for employers and employees, for the orderly regulation of the terms of employment. And lately, another organization of recent immigrants, the Union of Cloak, Suit, and Skirt Makers, has created a joint executive body for the sanitary control of workshops. It can not be said then

as a general proposition . . . that all improvement in conditions and increases in rates of pay have been secured in spite of the presence of the recent immigrant."

The results of the preceding discussion can be summed up as follows:

(1) Recent immigration has displaced none of the native American wage-earners or of the earlier immigrants, but has only covered the shortage of labor resulting from the excess of the demand over the domestic supply.

(2) Immigration varies inversely with unemployment; it has not increased the rate of unemployment.

(3) The standard of living of the recent immigrants is not lower than the standard of living of the past generations of immigrants engaged in the same occupations. Recent immigration has not lowered the standard of living of Americans and older immigrant wage-earners.

(4) Recent immigration has not reduced the rates of wages, nor has it prevented an increase in the rates of wages; it has pushed the native and older immigrant wage-earners upward on the scale of occupations.

(5) The hours of labor have been reduced contemporaneously with recent immigration.

(6) The membership of labor organizations has grown apace with recent immigration; the new immigrants have contributed their proportionate quota to the membership of every labor organization which has not discriminated against them, and they have firmly stood by their organizations in every contest.

There is consequently no specific "immigration problem." There is a general labor problem, which comprises many special problems, such as organization of labor, reduction of

I

1 Reports of the Immigration Commission, vol. 1, p. 541.

hours of labor, child labor, unemployment, prevention of work-accidents, etc. None of these problems being affected by immigration, their solution cannot be advanced by restriction or even by complete prohibition of immigration. The advocates of restriction are conscious of the fact that without immigration the industrial expansion of the past twenty years would have been impossible. But they believe that the pace of progresss has been too fast and that the interests of labor would be furthered by a slower development of industry which would dispense with Southern and Eastern European unskilled laborers. This is the gist of the recommendations of the Immigration Commission.

The weak point in this argument is that it takes no cognizance of the cardinal principle of modern division of labor, viz., that in every industrial establishment there is a fixed proportion of skilled to unskilled laborers. Were the immigration of skilled mechanics to continue as heretofore, while the expansion of the industry slowed down in consequence of a reduced supply of unskilled labor, a corresponding proportion of the skilled immigrants could find no emplo ment at their trades. The skilled crafts whose organizations favor the exclusion of unskilled immigrants would be the first to suffer in consequence. The effects of the disproportion in the immigrant labor supply would be temporary, but a slow growth of industry would tend to curtail the opportunities for advancement of the wage-earners who are already here.

On the other hand, the unemployed could gain nothing from a slow growth of industry. Seasonal and cyclical variations in the general demand for labor, as well as variations in the demands of individual employers would continue on a reduced scale of national production. The mere exclusion of unskilled immigrants, and even of all immigrants, will not provide employment for sailors in the winter, or for the full winter force of a Wisconsin logging camp in the summer; nor will it revolutionize the world of fashion. In order to provide regular employment for all workers, it

would be necessary to run all industries upon a common time schedule, like railway trains are run on connecting lines. No plan of such a readjustment has as yet been worked out that would appeal to practical people, nor are the advocates of immigration restriction ready to incorporate Edward Bellamy's scheme into the pending immigration bill. Certainly an adjustment of the busy and slack seasons of a quarter of a million factories will not spring up spontaneously from an act of Congress closing the gates against immigrants.

As a theoretical proposition, it seems quite plausible that if restriction of immigration resulted in a scarcity of labor, employers would be forced to pay scarcity rates of wages. It is needless, however, to indulge in abstract speculation on the possible effects of a reduced supply of unskilled immigrant labor, when such a condition actually exists in the United States throughout the agricultural sections. Few immigrants seek employment on the farms. The number of Southern and Eastern European farm laborers in the United States is negligible. Moreover, there is a constant stream of native labor from the farms to the cities, which has led to an actual decrease of the rural population in many agricultural counties. Farmers generally complain of scarcity of farm labor during the agricultural season. Nevertheless, the wages of farm laborers are lower than the wages of unskilled laborers in mines and mills, where the proportion of recent immigrants is rapidly increasing. Scarcity of labor has not forced the farmer to pay scarcity wages, but has merely retarded the growth of farming. The shutting-out of unskilled immigrants would have similar effects in manufacturing and mining.

Scarcity of unskilled labor would hasten the general introduction of mining machinery. The labor that would thus be displaced would form one substitute for immigration.

The mines and mills of the southern States which have failed to attract immigrants utilize the labor of farmers and their sons. The two million tenant-farmers offer great

possibilities as an industrial reserve available during the winter months. The farm being their main source of subsistence, they are able and willing to offer their labor during the idle winter months more cheaply than freshly-landed immigrants. The efforts of trade-union organizers among this class of English-speaking workers have met with scant success. The substitution of the cheap labor of the American farmer for the labor of the Slav or Italian immigrant would tend to weaken the unions and to keep down wages.

The discontinuance of fresh supplies of immigrant labor for the mills and factories of New England would give a new impetus to the establishment of factories in the South, where there is an abundant supply of child labor, and in the rural districts of agricultural States with an available supply of cheap labor.

The employment of all these substitutes for regular wageearners certainly has its limitations. But there is in thé United States, as in all industrial countries, a steady flow of labor from rural to urban districts. In the absence of immigration of unskilled laborers the depopulation of the rural districts would be accelerated. A stimulated movement of labor from the farm to the factory would check the growth of farming; the prices of foodstuffs would rise in consequence, which would tend to offset the advantages to the wage-earners from a possible rise of wages.

Still, should all the substitutes for immigration prove inadequate, it does not necessarily follow that scarcity prices would rule in the American labor market. It must be borne in mind that capital is international. Parallel with the immigration and emigration of labor to and from the United States, there has been going on an immigration of European capital to the United States and an emigration of American capital abroad. It is estimated that the total amount of European capital invested in the United States is approximately $6,500,000,000. In other words European capital came together with European labor to assist in the development of American industry. Should there

arise a scarcity of labor in the United States, new investments of European capital will seek other fields. On the other hand, billions of American capital are already invested in foreign enterprises. At present these investments cannot compare with the profits of American industries annually reinvested at home. If, however, a scarcity of labor were created in the United States, more American capital would seek investment abroad.

The increased investment of American capital in the industrial development of foreign countries with cheap labor must eventually react upon labor conditions in the United States. Certain of the most important American industries depend in part upon the export trade. A scarcity of labor in the United States would induce many American manufacturers to follow the example of their English, French, Belgian, and German competitors who have found it more profitable to establish factories in foreign countries than to export their products to those countries. Such an emigration of American capital would materially affect the export trade of the United States and eventually throw out of employment a number of American wage-earners dependent upon that trade.

It is evident that while restriction of immigration can limit the supply of labor, it is powerless to prevent a corresponding limitation of the demand for labor.

A suggestion of the probable effects of a reduced demand for labor can be gained from the experience of the recent crisis. When the operations of the steel mills were reduced, a great many men were laid off. The skilled men, however, were offered positions as laborers. Notwithstanding their high American standard of living, their efficiency, and their high standard of wages, they were glad to turn to unskilled occupations at 15 cents, and even at 12 cents, an hour. The distribution of the steel workers into skilled and unskilled would obviously have been the same, if, as a result of restriction of immigration, the operating force had never grown beyond the number employed during