opinion. He compared the present personnel of anthracite employees, "largely composed of Polanders, Hungarians, and Lithuanians, who are turbulent and incapable of being advantageously formed into an association," with the Americans, Germans, and English of 1868, who so successfully organized the Workingmen's Benevolent Association, and believed they could not be successfully organized into a labor organization. Both eminent men have proved to be false prophets. The stanchest members of the union are the Slavs, and the organizers of the United Mine Workers of America have successfully overcome racial differences, national antipathies and industrial prejudices, and formed into one body the fifteen or sixteen nationalities now constituting the anthracite mining communities.'

The opinions of those "false prophets" were still reiterated after the strikes of 1900 and 1902 by labor men, who "had learned nothing and forgotten nothing," and were embodied by the Immigration Commission in its report.

These foreigners, [says Dr. Roberts elsewhere] have proved capable of forming labor organizations which are more compact and united than any which ever existed among the various English-speaking nationalities, who first constituted these communities. It is conceded by men intimate with the situation throughout the coal fields during the last strike, that its universality was more due to the Slav than to any other nationality. There would have been in all probability a break in the ranks in Schuylkill County had it not been for the firm and uncompromising stand of the Slavs in favor of the strike. They have been trained to obedience, and when they organize they move with a unanimity that is very seldom seen among nations who pride themselves on personal liberty and free discussion.*

These lines were written by Dr. Roberts previous to the strike of 1902. The significance of the latter was that the other side to the controversy was a trust which was (and is) in complete control of the whole anthracite coal industry. The outcome of the contest has been the creation of a democratic organization of all mine workers to which the trust cannot deny recognition, with a machinery for fixing wages and other terms of employment, as well as for the settlement of disputes.

After twenty years of immigration from Southern and 1 Roberts, loc. cit., pp. 196–197. 2 Ibid., pp. 171–172.

Eastern Europe, the coal miners are more strongly organized than they had ever been before the English-speaking mine workers relinquished the lower grades of work to the recent immigrants; the hours of labor have been reduced, wages have risen, and the majority of the older employees have advanced on the scale of occupations.

On the other hand, a "small part of the 'pioneer employees and their descendants'] consisting of the inert, unambitious, thriftless element, have remained on the lower level of the scale of occupations where they are in open competition with the majority of the races of recent immigration in comparison with whom they are generally considered less efficient." It is said in their behalf that their anxiety to be "removed from contact and competition with the immigrant" has "forced" them "into day or shift work at a lower rate of pay than in digging coal."2 In order to escape the ruinous competition of the recent immigrant, the English-speaking miner, it would seem, is willing to accept lower wages than the immigrant. It may be questioned whether this small residue of English-speaking mine workers who are "considered less efficient" than the Southern and Eastern Europeans could have succeeded better in competition with native or English-speaking miners, had there been no immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe. Probably the reference to "competition with the immigrant" is merely a pleonasm, the idea being that the English-speaking miner is willing to make a financial sacrifice in order to be “removed from contact with the immigrant." The objection to the recent immigrant is accordingly inspired by pure and simple race prejudice. This is, however, beside the question, so long as it is maintained that immigration should be treated "upon economic or business considerations."3

1 Reports of the Immigration Commission, vol. 1, pp. 536–537. 2 Ibid., vol. 6, pp. 666-667; vol. 7, p. 222.

3 Recommendations of the Immigration Commission.

CHAPTER XXII

WORK ACCIDENTS

HE greatest of all the dangers of the new immigration, which have been discovered by the investigation of the Immigration Commission, is that their employment in mines and manufactures jeopardizes the lives of American wage-earners. The Commission has devoted to the subject a special chapter in its report on bituminous coal mines. Its conclusions are summarized by Professors Jenks and Lauck as follows2:

I

The lack of industrial training and experience of the recent immigrant before coming to the United States, together with his illiteracy and inability to speak English, has had the effect of exposing the original employees to unsafe and unsanitary working conditions, or has

I

1 Reports of the Immigration Commission, vol. 6, chapter viii., pp. 209-241; also, pp. 491-492, 543, 651-652; vol. 7, pp. 68-69.

2 The Commission is, of course, not responsible officially for the statement of those authors. But the book is very largely a verbatim transcript of the most essential portions of the Commission's voluminous report. On the subject of accidents, the report of the Commission says in Volume 6:

"The responsibility for accidents rests in most cases with the men injured they know little or nothing of rock formations, of fire damp, of the properties of coal dust, and of the handling of explosives -matters about which every coal miner should be thoroughly informed. To determine whether a piece of slate or roof is or is not likely to fall often requires a considerable degree of experience, and the majority of the Slavs, Magyars, and Italians have not this experience. Another element of danger is contributed by the fact that few of the recent immigrants speak or understand English, while almost none are able to read or write the language. It is probable that the instructions of the mine bosses and inspectors are, because of this fact, frequently

led to the imposition of conditions of employment which the native American or older immigrant employees have considered unsatisfactory and in some cases unbearable. When the older employees have found dangerous and unhealthy conditions prevailing in the mines and manufacturing establishments and have protested, the recent immigrant employees, usually through ignorance of mining or other working methods, have manifested a willingness to accept the alleged unsatisfactory conditions. In a large number of cases, the lack of training and experience of the Southern and Eastern European affects only his own safety. On the other hand, his ignorant acquiescence in dangerous and unsanitary working conditions may make the continuance of such conditions possible and become a menace to a pari or to the whole of an operating force of an industrial establishment. In mining, the presence of an untrained employee may constitute an element of danger to the entire body of workmen. There seems to be a direct causal relation between the extensive employment of recent immigrants in American mines and the extraordinary increase within recent years in the number of mining accidents. It is an undisputed fact that the greatest number of accidents in bituminous coal mines arise from two causes: (1) the recklessness, and (2) the ignorance and inexperience, of employees. When the lack of training of the recent immigrant abroad is considered in connection with the fact that he becomes a workman in the mines immediately upon his arrival in this country, and when it is recalled that a large proportion of the new arrivals are not only illiterate and unable to read any precautionary notices posted in the mines, but also unable to speak English and consequently without ability to comprehend instructions intelligently, the inference is plain that the employment of recent immimisunderstood. An inspector, for example, tells an immigrant miner, in English of course, that his roof needs propping. The miner seems to understand, but does not, and a fall results. In some mines printed signs are used to indicate the presence of gas or other peril. These are quite unintelligible to most of the foreigners, because, through lack of training, they are unable to recognize the presence of danger, and further, because of their keenness for earning money, the immigrants are often willing to work in places where more experienced or more intelligent men would refuse to work. For the same reasons they will frequently be satisfied with and accept mine equipment too defective for safety. . . . The ignorance and inexperience of the workmen of the races of recent immigration employed in mines are responsible in a large measure for the high death rate reported. Owing to the large number of factors affecting the situation, no hard and fast conclusion can be drawn, but the inference from the data available clearly warrants the assertion that the employment of immigrant mine workers has a direct bearing upon mining casualties." (pp. 232-233, 241.)

grants has caused a deterioration in working conditions. No complete statistics have been compiled as to the connection between accidents and races employed, but the figures available clearly indicate the conclusion that there has been a direct relation between the employment of untrained foreigners and the prevalence of mining casualties.1

The two causes from which, according to this explanation, the greatest number of accidents arise, are but the familiar defenses in an employer's liability case under the common law: (1) negligence of the injured employee or of a fellowservant, (2) assumption of risk by the injured employee.

The Immigration Commission rests its conclusions on the opinions of State mining officials and experts of the Federal Government, seemingly supported by an array of statistical figures. An examination of these authorities, however, will show that they have merely accepted the mine operator's point of view without turning their attention to the technical and the economic side of coal mining in the United States.

Miss Eastman, in her study of work accidents for the Pittsburgh Survey, has carefully scrutinized the sources of the accepted explanation of the causes of work accidents. In vivid conversational style she thus characterizes the typical attitude "of those best informed upon the subject"2:

"So you have come to Pittsburgh to study accidents, have you?" says the superintendent, or the claim agent, or the general manager, as the case may be. "Well, I 've been in this business fifteen years and I can tell you one thing right now,-95 per cent of our accidents are due to the carelessness of the man who gets hurt. Why, you simply would n't believe the things they 'll do. For instance, I remember a man,"—and he goes on to relate the most telling incident he knows to prove his assertion. This is the almost invariable reaction of the Pittsburgh employer and his representatives to a query about industrial accidents. And the statements of such men are the chief source of effective public opinion on the subject in Pittsburgh.3

I

Jenks and Lauck, loc. cit., pp. 189–190.

2 Phrase used by the Immigration Commission (Reports, vol. 6, p.

3 Crystal Eastman: Work-Accidents and the Law, p. 84.