enumerated in Fayette and Westmoreland counties (the Connellsvile region) 4788 natives of Hungary, Bohemia, and Poland, of both sexes, all ages, and all occupations.1 It is quite conceivable that in the case of a strike a great corporation might have resorted to the importation of a force of strikebreakers regardless of cost. There is a "legend" in the Pennsylvania anthracite field that during a strike in 1870 a breaker belonging to Eckley B. Coxe was burned down, whereupon he secured through his superintendent "two shiploads of his Hungarian countrymen to man the new structure. There is no evidence of any further importations of immigrants by the mine owners, since there has been no necessity for such an effort." With immigration running into hundreds of thousands annually, there is no economic advantage in importing a few thousand a year, as they could have no effect upon labor conditions in general. On the other hand, their importation would involve an outlay of money for their passage without any guarantee of repayment, as the contract of employment could not be enforced in law in case the laborer chose to break it. It is not usual for an employer of labor in this country to advance a sum equal to a month's wages without any security to a laborer in his employ. That the personal credit of the laborer should be enhanced by his absence from the United States hardly accords with common experience. Apart from economic considerations, the Immigration Commission finds that "owing to the rigidity of the law and the fact that special provision is made for its enforcement there are probably at the present time relatively few actual contract laborers admitted."4 This conclusion Population of the United States, XI. Census, vol. i., p. 654 (com. puted). • Reports of the Immigration Commission, vol. 16, p. 661. A sound view of the question is taken by Prof. Adams and Dr. Sumner in their book on Labor Problems, where they say that under the influence of the increase of immigration it is no longer profitable to "induce" immigration (pp. 90-91). ♦ Reports, vol. I, p. 29. ought to be accepted as final. It would be impossible for any corporation or labor agent to operate or a large scale in violation of the law without being detected. Human experience has no record of a secret guarded by a multitude. The few violations of the contract labor law that elude the vigilance of the immigration officials cannot affect the labor market. The supply of immigrant labor is regulated by free competition, like that of any other commodity. It may sometimes exceed the demand and at other times fall short of it; in the long run, however, supply adjusts itself to demand. If we compare the totals for industrial cycles, including years of panic, of depression, and of prosperity, we find a remarkable regularity in the ratio of immigration to population. In Table 12 the addition to population through immigration during the twenty-year period 1891-1910 is collated with the corresponding figures for the preceding two periods of equal length. These figures show that during the past sixty years, notwithstanding the fluctuations from year to year, in the long run the ratio of immigration to population has been well-nigh constant, with a slightly declining tendency as population has grown. Although the total number of immigrants for the period 1891-1910 was 50 per cent in excess of the total for the preceding period, yet the addition to population was relatively smaller during the later period. It has also been shown (see Table 2) that the per cent distribution of immigrants by occupations has undergone little change during the past half-century, notwithstanding the rise and fall in numbers from decade to decade. The ratio of skilled mechanics has during the last thirty years remained at 20 per cent, while unskilled laborers have made up 57 per cent of all immigrants. This regularity indicates that the demand for labor determines the character, as well as the volume of immigration. CHAPTER V THE DEMAND FOR LABOR IN AGRICULTURE THE preference of the "new" immigrants for city employments over agricultural pursuits is viewed with apprehension by philanthropists and sociologists. It is evident, however, that even the "desirable" immigrant from Northern and Western Europe who brings with him on an average $551 lacks the necessary means to rent a farm, let alone to buy one. At best he can only obtain employment as a farm hand, which depends primarily upon the demand for farm labor. And here he is confronted with the fact that the American farmer cannot keep his own sons on the farm. The industrial development of the United States has manifested itself in a relative decrease, and in some sections in a numerical decrease of the rural population. In New England and New York an actual depopulation of the rural districts was recorded by the census of 1890. The next census showed a loss of rural population in New Jersey, Delaware, Ohio, and Kansas. Maryland and Illinois sustained similar losses from 1880 to 1890, but recovered them within the next ten years. The published bulletins of the last census show a numerical decrease of the rural population in the following States of the Central West: 1 Reports of the Immigration Commission, vol. 4 (in press). The average value per farm, exclusive of real estate, in 1900, amounted to $1173. H. W. Quaintance: The Influence of Farm Machinery on Production and Labor, p. 58. 3 Supplementary Analysis, XII. Census, p. 78, Table XXXIX. Even where the total rural population of a State has increased since 1900, the maps given in the census bulletins show a few agricultural counties with a declining population. This depopulation of rural territory is due to emigration of native Americans of native stock. The figures for 1910 are as yet not available; the census of 1900 recorded in Kansas a loss of 2.8 per cent of the native population of native parentage in settlements of less than 2500 inhabitants) and in Nebraska a loss of 1.3 per cent of the same element. In New England, New York, and New Jersey the loss was still greater; the maximum was reached in Connecticut, viz., 16.7 per cent.1 The popular way to account for a social phenomenon is to seek an explanation in the personal tastes and dislikes of individuals or racial groups. "Much has been said of a mad rush to cities," said Prof. Charles H. Cooley before the Michigan Political Science Association, in July, 1902, "and the movement has often been spoken of as if it were altogether a kind of dissipation, like going to the saloon. But if there were no solider ground for the migration than this we should find the migrants plunged into pauperism and vice after they get to the cities, instead of pursuing useful remunerative labor as is ordinarily the case. The real causes of the decrease of rural population are chiefly economic." These causes affect the native and the foreign 1 Supplementary Analysis, XII. Census, pp. 620-627, Tables 10 and 11. |