TABLE 100.

PER CENT RATIO OF TRADE-UNION MEMBERSHIP TO URBAN POPULATION IN NEW YORK AND KANSAS, 1900-1909.1

The preceding ratios may be affected by the character of the urban population in the two States: if the proportion of wage-earners to the whole population in New York was higher than in Kansas, the difference might in a measure account for the higher percentage of organized workmen. These doubts are resolved by Diagram XXI., which shows for each State the ratio of union membership to the number of industrial wage-earners at the XII. Census.2 The curve for New York runs throughout the whole period above that for Kansas.

These differences are by no means accidental. In the early period of trade-unionism in the United States, when it was generally regarded as a "foreign" plant and denounced as "un-American," contemporary observers sought to explain the aloofness of the native American wage-earners from labor organizations by their "indisposition to identify themselves permanently with any class."

The foreign workman has the tradition of many generations and the walls of caste to restrain him within certain limits as to his occupation;

States Bureau of Statistics, by adding to the population of the preceding year one tenth of the increase from 1900 to 1910.

See Appendix, Table XXIV.

2 Ibid.

XXI. Male union membership in the states of New York and Kansas, 1900-1909; Per cent. ratio to the number of in

dustrial wage-earners in 1900.

he has no possibilities beyond a given sphere, and is trained and developed within it. Thus environed, his career and ambitions lie in the paths his fathers have trod, and his associations with his fellow craftsmen make the trade union his natural and necessary place. Transported to this country he brings his feelings for the union and his class associations with him as a habit. But the American mechanic's boy is born to no conditions in life from which he may not rise, or hope to rise, or which at least he may not abandon for better or worse. All the precepts of the schools and teachings of observation suggest other ways of making a living, or at least other avenues in life, than those of his father.'

In a later publication of the Massachusetts Labor Bureau the unstable character of trade unions in New England up to 1880 is explained by the fact "that early New England workmen seldom regarded their condition as journeymen as likely to be permanent. They nearly all looked forward with some degree of hope to a time when they would become employers."2

This condition still exists in smaller communities where many of the native American wage-earners are home-owners, 3 and in country districts where the factory workers are drawn from the farms of the neighborhood. As a result, we find labor better organized in New York City with a high percentage of recent immigrants than in the remainder of the State of New York, with a predominantly native population.

In Table 101, the distribution of male trade-union membership between the city of New York and the remainder of the State is presented in parallel columns with the distribution of male breadwinners in non-agricultural pursuits.

In New York City one half of all breadwinners in 1900 were foreign-born, whereas in the remainder of the State three fourths were of native birth. At the same time New York City had more than its proportionate share of trade

1 Fourth Annual Report of the Illinois Bureau of Statistics of Labor (1886), p. 228.

Massachusetts Labor Bulletin, No. 10, April, 1899, p. 55. 3 Pratt, loc. cit., p. 99.

TABLE 101.

COMPARATIVE UNION MEMBERSHIP IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK AND IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK, 1900.1

union membership. The margin in favor of New York City would be still greater if instead of all breadwinners industrial wage-earners alone were considered, the proportion of the latter being larger outside of the great cities than in cities with a population of over 300,000.1

The figures are for the year 1900, no later occupation statistics as yet being available. The conditions have not changed since, as appears from Table 102 on p. 343.

The membership of the trade unions in New York City more than doubled from 1900 to 1910, whereas in the remainder of the State it increased by less than three fifths. This difference was not due to a proportionate increase of the population of New York City compared with the urban population of the remainder of the State: while the population of New York City increased somewhat faster than the urban population outside of New York City, the relative number of organized workers in New York City increased still faster. The figures furnish unmistakable evidence of greater progress of trade unions at the gate of the United States, parallel with the growth of the foreign-born popu

Report of the New York Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1910, vol. ii., pp. xlix., 1., 15. Occupations, XII. Census, Tables 41 and 43.

2 Hourwich, loc. cit., Journal of Political Economy, April, 1911, P. 324.

TABLE 102.

COMPARATIVE UNION MEMBERSHIP IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK AND IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK, 1900-1910.1

lation, than in the remainder of the State where eight ninths of the population are American-born.

Still, the strength of organized labor is measured above mere numbers by its ability to marshal its forces in contests ver terms of employment. The strike statistics which have been collected by the United States Bureau of Labor do not extend to the period prior to 1881, but there are official figures for Massachusetts going as far back as 1830, and for Pennsylvania as far as 1835. The data are presented in Table 103.

1 Report of the New York Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1910, vol. ii., pp. xlix., 1., 15. Advance statement issued to the press by the Director of the Census on the foreign-born population of New York; XIII. Census Bulletin on Population of Cities.

2 Complete census returns for 1910 not being available, the ratio of foreign-born to urban population outside of New York City was computed on the assumption that all foreign-born resided in urban territory. The percentage of foreign-born outside of New York City is accordingly exaggerated, and the contrast between New York City and the rest of the State is in reality even more pronounced than appears from this table.