discussion of the system of state insurance against sickness, accident and old age, or of legislation for labor protection, had to be avoided, as political and liable to lead to the dissolution, not only of the meeting, but of the organi

zation.

By far the greater part of the session was taken up with debates over the form of the superior or centralizing organization, whether the general commission was to be retained, and, if not, what should replace it. The result was practically a continuation of the old system, and, for the most part, of the same officers, Herr Legien being still at the head. Their number was, however, reduced from seven to five.

A point on which there was considerable difference of opinion was the policy to be endorsed in regard to out-of-work benefits. These are opposed by the more radical element, who dread not only the conservatism so apt to go with the possession of considerable funds, but all that remotely implies consent to the existing order of things, and who approve of doing nothing independently, which is, according to their principles, the duty of the state. It was, however, voted to recommend to the unions the organization of such benefits, which are, indeed, already considerably developed among them. The practical consideration that such benefits are almost necessary to the maintaining of a stable union, capable of offering effective resistance, and for the sake of lessening under-bidding in the labor market, thus carried the day, but a clause was also voted that, as a matter of principle, the state was bound to provide for the unemployed.

On the question of the endorsement of municipal

*Dr. Oldenbergs, in his article on Gewerkvereine in Deutschland in Conrad's Handworterbuch der Staats wissenschaften. The figures are reprinted in Sociale Praxis, v. 403.

intelligence offices, the more radical view, on the other hand, prevailed-it was, in fact, not opposed. Offices under the joint charge of employers and employed, such as are now much discussed, and, in many places, already established, were condemned, and it was laid down as a principle that the sale of labor should be solely controlled by organized labor, and that, until the state understood it to be its duty to furnish labor unions with the means to maintain such bureaus under their own exclusive control, the unions should maintain their own bureaus independently. It was also voted in the motion of the Hamburg waiters, who complained of outrageous and systematic exploitation by private employment agencies, to condemn private employment agencies. A representative of the Hamburg Seamens Union also described the familiar crimping abuses, and the failure of the legislation hitherto passed to remedy it.

Agitation among working-women was discussed and warmly advocated. They should be organized in the same unions with the men, it was agreed; women's unions always turn into coffee clubs for want of proper leaders.

The sweating system was discussed by Timm, the leader in the late important strike of the garment workers and allied trades throughout Germany.

These matters, with various resolutions as to points of detail, such as are usual in labor meetings, made up the business transacted, and the congress adjourned to meet again in three years.

It was interesting to compare the meeting with similar gatherings at home, but the impression was one of likeness rather than of unlikeness. The speaking was excellent, as it generally is among all classes in Germany. The presiding, was for the most part, well done, and the procedure effective and business-like, but the congress was, nevertheless, not entirely free from that tendency to abuse parliamentary law and to delay business with unnecessary points of order, which is not unknown at home.

I will note one foreign touch-two police officials, whose presence was necessary to the transaction of business, were present throughout, sitting bareheaded on the platform, taking notes of all that was said. Had they put on their helmets again the congress would have been thereby notified that it was officially closed and adjourned without delay.

Berlin, May 9, 1896.

THE Convention of the Brotherhood of Boilermakers and Iron Ship Builders was held in Cleveland, O., June 8-16. By invitation, President Gompers and Vice-President O'Connell, of the A. F. of L., addressed the delegates, inviting the organization to become affiliated with the Federation. The word "white" was stricken from the constitution, and the organization resolved to affiliate with the A. F. of L. Many important features of the brotherhood were changed, so that it is in a better position to-day than ever before to do battle for the interests of its members and the craft generally.

Direct Legislation Defended.

BY ELTWEED POMEROY.

Two attacks have recently been made on direct legislation, one by A. Lawrence Lowell, of Boston, Mass., in the October (1895) International Journal of Ethics, and the other by J. R. MacDonald, a lecturer at Clifford's Inn, London, Eng., before the Fabian Society, and reported by himself in the Weekly Times and Echo, of London, of November 17, 1895.

It is evident that most of the facts used by the latter are drawn from the former. In my opinion, the logic in both of these attacks is faulty, and after careful investigation, including statements from authorities on the ground, I am sure that many of the facts on which the argument is based are not true. They are intentional misstatements, as one can readily see, where a person who has not thoroughly studied would be deceived. These misstatements are of the worst kind, as they are half truths and appear as the truth on the surface. Mr. MacDonald's are the most gross, but Mr. Lowell's, as the careful work of a scholar appearing in a magazine of acknowledged standing, are the most blameworthy.

Direct legislation, as its name implies, is the direct law-making by the people interested. It has been called the "delirium tremens of democracy," because it carries democracy to its logical and final conclusion. This is a suitable name for it to those who do not believe in democracy and who think it a disease from which the body politic will either die or recover.

In small communities it is carried into effect by the meetings of the people to make their own laws and decide their own matters. These meetings, as far as local matters are concerned, are the supreme legislative, executive and judicial authority. The New England town meetings are examples of this in the United States. This is the sole method of country government in New England, from the landing of the pilgrims down to date, and it has spread to many other states. It is seen in the Swiss landsgemeinde, which, in certain mountain cantons, has been in operation from time immemorial. These receive the mild academic approval of Mr. Lowell.

In communities too large for the people to meet and decide their own affairs themselves, it is obtained by the use of petitions and ballots in what are known as the referendum and the initiative.

The referendum is of two kinds-obligatory and optional. Under the first, every law passed by the law-making body is referred to a ballot of the people at the polls. This is in operation in fourteen of the twenty-two cantons of Switzerland and so well liked that it would be impossible to go back to the optional referendum or to give it up. It is in use in the United States in amending constitutions, whether national or state, save in Delaware, and in many state and local matters. There is no agitation to give it up in these matters in this country. But, with these exceptions, the obligatory referendum is not, to my knowledge, seri

ously advocated for general use in the United States. Under the optional referendum, laws enacted by the legislative body do not go into effect under a reasonable time, and if, during that time, a fit minority (usually five per cent) sign a petition to have any one of them referred to the people, they are held until the people can vote on them at the ballot box, a majority approving or rejecting. This is in use in seven of the eight Swiss cantons which do not have the obligatory referendum, in the federal Swiss government, and, with a mixture of the obligatory form, in all of the Swiss cities and in most of the communes. There is no agitation in Switzerland for its repeal, and in many places there is a strong agitation to turn the optional into the obligatory referendum. The optional referendum, which is generally known in this country by the name of referendum alone, and that word will be so used in the rest of this paper, is used very largely in this country in state and local matters. I place the local option laws, so common all over the union, under this head, despite what Mr. Lowell says, that "it becomes a law without regard to their wishes, and the question of its application in any district is decided solely by the voters of that district. Such a system is, therefore, only a method of local self-government." The last statement is correct, and that is just what direct legislation is. But how Mr. Lowell can say "it becomes a law without regard to their wishes," when it can be applied or not, as the voters wish, I cannot see. The latter part contradicts the first.. If the voters of Suffolk county, Mass., vote not to abolish the licensing of saloons, the local option law is not a law in that county, although it may be a law in the next one and a legal enactment by the state legislature. A great variety of other subjects are decided by the referendum, from the voting of bonds in Georgia to the adoption of the Torrens system of transferring land titles in Illinois; from the voting in Newark, N. J., recently, to increase the pay of the policemen from $2.75 to $3 per day, to the voting the payment of bounties for the killing of wolves in Nebraska. The tendency to thus submit questions to the people is growing both in number of the issues submitted and in variety and in importance of these issues.

But the referendum is only one-half of direct legislation, and not the most important half. It is the negative or preventive part. The positive or constructive side is the initiative. Under the initiative, a fit minority of the voters (usually about five per cent), by signing a petition for any measure, bring it for discussion before the legislative body and the people, and after a fit time it goes to a vote in the legislative body, and, later, to a poll of the people. The initiative is the impulse or creative movement; the referendum is the deciding or will movement.

Now for the errors of fact. Mr. Lowell says: "The history of popular voting in Switzerland reveals a marked tendency to reject radical measures. Strange as it may seem, the tendency to reject radical projects applies to labor laws and other measures