An Inquiry as To The Relation
/

BETWEEN

EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYED

Charles H. Kerr & Company Publishers 1

THE RIGHTS OF LABOR
AN INQUIRY AS TO THE RELATION,
EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYED.

BY

W. J.

"The profit of the field is for all; the king himself is served by the field. '
Eccl. 5: 9.
"The rich and the poor meet together, the Lord is the maker of them all."
Prov. 22: 2.
"And also that every man should eat and dnnk and enjoy the food of all his
labor; it is the gift of God. Eccl. 3: 13.

CHICAGO:
C H A R L E S H . K E R R & COMPANY,
175 MONROE STREET.
1894.

Copyright, 1894
B Y CHARLES H. KERR & COMPANY

Unity Library, No. 37, Monthly, $3.00 a year. September, 1894.
Entered at the Postoffice, Chicago, as second-class tnail matter.

TO T H E EMPLOYEES
OF AMERICA AND THE WORLD
WHO SEEK TO BETTER T H E I R CONDITION :
TO FAIR

MINDED EMPLOYERS
AND

TO T H E GENERAL PUBLIC WHO SIT AS ARBITRATORS
FOR JUSTICE,
T H I S BOOK IS DEDICATED.

CONTENTS
CHAPTER

I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.

PAGE

TERMS DEFINED

11

T H E RELATION, E M P L O Y E R AND E M P L O Y E D . .

14

R I G H T S OF EMPLOYEES

24

THE

,..,

CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT,

28

T H E C A U S E OF THE DIFFICULTY

41

ANALOGOUS

66

PROBLEMS

VII.

T H E REMEDY PROPOSED

70

/III.

R I G H T TO E N A C T THE R E M E D Y

89

OBJECTIONS

95

IX.
X.
XI.

ANTICIPATED

J U S T I C E OF THE R E M E D Y
RESULTS

FROM T H E R E M E D Y

106
,

no

INTRODUCTION.
To one observing the present condition of the world,
and the unrest and discontent which for the past decade have characterized the nations, it must appear
that there is a fundamental misadjustment to which
the people are awakening; a desire for a change of
some kind to which they are tending. Strikes, boycotts and differences between the employer and employed are everywhere conspicuous and first secure
attention because they most directly interfere with
the pursuits of the people. For a hundred years
strikes have been more or less prevalent, until at the
present time the people are recovering from what was
perhaps the most widespread and injurious conflict
that has yet arisen from the warfare between employer and employed. Actuated by motives looking
to the preservation of their independence, employees
have repeatedly struck and boycotted the employer,
who in turn has discharged and locked out the employee, each of which conflicts when analyzed is seen
to be but an engagement in a universal industrial
warfare, which has been carried on between corporations and labor organizations since such bodies have
come into existence, As both sides have become more
closely organized and hence more powerful, these
engagements have been more general r and instead of a
5

6

T H E RIGHTS OF LABOR

"skirmish" at one or more large industries, they have
taken the form of a general sympathetic strike,
which means that the two armies have formed their
forces for a general battle, the stronger to win.
The general public not directly interested in the
engagement have suffered unlimited disturbances,
until they are beginning to consider the situation, and
to look for some remedy that shall at once prevent
this warfare and insure the peaceful progress of business and society.
An examination of the condition of the industrial
and agricultural system of the United States shows
a progress unequaled by any race of people, in any
age.
Four hundred years ago her territory was occupied
by bands of roving savages. The forest their home
and storehouse; the constructed bows and arrows,
spears and log boats their industry; no government
to check their wild freedom; no schools to educate
and refine. Columbus planted the germ of civilization in this free soil. It took root and grew; budded at
Newport, Plymouth, Salem, Providence, Philadelphia,
and beneath a nourishing wilderness strengthened,
and after a hundred years blossomed at the signing
of the Declaration of Independence; became full
blown when the Constitution was realized.
Upon this basis and nurtured by laws, when the
struggle for existence had ceased, the resources of

INTRODUCTION

7

this vast territory received the attention of the people, and the farmer was the respected citizen who
grew rich from the products of nature. But as the
people accumulated a surplus from their products,
higher demands awakened, industry increased its
factories and profits, until in less than one hundred
years its manufacturing institutions, its invented improvements, its productive power are unsurpassed,
if not unequaled by any nation. Its products supply
the wants of the native people, and crossing two
oceans, compete with the produce of other nations
in their own markets, and, by improved processes,
drive from trade the crude products of an earlier
generation. Its wealth, produced during a century,
rivals the accumulations of many centuries of past
civilizations. Its progress and adaptability have been
the fear and wonder of the world.
But while the progress of the nation as a whole
has been unsurpassed, the advancement of the different classes of citizens who have contributed to this
magnificent result, has not been, proportionate with
the general advance.
The distribution of the
wealth which has been realized presents a spectacle
at once pathetic and ominous
In nearly every locality there are factories to
whose doors come each day the majority of the citizens, upon whose activity they are dependent.
Where in an earlier day none but the men of the

8

T H E RIGHTS OF LABOR

family went forth to engage in the pursuits of industry, while the wife and mother remained at home,
now morning, noon and evening witnesses the coming and going of men, women and children to their
daily duties within the walls of trade and industry,
and as a consequence the school-house is robbed of
its students; the home left to the industrious spider
upon whose bare walls he builds his nest, undisturbed.
No mother's care to brighten the fireside and make
the footsteps of the toiler hasten as he nears his door;
no smile to lighten the load of life, but only a careworn face by his side, from which the legitimate hope
of the wife has gone out. It is a sad spectacle, too
often realized under present conditions, And in the
schoolroom, where the face of every child should be
seen, are seen largely the children of the well-to-do.
To the children of the day-toilers there is but little
education after the hands have grown strong enough
to earn wages. Then, when the young mind is most
active and the moral tendencies most readily directed
to high ideals,the workshop with its vices and evil
tendencies takes the place of schoolroom, and the
development of the mind closes, save in those directions which look to the acquisition of support.
The fireside, destitute of those necessities and comforts which enlighten and purify while they entertain,
is abandoned for the resorts of evil, and the possession of a home is removed from the experience of the
toiler,

INTRODUCTION

9

Upon the next street the palace of the rich man invites the attention by its contrast to the home of the
poor. Comfort and luxury crown the labors of the
husband and father. Social position and its privileges are at his command. To the sons and daughters, education, culture and refinement; travel, rest
or pleasurable occupation, all arising from the
possession of a sufficient income. To many of the
wealthy not only comfort and luxury, but extravagance such as saps manhood, virtue, and every
worthy impulse, On the one side the many struggling
with poverty and its temptations, in a land of plenty;
on the other the rich and privileged engaged in pursuits that equally crush the finer sensibilities, to the
encouragement of pride, arrogance and extravagance.
It is an ominous condition, and the situation it presents is one deserving unbiased attention, that any
error or injustice that makes it possible may be discerned and a remedy applied, to discover which error
in the distribution of wealth, if real, and its remedy,
is the object of this inquiry.

THE RIGHTS OF LABOR.
C H A P T E R I.
TERMS DEFINED.

It should be stated in the beginning, that this inquiry has to do with such enterprises only, as are
carried on for the purpose of making a product which
is to be sold for a profit; such as corporations for
profits, business partnerships, etc. Such institutions
as the public schools where teachers are employed,
churches who employ preachers, hospitals and charitable houses, the professions and other relations where
the relation of employer and employed exists, but no
product is made and sold for a profit, are not included
in the remedy here proposed. The establishment of
a condition of justice in industries manufacturing
some product for sale, would secure a proper equilibrium in institutions not so conducted.
By the word "rights" as here used is meant those
natural inalienable and perpetual privileges and liberties to do or not to do which are the birthright of
every human being,regardless of his condition, past or
present, and of which he cannot with justice be deprived, without his voluntary consent.
11

12

T H E RIGHTS OF LABOR

"Employer" as used means the individual who
furnishes money or other property to equip or conduct an industry; as the stockholder in corporations,
silent partners in partnership,
"Employee" as used means those individuals who
regularly do personal service of any kind in connection with industry; as the President, Secretary, and
all agents in corporations; manager, foremen, and
workmen in other industries.
"Fruits of labor" as used means the product realized
by the expenditure of labor in any form,or the product realized in industry by the combined efforts of
capital and labor.
It should be observed, in order to prevent confusion
of terms, that the words "employer" and "employee"
may apply to the same person, as where such person is
a stockholder, or in some way invests money, and at
the same time gives his personal time and energy to
the industry. This condition occurs frequently in
every industry, and it should, therefore, be clearly
understood that such a person performs two functions.
He is both an employer and an employee; an employer because he invests money, and an employee
in that he gives his personal services. He has rights
as an employer which are different from his rights as
an employee. As an employer he receives a profit
on money invested; as an employee he is paid a salary
or wages for his services. These two functions in
the same person should be kept in mind.

TERMS D E F I N E D

*3

Fundamental among rights is the right of man to
himself, to his life, to his own individuality and
enefgy. Every man embodies a certain power to do,
and it is a right which inheres in every man as an
individual, to control this power as he alone shall
will. Every man should be the absolute possessor
of himself, unless' he voluntarily forfeits such right
by his acts. He alone may by right control his energy.
It follows that every man has a right absolute, to
possess, control and enjoy what he produces by his
energy, for what he produces contains a part of himself. He has transferred a portion of himself, of his
power, which is his labor, into the created product.
It follows that since by right every man is the possessor of himself, and the possessor and controller of the
fruits of his labor, if any system is so arranged that
any man is deprived of the right to possess and control himself, or to possess, control and Voluntarily
dispose of the fruits of his labor, such a system is opposed to the rights of man.
It is the purpose of this inquiry to discover if the
industrial system of employer and employed, be of
this unjust nature.

C H A P T E R II.
THE RELATION, EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYED.

The relation of employer and employed presents
men as parties to a contract, the contract of employment, by virtue of which the person who is employed
agrees to perform certain work, under certain rules;
to restrain his power to the accomplishment of a certain task; and the person or corporation employing
him, agrees to pay him certain hire, at intervals.
The question as to what these wages shall be is as a
rule the only question upon which there is an express agreement between the parties. When the
person seeking employment has agreed to accept
certain wages, and the employer has agreed to pay
such wages, the contract is complete.
There are here and there exceptions to this rule, as
where persons seeking work require that the number
of hours per day to be given to the work undertaken
shall be agreed upon, but usually there is no such
express agreement. All the conditions of the contract of employment except as to the scale of wages
are regulated by custom.
Such conditions, aside from the scale of wages,
14

THE RELATION, EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYED

15

and regarding which there is no express agreement at
the time of the contract entered into, relate to the
following questions:
1. As to the time during which the contract entered
into shall continue.
2. As to the number of hours the person employed
shall each day devote to the employment,
3. As to the regulations by which those employed
shall be governed during the hours they are occupied
at the task for which they are employed.
4. As to the conduct of those employed during
the time not included in the hours of labor.
5. As to the reduction of wages.
The law of custom and usage determines these
matters where there is no express agreement between
the parties, and it is the purpose to next consider the
usages and customs which now* regulate these matters.
1. As to the time during which the contract of employment shall continue, the usage is uniform and
well understood that where wages are paid at the
end of each week, then the contract may be terminated at the end of any Week, by giving notice of one
week; and where wages are paid by the- month, the
contract may be ended by giving one month's notice.
In any case, however, the parties may at any time
set aside the contract and dissolve the relation of
employer and employed, by mutual consent. But
where the contract is by the week, or by the month,

i6

T H E RIGHTS OF LABOR

and the person employed having begun any week or
month's work, stops his work before the end of such
week or month, he will be liable for damages caused
to his employers, as a direct result of his failure to
give the customary notice. And if any employer
shall, when the contract is by the week or month,
discharge any person working for him without the
customary month's or week's notice, such employer may be compelled to pay the person or
persons discharged without notice, the full wages for
the week or month's work. Where no notice is
given at the beginning of any week or month, the law
assumes that the contract shall continue for another
week or month.
Where the contract is, by express agreement, to
continue six months or a year, for any certain time,
and the person employed is discharged, without his
consent, before the end of such time, except upon
proper notice, he may compel his employer to pay him
for the entire period. These rules of law are based on
the just principle that where a person engages to do
a certain work, he should, before being cut off from
the support of such employment, be given a reasonable notice,so that before he shall lose one support,
he may seek another support, and be in a position to
take it up when the present employment is terminated.
Such, then, are some of the implied laws and conditions as to the time the contract shall continue, to

THE RELATION, EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYED

17

which every man who contracts to work for certain
wages, agrees when he enters into a certain employment. The law assumes, in the absence of an express agreement, that it is the intention of the parties
to agree to this arrangement.
2. As to the number of hours the person employed
shall, each day, devote to the employment.
Where there is no express agreement as to the
number of hours given to the occupation, the law of
custom assumes that ten hours, or from 7 A. M. to
6 P. M.,is intended as a day's labor, and for time spent
in excess of the customary ten hours, the law of usage
will compel the employer to pay the employee additional wages. It should be remembered that this
law applies only in cases where there is no express
agreement as to the number of hours. This law does
not forbid the person seeking employment from expressly agreeing to work fifteen or any number of
hours a day. If a certain number of hours is agreed
upon,that will take the place of the usual ten hours.
Nor is there anything in this law that forbids an agreement to a less number of hours. The law applies
only when there is no express agreement between
the parties as to the time per day that shall be given
to the employment. There is but one method by
which the customary ten hours can be changed, namely,
by the agreement of the parties, which agreement in
the eyes of the law is assumed to be a voluntary
agreement.

i8

T H E RIGHTS OF LABOR

Such is the custom-law or usage governing the
number of hours of employment.
3. As to the regulations by which those employed
shall be governed during the hours they are occupied
at the task for which they are employed, the law of
usage and custom permits the employer or master to
make such rules and regulations for the conduct of
those employed, while at work, as he may desire to
impose, unless the parties expressly agree at the time
they contract, as to what such regulations shall be.
Where nothing is said at the time of entering the
employment, the law assumes that the employer
shall formulate the code of rules that shall govern
those employed. This does not forbid the formation
of a complete system of rules as part of the contract
of employment. When a system is so made part of
the contract, the law will enforce it. The law does
not compel those employed to allow the employer to
establish the rules and regulations; but in the absence of an express agreement, the right of the employer to establish rules is fully recognized by the
law of usage.
4. As to the conduct o. those employed during
the time not included in the hours of labor, the law
of custom permits the employer to establish any rules
he may think expedient, unless there is an express
agreement at the time of contracting as to what such
regulations shall be. There is no usage that forbids

T H E RELATION, EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYED

19

the person employed from requiring such rules to be
made a part of the contract of employment, but in the
absence of express agreement in the contract, the
law allows the employer to impose such regulations
as he may deem advisable. There is no law that forbids the employer from making such rules as to the
conduct of those employed, during the time not included in the hours of employment, as he may deem
expedient.
5. As to the reduction of wages, the common
law permits such reduction, but there should be a
week or month's notice according to the payment of
wages, since a reduction of wages is equal to a termination of the contract. It may be done, for either
party may terminate the contract upon proper
notice. But such reduction need not be accepted by
those employed, for since it is notice to end the contract and to form a new contract at the reduced
wages, those employed must first accept the lower
wages, before the new contract is complete, They
may either accept the lower rate, or stop work
at the end of the period of contract; refuse
to make a new contract at a lower wage.
There is, however, no law that justifies the employer in reducing wages without giving notice equal
to the notice required to terminate the contract.
It should be noticed that the law protects complete
freedom of contract, there being nothing in usage that

20

T H E RIGHTS OF LABOR

shall prevent the formation of an express contract
upon the matters to which we have referred. When
employers and employees negotiate to establish the
relation of employed and employer, by contract, they
meet as free men, in the eyes of the law. Neither
can legally compel the other to accept any given
terms or conditions, against his will. Neither can
compel the other to form a contract, but both parties
may outline the terms upon which they will contract,
and unless they agree no contract can be formed.
The law allows the fullest liberty, leaving it entirely
to the person seeking employment and the employer,
as to what the contract shall be. If by mutual express agreement, a contract is formed, stating the
scale of wages, the time the contract shall continue,
the number of hours per day, the rules and regulations governing the employed while at work, and
while not at work, and touching other matters, the
law will enforce this express contract, and allow
damages against the party who is guilty of a breach.
It should be kept in mind that in case there is no express contract stating how these matters are regulated, and the only question agreed upon is the
wages to be paid to the employee by the employer,
then the regulation of the other questions referred
to, is left with the employer, it being implied by the
law that it was the intention of parties that the employer should regulate such matters in such manner
as he may think expedient for the good of all.

THE RELATION, EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYED

21

This custom-law, by which so many matters are
left to the employer, has its origin in the feudal
period when the lords and barons carried on extensive farms worked by a large number of serfs, who
were under the protection of the lords or baron, it
being the presumption that he was to impose such
rules and regulations upon his men as were just and
for their good, This was the assumption, but in fact
the lords and barons ruled the serfs by power, and
compelled them to submit to the regulations imposed
upon them, until through many centuries of such control, they came to look upon this system as natural.
As they gained freedom in different directions, and
trades of freemen arose who had won for themselves
the freedom to contract, the influence of the feudal
system still remained,and the notion, which had become deep rooted, that the person to whom the workman sold or rented his services became at once his
protector and master, remained. The fact that he
had contracted for his services to a master or employer, was taken to mean that he had placed himself
in the employer's control during the time of employment. It was assumed that he had voluntarily
placed himself in the position of a servant, for the
hours he was employed. He voluntarily made himself subject to the employer's orders, such employer
to use him as he thought best during such time, to
direct him and to be possessor of whatever he might

22

T H E RIGHTS OF LABOR

produce during the time of employment. The laborer
rented his labor as a man would rent a horse or a
tool or a house.
Arising originally from the feudal system, this
principle, although modified by statutes which have
from time to time been passed looking to the health
and protection of employees while at work, and otherwise, is in fact the father of the present custom-laws,
which are outlined above, and which have comedown
to the present generation with some modifications,
from feudal times. In earlier days of industry the
only question considered was wages, and it has so continued until the employers have come to believe that
this privilege which, as explained, originated in injustice—the power of the strong lords—is a right.
But, however this may be, it is no doubt true that
the beginning of the present common or custom laws
as applied to the questions referred to, giving employers the privilege of regulating such matters in the
absence of express agreement,are to be found in t h e
feudal system, when the lord was absolute ruler and
protector of his workmen.
That these privileges in the absence of express
agreement do in fact by common law rest with the
employer is readily seen.
i. The term of contract is dependent upon the
periods at which wages are paid. Since the employer
may pay by the week, month or otherwise, he may

T H E RELATION, EMPLOYER AND E M P L O Y E D

23

control the time of contract, and reduction of wages.
2. The rules and regulations to govern employees
while at work, and while not at work, are left entirely
to the discretion of the employer, in the absence of
express agreement.
There is one custom law which favors the employed, namely, that which declares ten hours to be
a day's work, and which allows extra pay for over
work, but this applies to modern industries only, and
is a later growth, and is in fact of little value, as we
shall observe. The old system of allowing the employer to direct the employee's efforts still largely
obtains in farming and some other industries.
Two things should be kept in mind.
1. That the employee has full power and freedom, so far as the law is concerned, to
vohmtarily
contract and to demand that the contract of employment shall contain conditions touching the matters referred to above ; and the employer possesses
the same freedom.
2. That in the absence of express agreement as
to these matters, the law gives the employer the
privilege of regulating industry as he may desire.

C H A P T E R III.
RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEES.

Our next inquiry will be as to what right in connection with industry an employee possesses of which
he may be deprived in any way without his voluntary,
free consent.
W e suggested in the beginning that every person has
a natural right,of which he cannot justly be deprived
without his free consent.
i. To possess and control himself.
2. To possess, enjoy and control the fruits of his
labor, into which he transfers a portion of himself,
his energy, or labor, mental or manual.
It will be seen from this, that every person may
sell or otherwise dispose of the fruits of his labor.
Thus, if a person makes a pair of shoes, he has a
right to sell the shoes for such price as they will bring,
and whatever is paid for the shoes belongs to the person who made them. It also follows that where two
persons have together made a pair of shoes, each
contributing one-half the labor necessary to make
them, each person owns and has a right to sell his
one-half interest in the shoes, separately or at the
24

RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEES

25

same time the other owner sells his share. Or either
person may sell his half interest to the other half
owner, thus giving one the entire title. The one-half
owner may sell his share to the other after the shoes
are completed and their value ascertained, or he may
sell his share for a certain sum, before the shoes are
made, thereby selling to the other laborer the product he is to produce in future.
It is as though the
one laborer should say, "If you will pay me $1.50 per
day for a month, you can have and possess all that I
produce during the month. The title to my share
is naturally mine, but I will transfer it to you if you
will agree to pay me the sum named."
The contract between the employer and employed
is similar to the above example. If they should work
together without an understanding as to how the product was to be divided between them, each would
have a natural right to a proportion such as he added
to the whole product, but by signing or agreeing to
a contract of employment at certain wages, the employee agrees to turn over his right to his share of
the product, to the employer. He agrees to the contract before the product is produced, and by so doing
sells his share of the product for the wages, before
such product is realized. He inferentially says, " F o r
certain wages payable weekly or otherwise, I will sell
you my rights in the product which will be realized
from our united efforts." It is the interest of the

26

T H E RIGHTS OF LABOR

employee in this product regarding which he contracts. The purpose of the contract for wages is to
determine what price the employer will pay for the
employee's share of the product to be produced.
Since by this contract of employment, the employee sells his interest and natural right to a share
in the product to be produced by their joint efforts,
which share is the fruits of the employee's labor, it is
evident that the employee may be imposed upon
through a necessity or other disadvantage that forces
him to unwillingly accept for his share of the product, less than the price to which he is justly entitled.
He may thus be deprived of the fruits of his labor,
without his free and voluntary consent.
The employee, then, has a natural right to a portion of the product to be produced in industry, and
regarding this right^may be imposed upon.
But incident to the contract regarding the employee's interest in the product to be realized, the
contract of employment relates also to the conduct of
the employee personally, during the period for which
the contract continues; during the hours the employee is at work. This has to do with his personal conduct; with himself. In order that the
best use may be made of the energy or labor as applied
to machinery and material by the employee, certain
rules and regulations must be established for the con,. duct of the employees while at work, and it may be

RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEES

27

while not at work. Since these rules relate to the
personal control of the individual, which control by
natural right is vested in the individual alone, he
may, from necessity or otherwise, be forced to accept by virtue of this contract, which allows employers
to make rules and regulations, unjust and hard regulations, and thus be imposed upon in regard to his
personal liberty, or his right to control himself and
to have a voice in making rules for his conduct.
An employee may,then, even though free to contract, be imposed upon in contracting with an employer, because of his necessity and the absence of
restraining laws, if at all, in regard to at least two
of his natural rights.
1. The right to possess, enjoy and control the
fruits of his labor.
2. The right to possess and control himself.

C H A P T E R IV.
THE CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT.

The question with which we shall have most to do,
and which we next consider, is:
Are the conditions of the employer and employed
such, that even though freedom of contract is reserved to employees, the employer may or does, because of the present laws or absence of laws, take
advantage of the employee's necessity or other weakness in such a way as to impose upon him and deprive him without his free, voluntary consent, of
any portion of the fruits of his labor or of his control
of himself, such imposition being enforced by the
contract of employment, by which the employee
sells his interest in the product to be made, for certain wages, and agrees to perform certain work under
rules and regulations?
If there be any such opportunity, it will be taken
advantage of at the time when a contract is being
formed between employer and employed; but before
considering this, let us outline by way of comparison
the position of parties at the time of forming contracts, generally, and then the position of the em28

THE CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT

2g

ployer and employed at the time of contracting,
then returning to the question: "Does opportunity
exist by which employers may or do impose on employees?"
Contracts may be formed under at least three conditions.
i. Between parties who are both in a position
to name terms upon which they will contract, and
refuse to contract unless such terms are accepted—
neither being under necessity to accept the terms
offered.
2. Between parties, one of whom is in such a
position that strong influence is acting upon him
from necessity or otherwise, to induce him to agree
to the most favorable terms that he can induce the
other party to make.
3. Between parties, both of whom are under some
influence which, through necessity or otherwise, induces them to accept the most favorable terms to
which the opposite party will agree.
An instance of the first condition would be realized
where two millionaires were negotiating for the purchase of a mine.
The would-be purchaser, having estimated the value
of the mine to him, makes an offer.
The owner, if
he considers the offer too small, refuses to sell, and
since he is under no personal necessity to sell and the
purchaser will not increase the amount offered, and

3°

T H E RIGHTS OF LABOR

is likewise under no necessity that forces him to increase the price, the contract is not formed.
Here
are two free agents in fact, since they are under no
necessity to contract, and the right of contract is of
full value to them. There is obviously no call for
the intervention of law to protect either party, each
being fully able to protect himself and contract or
not as his judgment alone dictates. If he contracts it
is clearly a voluntary act.
An instance of the second condition mentioned would
be realized where one man desires to borrow $r,ooo
to save his home from being sold under a mortgage.
He is under a necessity to realize this amount. Not
an absolute necessity,for there is no absolute necessity, but a necessity none the less forceful. He seeks
to contract with a money-lender in a time when it is
difficult to borrow money. The borrower must have
the money if it is obtainable at any rate of interest
within his power. There is no legal force that can
compel him to contract at all, or at any rate of interest, but there is a power of necessity as strong as
legal power that forces him to secure the money.
The money-lender, realizing the condition of the money
market and the borrower's necessity, places his rate
of interest at 15 per cent instead of the usual 6 per
cent. He is under no necessity that forces him to
contract, such as affects the borrower. He is free to
contract, but may name his own terms and refuse

T H E CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT

31

to contract unless they are accepted. He is strong,
t h e borrower is weak in his necessity. The result is
that the borrower, unable to procure a better rate
elsewhere, accepts the money at 15 per cent. There
is here one party to the contract, who, though free
to contract or not to contract, is in such a position
that strong influence is brought to bear upon him
from necessity, to induce him to accept the most
favorable terms to which the other party will agree,
and of which the other party takes advantage.
It should be remarked in this connection that
many, if not most of the States in the Union
and nations of the world, realizing the fact
that the borrower from necessity is weak and contracts with comparatively powerful money-lenders,
and in order to protect the weak so that the strong
may not take advantage of their weakness caused by
their necessity, have passed laws forbidding those who
loan money from making the rate of interest higher
than a certain per cent named, the aim being to fix
it at a point which is reasonable, in order that the
lender may not take advantage of the borrower's
necessity and thus secure a usurious or unjust rate of
interest. This instance of the interference of the
law to protect weakness and necessity should be kept
in mind, particularly as it regulates the rate of interest even though there is full freedom of contract on
both sides, and in that the legality of fixing the rate
of interest, thus preventing one man from taking ad-

32

T H E RIGHTS OF LABOR

vantage of another's necessity and weakness', is unquestioned, and upheld by the courts.
Another instance of this second condition is realized
where a railroad sells a ticket to a passenger. There
is here a contract to carry the passenger safely to a
certain point for a certain price. This railroad is the
only one between two points. The railroad company
is largely in a position to name its own terms. It may
compel its passengers to conform to the regulations
it may name, and may fix its own price for tickets.
The company is under no necessity to contract with
passengers; the road being the only one, must be patronized. The other party to the contract, namely,
the passenger, although free to contract or not to
contract, is under a necessity to get from one place
to the other. One is his down town office, the
other his residence. A strong influence is brought
to bear upon him to accept the best terms offered; he
is under a necessity to accept the best terms offered.
The railroad company,taking advantage of his weakness, which is his necessity, and relying upon its power
to enforce its own terms, places the price of tickets
higher than a reasonable fare and imposes hard regulations upon its customers, because of its advantage
in the absence of protecting law.
It should be remarked as to this instance as well
as the last, that realizing the weakness and necessity
of the passengers and the power of the railroad cor-

THE CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT

33

porations, the people of the States have passed laws
forbidding any railroad from charging more than a
certain sum (usually 3 cents) per mile, and also imposing restrictions as to regulations.
This is another instance of the use of the law to
protect those weak by their necessity, from the imposition of the strong. The legality of the law fixing
the rate charged by railroads is unquestioned, and is
sustained by the courts. This is obviously a legal
interference with the terms upon which the parties
may contract, in order that the defenseless may be
protected.
It defines the terms and forbids corporations to
contract at a higher rate. Freedom to contract is
not abridged, but the terms of contract are restricted
in order that the weak, for whose protection
governments are formed, shall be secured from imposition by those who from endowment, condition
or otherwise are stronger than they.
While other instances might be cited, the above
will suffice to explain the conditions outlined, by virtue of which one party is acted upon by an influence
which compels him from necessity to accept the best
terms offered by the other contracting party, and to
show that the law may and does protect the weak
against their necessity.
3. The third condition mentioned, where both parties are under necessity or other force to accept the

34

T H E RIGHTS OF LABOR

best terms offered, presents no element that is pertinent to our inquiry except when one party is under a
greater necessity than the other, in which case a condition similar to the second named would be realized
and the same suggestion would apply.
We may observe, parenthetically, that from what
we concluded in considering the second condition, it
is unquestionable that it is a legitimate function of
laws made by the people, to regulate any condition
under which the strong may take advantage of the
weak and in any way unjustly profit by their necessity because of the absence of proper laws or otherwise.
2, Having defined the rights of employees and the
position of parties at time of contracting, we will next
consider the position an employee occupies when he
contracts with an employer, and also the position
occupied by the employer, in order to discover their
relative strength and weakness.
a. It is by general reputation understood and
may be taken as granted, that an employee seeking
to form a contract with an employer must compete
with another or other employees, who desire to secure the position he seeks.
It is equally true that the average employee is
dependent upon the wages he receives while at work
to sustain himself and family.
b. On the other side,the employer as a rule is con-

T H E CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT

35

tracting for the investment of a surplus capital upon
which he is not directly dependent for support.
This is particularly true of corporations whose stockholders have invested their surplus earnings.
Since there are, as a rule, two or more persons seeking one position, the employer is not under
the disadvantage of competing with other employers
in regard to wages. It is the exception that two employers seek to employ the same individual.
Briefly stated the position is:
On the one side the employee, subject to competition
with other employees and dependent upon his employment for support.
On the other side the employer, not subject to
competition for wages and not dependent upon his
profits for support.
The average employer has the power to exist by
virtue of his accumulated property and credit, for
several years at least, without further income; the
average employee has the power to exist but a few
weeks by virtue of his accumulated property and
credit. This poverty of the employee is largely due
to the competitive system.
It is unnecessary to quote facts to prove this condition. The truth that the strikers, upon the occasion of almost any strike which has been prolonged
for a few weeks, have found it necessary to rely upon
the support of contributions from their fellow work-

36

T H E RIGHTS OF LABOR

men or the public, should be sufficient evidence to
demonstrate the condition outlined. And the same
general knowledge should suffice to show the strength
of employers.
We have the picture of a man comparatively weak,
financially, negotiating with a man of great power.
A day laborer with a millionaire, corporation or individual, A child with a mature athlete. A hackman with a Webster.
To comprehend the situation and the weakness of
employees, it will be necessary to have clearly in
mind the method by which wages are determined.
We outlined that the scale of wages is established by
the contract of employment, but what the scale of
wages as named in the contract shall be, is regulated
almost entirely by influences over which the individual
employee has no control. The scale of wages, it is
generally now agreed, will be determined by the law
of supply and demand. Wages rise and fall in accordance with the relation between the available
supply of employees and the active demand for employees' services in any given trade, occupation or
employment. The wages paid to any given class of
employees, to any trade, will be determined by two
"facts.
i. The number of employees ready to do the
work.
2. The number of employees required to do the
work.

THE CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT

37

If there be more employees ready to do a given
work than are at present required, and such condition
continues, wages will decrease.
If the number
required is then increased, the wages will advance.
If the supply of employees in a given line is reduced
and so continues, wages will advance. But where
the number of employees ready to do a given
work increases at the' same rate that the number required increases, then wages remain uniform
and stable. The wages or price for their share
of the product, that may be expected at any time
by employees, is beyond their control except as they
organize to control the available supply of employees and thus raise wages. Individually they
are powerless to set aside the inevitable law of
supply and demand which fixes the rate of wages,
the price for their future product which they may
expect to accept when they form the contract of employment. They are under an inevitable necessity
and weakness to accept the scale of wages dictated
by the law of supply and demand and taken advantage of by the employers.
But the employee is weak, not only because of his
necessity to accept the scale of wages fixed by competition and of which the employer takes advantage to
deprive him of part of the fruits of his labor by acting upon the employee's necessity in securing a contract with him,but he is weak and under a strong ne-

38

T H E RIGHTS OF LABOR

cessity as well, in that he is dependent upon his
wages for support, employees having as a rule but
small accumulations,as shown. If the employee was
capable of supporting himself without income for an
extended period, he might remove the necessity which
induces him to accept competitive wages, but being
dependent upon present income for his maintenance
he is doubly weak, for the employer, recognizing the
employee's inability to sustain himself without income
and taking advantage of this necessity, may secure from
him a contract whose terms are outlined by the employer, for he is in the position above outlined, where
he is under no necessity and may name his own terms,
and refuse to contract except upon those terms.
Realizing the dependency of the employee, he need
only maintain his position until the small bank account of the employee is exhausted and he, driven by
his necessity, agrees to the best terms the employer
will offer. This dependency upon wages is the greatest weakness of employees, for "all that a man hath
will he give for his life." With starvation as the result
of non-employment, with wife and children begging
for bread, an employee can do no other thing than sign
such a contract as the employer may offer him. He
may give up his life by starvation or otherwise rather
than permit the employer to force him to contract
at the terms offered, but with a family to support and
educate, or without dependents, he is under a strong ne-

THE CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT

39

cessity to accept the employers terms and sign the contract offered, even though it deprives him of his right to
the fruits of his labor, and his right of self-government.
He must accept the terms offered in the same way
that the borrower of money would have to submit to
usury did not law forbid such contracts; in the same
way that passengers would be compelled to submit
to the railroad rates and terms did not law forbid
such contracts; in the same way that the weak would
everywhere have to submit to the dictation of the
powerful, did' not law prevent such imposition.
Observing the employee forming a contract with an
employer, corporation or capitalist, it should require
no argument to show their relative weakness and
strength. The presence of weakness such as the law
seeks to protect is evident, and the presence of strong
power such as may impose on the weak if opportunity
exists and law does not restrain, is equally apparent
But the mere existence of the weak when the strong
are also present does not in itself provoke the people
to enact protecting statutes. There must exist because
of some looseness in the law, or by an absence of law,
an opportunity by virtue of which the strong may or
do impose on the weak, and we now return to our
inquiry as to an opportunity which exists, that permits the strong employer, by the encouragement or
absence of law, to impose upon the weak employee,
meaning by the word "impose," an opportunity to

4o

T H E RIGHTS OF LABOR

deprive the weak employee of one or more of his
natural rights, even while he is free to contract as
he may elect, so far as the law is concerned.

CHAPTER

V.

THE CAUSE OF THE DIFFICULTY.

Examples where strength takes advantage of weakness.
A highwayman, meeting a traveler in a mountain
ravine, and presenting a rifle at his head with a request for such property as he may possess, is an example of a man imposing upon another irjan's necessity. The one man is under the necessity, owing to his
weakness before an armed man who has taken advantage of him, of giving up his-property, the fruits of
his labor, in order to save his life. • The necessity is
not absolute, for he might give up his life in defense
of his property, but the necessity is none the less real.
It is the strong taking advantage of the necessity of
the weak, and is justly punishable by law as a breach
of the natural right of man to the fruits of his
labor and to personal liberty,
A wife possessing a large property, is requested by
her husband to make a deed of the property to him
for one third of its value. She refuses, relying upon
her natural right to contract or not to contract, but
he, to induce her to form the contract, mistreats her,
41

42

T H E RIGHTS OF LABOR

refuses to supply her with the necessities, absents
himself from her, and orders her from his home, until from the necessity of her position, but not voluntarily, she consents and signs the deed.
Here is an example of the strong, by imposing
upon weakness and necessity, depriving an individual of the fruits of labor. There is freedom to contract, but there is such coercion as negatives the
right to contract and makes such a contract anything but voluntary,and it is justly made voidable at
law, Courts recognize such methods as against
natural right and dp not allow an advantage so
gained to be retained. Law protects the weak against
the imposition of the strong upon the necessity of
the weak, however such weakness may arise or such
strength be so wrongfully employed.
The law as to burglary, robbery or other wrongful
taking of one man's property by another, forms
another example. In the first forms of society and
during the middle ages, we have evidence of a time
when the strong dominated the weak by force. Might
was right,and if any man could forcibly possess himself of another man's property he became the owner.
There was no enforced law which forbade the strong
to in this manner impose on the weak and take advantage of them, although there was a pretense of
protection to individuals. But as society advanced,
the principle that a man was entitled to what he had

T H E CAUSE OF T H E

DIFFICULTY

43

created and justly possessed was recognized, and the
principle that it was wrong for the strong to dispossess
the weak and live by the plunder thus secured, because of their strength, became established. Following the recognition of these principles came the realization that the weak must be protected and the
strong restrained, in order that justice should prevail, property be protected, and the progress of individuals be secured. In order that such protection
and restraint might be effectual,it was realized that a
punishment must be meted to those who disregarded
these restraints, and the laws of burglary, robbery,
etc., with the penalties accompanying each, were
established. These laws had for their original purpose
the protection of the weak against the power of the
strong. The laws punishing murder arose in the
same manner. The above will sufficiently explain
the conditions under which the strong may impose
on the weak in the absence of protecting laws.
The theory of the law has always been,and one of
its fundamental purposes is, to protect the weak,
when, because of their weakness or necessity, they
might be or are imposed upon and taken advantage
of by the strong. All such laws as the above look to
the protection of the weak.
Keeping in mind this fact,that the law always aims
to protect the weak against the strong, let us seek
to discover if there is at present any necessity for

44

THE RIGHTS OF LABOR

the enactment of laws in connection with the relation
of employer and employed, in order to protect the
weak from the power of the strong because the employer may or does impose upon the employee and
secure his consent to a contract of employment opposed to his interests and which deprives him of
his right and property without his voluntary consent and to his injury. If so, such imposition is
the cause of the differences between employers and
employees.
It is evident that an employer, negotiating a
contract with an employee, will say that the
scale of wages in the given line of work, which
is the subject of the contract, are well known and
uniform and that the employee cannot expect more
than this standard of wages as full payment for his
share of the product to be made. The employee
may believe his services worth more in fact than the
scale fixed by supply and demand, but he will be
unable to secure more than the wages determined by
this law of competition. It needs no presentation of
facts to prove this assertion. He is under a necessity
to accept this scale of wages because, should he refuse
to sign or agree to the contract for that scale, other
employees, driven by a like necessity and ready to do
the work, will sign the contract upon the terms offered
by the employer.
The competition of employee with employee for the

T H E CAUSE OF T H E DIFFICULTY

45

same position is a fact needing no sustaining proof,
and it is, as above outlined, one of those weaknesses
and influences by which every employee is burdened,
and which places him under the necessity of accepting the best terms he can secure from the employer,
one of which terms is the scale of wages fixed by
supply and demand. The other influence usually
present is the employee's dependence upon wages
for support.
It is evident that the employer, who is under no
necessity as to competition upon the scale of wages,
because the supply of employees is at present and
always has been larger than the demand for them, is
able to make his own terms of contract and to take
advantage of this necessity of employees; the weakness of employees in this regard is such that the employer may compel him, because of necessity, to accept the competitive scale of wages as payment for
his interest in the future product, and it is generally
admitted that he does so, believing that he may justly
do so, and the employee, while feeling that something
is at fault, does not observe the difficulty.
But could the employer, by taking advantage of
the employee's necessity in this connection, deprive
him of any right; as the right to possess, enjoy and
control the fruits of his labor or the right to control
himself? The fact that the employer may force the
employee to accept the competitive scale of wages,

46

T H E RIGHTS OF LABOR

does not, in itself, prove that the employee is deprived
of any right.
In determining this we should have before us something showing the value of the fruits of labor of an
employee for a week, month or year. It is evident
that if the wages which the employer may force the
employee to contract for as payment for his share,
are less than the value of the product he produces
during the week, month or year for which wages are
paid, after allowing for the payment of expenses incident to the work done by the employee, then the
employee does not receive back as wages the full
value of his services in industry, for such full value
to which he is clearly entitled is obviously the selling value less the cost of production.
In this connection it must also be kept in mind
that the employee, as a rule, contracts to conduct
machinery or use other tools belonging to the employer, and of the product created the employee may
justly claim as the fruits of his labor, only such proportion of this product as his energy has created, the
other proportion being due to the employer as interest
upon the money he has invested in the machinery,
tools, etc.
Every workman, working with machinery or tools,
is able to produce a certain amount of product which
will sell for a certain sum, dependent upon the condition of the market.

THE CAUSE OF T H E DIFFICULTY

47

Two employees capable of producing the same
amount of product seek employment of an employer.
The first is ready to contract to do the work for a
share of the product equal to the net value of his proportion of the product to be made.
Assume that his product when sold brings $10
net profit for each day's work. The employee says,
" I will allow you $1.00 per day as interest for the use
of money spent in buying machinery and tools and will
sign a contract for $9,00 per day." "And what will
you work for?" the employer asks of the other workman. "Well," he says, "I am out of a job and have
a family to support, and rather than not work I'll
contract for $8.00 a day." "Will you do better
than t h a t ? " the employer asks of the first employee.
" I have a family also, and other expenses, and must
have some income. My work is worth more, but if
you can do no better I accept $6.00." But the other
employee whose family must be supported lowers to
$5.00; then the other, seeing no opportunity for work
elsewhere and seeing the possibility of suffering to his
family, is under such urgent necessity that he lowers the price of his services to $4.00; but the other,
under the same necessity and as desirous of a means
of support, after figuring the cost of living and finding he can live upon $3,00 per day, names that price;
but the other, figuring that he also can live upon
$3.00, agrees to accept that wage. Here we observe

48

T H E RIGHTS OF LABOR

the manner in which the employer may deprive the
employee of a part of what he produces, the fruits of
his labor. The employer by taking advantage of
this system of competition, can, owing to the employee's necessity, secure the employee at wages
which represent an amount on which the employee,
by economizing, can exist, but which is far short of
his fair proportion of the joint product, and which
in no way represents the value of the employee's services. The employer thus makes a profit upon the
employee's work. The employer, by this system,
may not only force wages to the point of existence,
but may at these low wages secure the best workmen, for when, as in the illustration, both men are
willing to accept the lowest wages upon which they
can live, the employer has the option of employing
either man, and after some further questioning will
employ the more experienced one, the one from
whose work he can realize the largest profit. He
will perhaps take him on trial, and if not acceptable
will discharge him and accept the other. It is evident from this illustration, which is a common instance, that the employee can never expect to receive as wages the full selling price of what he creates; to which full selling price, less expenses, he
is justly entitled, unless he voluntarily parts with it.
It is then evident that the employee may be deprived
of his right to the fruits of his labor.

T H E CAUSE OF T H E DIFFICULTY

49

Parenthetically, it may be said that an employee can
no more secure what is justly his product than the
workman of the middle ages could expect to receive
what his labor produced. Employees while subject
to this competition and dependence must accept what
the employer gives them, dependent only upon the
supply and demand for employees in a given trade;
and the scale of wages fixed can rarely, if ever, equal
the employee's just proportion of the product, under
the conditions outlined.
It is contrary to the facts to assert that the employee is free to contract or not to contract as he may
desire, and may secure his rights by refusing to contract. It is obviously not true that he is free to consent to the contract; there is nothing voluntary in such
consent. When a man stands between accepting
a contract of employment at wages fixed by competition, and the reduction of himself and family to a
condition of poverty and dependence upon friends,
such a man is not free to contract or not to contract.
He is under a necessity to contract such as few men,
perhaps no man, could resist.
The employee occupies the position outlined, in which he is compelled to contract at the best terms offered.
As further indicating that the employer may and
does secure the fruits of labor which rightfully belong
to the employee, it is a well known fact that ioo
men working together in a factory or other industry,

5o

T H E RIGHTS OF LABOR

in connection with or without machinery, can, because of a division of labor, produce in a given time,
a day or month, a product larger and much more
valuable, perhaps 5 to 10 times more valuable, than
the same 100 men could produce, each working alone
in his own way. It is equally apparent that when
an employee seeks employment of an employer, he
can expect to secure as wages but little if any more
than,sometimes not so much as, he could make alone.
Now it clearly follows that since by the division of
labor carried on in industry, an employee can produce
5 or 10 times more than he could alone, and since his
wages are regulated by what he can make alone, he
will lose when working for an employer the difference between his wages and the net value of his
product.
If a man making shoes could earn, alone, $2.00
per day over expenses, and then became an employee in a shoe factory at wages, $2.00 per day,
but by his labors in connection with the other employees, made a product upon which there is realized a profit of $4.00, such man would be deprived of
$2.00 which justly belonged to him, and which the
employer would secure because of competition between employees, and for no other reason.
It can require no further demonstration to prove
that the employer may, under the present system of
industry, take advantage of the employee, and relying

T H E CAUSE OF THE DIFFICULTY

5*

upon his necessity in competition and dependence
upon wages, deprive him not only of a part, but of
a large part of the product he creates; the fruits of
labor which by natural right he alone should receive,
or voluntarily dispose of in order that he may maintain himself and family and educate his children, instead of calling them to his aid to maintain their existence.
And, secondyimy the employee be deprived of his
right to self-government?
By this same power of the employer, because of
the employee's necessity, the employer may, when he
has reduced wages to the living point as explained,
secure complete control of the employee while at
work; for when other employees, as outlined, will
accept $3.00, the same competitive necessity and dependence upon wages will prevent the employee from
demanding any condition in the contract relating to
the hours of employment, the rules and regulations, as
to the continuation of the contract or the reduction
of wages. These, in the absence of express terms, are
by law within the control of the employer. It is
plain that the employer alone makes the contract of
employment. The employee, forced by his necessity,
is compelled to agree to a contract depriving him of
his rightful possession of the fruits of his labor, and
by the same dependence and necessity he unwillingly
delivers himself into the service of the employer.

5^

T H E RIGHTS OF LABOR

The employer may use him so long as he is able to
r.ealize a profit on his work, but when no profit is
forthcoming can discharge him, casting him aside as
useless; as the sponge, when squeezed, is laid down
until it can again be of use; like the fruit tree which
while capable of bearing fruit is nurtured, but when
barren, cut down; like the horse employed while
strong with the power of vitality,but when worn with
toil cast aside. The employer under present conditions uses the employee much as the owner of any
useful animal uses such animal; to advance his personal interests, discarding him to his own resources
when no longer of value. Law does not restrain
this condition, but rather encourages it, and the
necessity and dependent weakness of the employee
makes this opportunity possible, in the absence of
protecting laws, such as should exist.
It must be evident that under the conditions which
exist, the employer may impose upon the employee
because of his necessity, and by so doing deprive him
of not only the fruits of labor, but of his right to
control himself, even while he is given legal freedom
to contract or not to contract.
But while it is apparent that the employer may
impose upon the employee as shown, it is only prima
facie proof that he does so impose, and our next research will be as to facts, tending to show that the
employer does in fact impose upon the employee and
deprive him of the rights mentioned.

THE CAUSE OF THE DIFFICULTY

53

i. The right to control himself.
2. The right to possess, control and enjoy the
fruits of labor.
W e have already seen that the employer may make
such rules and regulations for the conduct of the employee while at work and not at work as he deems
advisable, and that by this privilege he may impose
on employees, and as indicating that the employee
is in fact imposed upon by hard rules and unjust demands while at work, we refer to the report of
the labor commissioner of the United States on
Strikes and Lockouts, where the following causes for
strikes up to 1887 are outlined.
Leading Causes of Strikes.

Establishments.

For reduction of hours
4,470
For reduction of hours and against being compelled to board
with employers
800
For change of hours beginning work
360
Against the contract system
238
Fornine hours' work
172
Against increase of hours
„
138
For reinstatement of discharged employees
124

The causes above outlined, comprising about 25
per cent of the strikes up to 1887, do not refer to the
scale of wages,but entirely to the rules and regulations
which govern employees while at work. The fact
that the employees are governed by these rules, and
that the employers make the rules, should indicate
that there is here an interference with the right of

54

T H E RIGHTS OF LABOR

self-government, one of the fundamental principles of
the American Republic; and the facts quoted should
show that the employees are imposed upon, or they
would not so universally rebel against the rules imposed by employers. These statistics, taken together
with the well-known wide-spread discontent which
prevails because of the unjust and injurious regulations
made by employers, who do not have to obey them, but
who profit by them, should be sufficient to prove that
imposition is practiced, and that employees not only
may be, but in fact are imposed upon and deprived
of their right to self-government because of their
weakness.
But while it is seemingly apparent that employers
do impose upon employees by imposing unjust rules,
is it equally true that they do, in fact, deprive the
employee of a part of the fruits of his labor? W e
saw that he may do so under present conditions.
Does he take advantage of the opportunity?
By the general mind such a question would be at
once answered affirmatively, for there is a prevalent,
and it would seem well-grounded belief, that the employer gets the larger part of the product, and it is
general knowledge that he gets more than his share,
and as a consequence, the tramps and paupers and
the host of the poor and needy on the one side, and
the millionaires and plutocrats on the other, are the
result,

THE CAUSE OF THE DIFFICULTY

55

But what facts may be presented to show that the
employer takes to himself an undue proportion of
the profits of industry?
A question necessarily arising at this point, in order to answer our inquiry "Do employers impose on
employees?" is what proportion of the profits of industry may employers justly claim; for if they may
justly claim all they now secure, there is no imposition; if less, then imposition exists.
W h a t should the employer be justly entitled to
as profits for capital invested? Shall it be the average profit, or a greater or less amount?
In determining what per cent of profits employers
may claim, in order to be reasonable and just to em;
ployers,the analogy of the rate of interest is of value.
Money loaned for interest, with small risk of loss,
realizes about 8 per cent average as fixed by law.
It must be obvious that 8 per cent is considered a
reasonable return for moneys invested with but small
risk. Admitting that money invested in industry is
at the present time invested at a risk twice as great
as moneys invested for interest, then a reasonable
return for the use of such money in industry would
be 16 per cent. But if by means of the remedy here
proposed, the risk, because of increased stability, is
lessened one-fourth, then a reasonable return would
be the rate of interest, plus one-half such rate, or
average 12 per cent; if lessened one-half, then 8
per cent.

56

T H E RIGHTS OF LABOR

The figures on the opposite page, showing the per
cent of profit as estimated from statistics from the
report obtained of the census bureau of the United
States, for 1890, have a bearing on the question under
consideration, and if approximately correct clearly indicate that the large proportion of the profits of industry, above all expenses, goes to the employers, by
virtue, we argue, of their power to take advantage of
the weakness and necessity of the employed, which
power is unrestrained by law such as, in other instances of imposition by the strong upon the necessity
of the weak, protects the weak from the power of
the strong.
It should be remembered that a large number of
powerful establishments, in which one or a few men
hold most of the stock and secure most of the profits,
realize from 20 per cent to 30 per cent profit upon
a large and extensively "watered" stock, from the sale
of the product of labor; being from 50 to 60 per cent
upon capital actually invested, as will appear later. It
is here that by the monopolization of production,
trade, and transportation,the enormous fortunes are
accumulated from profits realized upon the labors of
employees, which are at once the wonder and menace
of free governments. It is by the introduction of
improved machinery making it possible for the employee to create a proportionately large product,
that he is deprived of the great part of his production.
From the statistics outlined, and from the general

Statistics of Cities Manufacturing.
B ~tei
32

Capital.

,

7,915

116,644,490

Employees.
90,198

Boston—Bulletin No. 232—Census 1890.
MiscellaCost of
Value of
Wages.
Material. neous ex- Product.
pense.
54,636,695

104,631,879

21,399,162

208,104,683

Estim'ted
Profits.

Per ce't
on
capital.

27,436,947 23% p. c

Chicago—Bulletin No. 222—189o!
~1^959~|
'

292,477,038 |
~

203,108 1 119,146,357 | 386,814,848 | 41,550,761 j 632,184,140 |
New York—Bulletin No. 211—1890.

84,672,174 | 29 p.c.
'

25,399 1 420,238,602 | """ 351,757 1 228,537,295 | "357,086,305 1 60,223,425 [ 763,833,923 | 117,986,898 | 28 p.cT
'

~~
~~

18,148 1 362^895,272 |

Philadelphia—Bulletin No. 244—1890.
253,073 [ 132,436,268 |

302,623,539 [ 39,505,579 |

564,323,762 | 89,758,376 [ 24^ p . c .

San Francisco—Bulletin No. 246—1890.
1^965 |

65,612,049|

46,850 |

29,860,0571

77,188,061 |

7,901,164 |

131,263,713 | 16,314,431 | 25 p . c .
Average, 2Q p . c .

57

58

T H E RIGHTS OF LABOR

poverty of the employed and the wealth of the average employer, it must be evident that the employee is
in fact deprived of the larger part of the fruits of
his labor in industry, because of the employer's power
to force him to sell his interest in the product to be
produced, for wages fixed by competition.
It follows, also, that if money invested in industry
is or would be justly worth one-half again as much
as money loaned for interest, then the employers
who are and have been realizing,average 26 per cent
profit for the money invested in industry without service, do actually, if our estimates are approximately
correct, deprive the employee of an amount equal
at least to the difference between 12 per cent and 26
per cent. It cannot then be questioned that - the
employer does in fact deprive the employee of the fruits
of his labor, if from 8 to 12 per cent is a sufficient
average return for money invested in industry.
It follows that the employee does not contract
with the employer; he but accepts such a contract
as the employer offers. His freedom of contract is
but a name written in the sand, beautiful to look
upon, but which with the first wave is obliterated;
but a bubble, pleasing to observe, but disappearing at
a touch; freedom to contract,as practically exercised,
is to the employee but the privilege of contracting
that he may bind himself to toil and sign over the
greater proportion of the fruits of his labor to hjs
employer.

THE CAUSE OF THE DIFFICULTY

59

If ever in the annals of history there existed a
wrong that should be righted by the protection of
law, the defense of the weak from the injustice of
their position, it is here; and here will be found one
of the most fertile sources of the unequal distribution of the product of industry so prevalent and disastrous. The necessity which compels the employee
to agree to a contract with the employer, which deprives him of the fruits upon which the maintenance
and education of himself and family depend, and by
virtue of which necessity the employer secures a contract which gives him title to the product of industry,
this necessity and the advantage taken of it by the
employer, it would seem, are the source of more
disease, crime,immorality, irreligion and death, than
any error that has yet dominated the people. It
creates the millionaire and the pauper, withers the
bloom of youth within the employer's walls, vacates
the home; forbids education to the children of the
employed, multiplies the drunkards' graves, hardens
the heart of the employer, and blasts manhood and
every virtue that comes within its avaricious touch;
and that justice and prosperity may be secured to
the people, it must be removed.
It is evident from what we have outlined that the
imposition which the employer may enforce against
the employee, because of the employee's necessity,
is encouraged by the law, outlined in the beginning

6o

T H E RIGHTS OF LABOR

relating to the relation of employer and employee,
since such law, by giving the employer the power to
regulate all matters not expressly determined by the
contract, encourages the employer to secure a contract in which the only express term is as to wages
to be paid. The silence as to other matters places
the employer in full legal control. So it would seem
that the law, which is a monarchical heirloom, while
not directly opposed to the employees, gives the employer a special privilege. But it arises not from
any positive law passed by the people, but from
the general system of common law which has come
to us from an uncivilized and degenerate past, inwhich the individual citizen without power counted
for naught and was used by the powerful to sustain
the splendor of royalty and aristocrats. A law made
to conform to such a system cannot be held good
law in a republic where such conditions are reversed,
and civilization looks to the prosperity and education
of the general people rather than to the preservation
of a favored class, upheld by oppression and power.
It is ignorance of the injustice of these ancient
customs that perpetuates the general toleration, and
when they are observed by the general mind, both
employer and employed, in the light of modern ideas
of justice and the rights of man, they must disappear,
since they oppose that freedom and justice for the
realization of which the American Republic was ere-

T H E CAUSE O F T H E DIFFICULTY

61

ated. It can require no other force than intelligent understanding of the situation, in order that
statutes may be passed removing the evils resulting
from these customs, and the absence of laws protecting the employees from their weakness, when they
are seen to deprive men of their natural rights, as
must be obvious to any mind observing the present
effects of the contract by the employees for wages as
shown, and as apparent in the relative conditions of
employer and employed. The long continued imposition upon employees, because of their weakness
through competition and dependency, is responsible
for present conditions, and since the weakness and
necessity which gives the employer this power can
be removed by new laws, the laws of industry should
be changed by the enactment of proper statutes.
In this inquiry we have outlined the rights of employees in industry, the position of employers and
their ability to protect themselves. We have reviewed the weakness and necessity with which the
employee is burdened. We have shown that the
employer may, and in fact does deprive the employee
of his rights because of this weakness, and that the
function of law is to protect the weak against the
strong. The need for a protecting law to remove
this injustice, which is the cause of the difficulty, is
evident.
Our next inquiry as to what such law should be, in

62

T H E RIGHTS OF LABOR

order that justice may be done, prosperity quickened,
and the employees be protected from the imposition
and injustice under which they now labor, and to secure to them the rights of which they are now deprived. Having outlined the cause of the difficulties
to be the fact that the employer is strong and the
employee weak, and the fact that there is no law
restraining the strong employer from imposing on
the employee's weakness, what shall be the remedy?
And our aim in seeking a remedy need be only to
establish a condition of Justice, for when a system
of injustice is discerned, and a possible just and
equitable remedy suggested, there can be no danger
in its application, for upon the wings of Justice no
evil ever came. Realize a condition of Justice, and
Prosperity and Social Harmony must result as surely
and inevitably as the proper and natural adjustment
of musical tones produces concord; as a flower
blooms in the sunlight. The social world is no less
made to sound in harmony by the proper arrangement of its parts, and it is the high function of law,
the best judgment of the majority sustained by their
united power, to establish, maintain and perpetuate
the conditions of harmony and prosperity.
But before proceeding to the remedy it may be
said, that in arguing that the present system of laws
applicable to the relation of employer and employed
encourages imposition by employers upon the rights

T H E CAUSE OF THE DIFFICULTY

63

of employees, and that there is no law protecting the
employee against his weakness and necessity, it does
not follow nor do I believe that those who now occupy the position of employers are responsible for the
present condition which permits them to take advantage of the employee; nor do I believe that the
employers as a class willfully and knowingly impose
upon the rights of employees. They but follow customs and usages of trade which have prevailed from
an indefinite past, and have become accustomed to
exercise the privileges accorded them, as of right.
As a rule they have not considered such system
other than such as in the nature of things must of
necessity prevail. They say, "It is business;" but
upon due consideration this view must be seen to be
an erroneous one, for the system, as we have seen,is
unjust to the employee and those dependent upon
him. The responsibility for the condition presented
rests in the general acceptance of the system formed
by an older civilization, and a failure of the people
to weigh such system in the balance of justice.
But
such failure cannot be made ground for the continuance of the system, for it is wrong in itself. The fact
that employers are in no way responsible for the absence of laws which it seems clear should be enacted,
does not protect them from the necessary and just
changes which might result from laws which will right
this condition of error so long prevalent.
While

64

THE RIGHTS OF LABOR

the removal of unjust privileges from any class accustomed to such privileges may be to them a personal grievance, their reduction from an unfair advantage should not prevent the accomplishment of
the general good of all the people for whose protection
and by whom governments are instituted, and all progress made possible. The pride of the powerful and
privileged can have no weight against the establishment of justice, the protection of property rights,
and the rights of self-government to the people,
whatever their ignorance, poverty or social place.
But while it is evidently just that the condition outlined should be remedied, it cannot rightfully be done
by depriving an employer of what he now possesses.
While it is true that the employer has reaped where
he has not sown, and secured something for nothing
at the expense of the employee, he has done it under the protection of laws which the people have
allowed to exist. They have encouraged the employer in his accumulation, and guaranteed him the
protection of law in securing to him the property he
has acquired. W h a t he now has secured cannot be
taken from him, but the division of profits in future
may be established upon a basis of justice, and by
the distribution of wealth the enormous fortunes now
in existence would by a repeated division among
many heirs be removed.
Employees upon whom the burden of the con-

THE CAUSE OF THE DIFFICULTY

6$

ditions outlined has so long and injuriously rested,
feel that the employer is at fault; but as shown, it
will be seen^that the employer is not to be condemned
for laws which give him the privileges he feels he justly
exercises, but which, as we saw, are unjust. Employees should aim to change the laws rather than antagonize employers, for that is the shortest route by
which their rights may be secured.

C H A P T E R VI.
ANALOGOUS PROBLEMS.

In seeking remedies by which present problems
may be solved there is no surer guide than the lesson
of history, for a cure once effectual for a social evil,
may be again applied to remove a present condition
having the same elements. Let us examine history,
past and present, for some instance in which the
strong, by taking advantage of the necessity of the
weak, deprived them of their possessions and rights,
and to discover the method by which such injustice
and wrong was removed and justice done.
There was a period in the history of Great Britain
when upon every hill-top the convent or cloister flourished from the taxation of the "people. The forced
donations from the people to the church became so
extensive as to threaten the existence of the civil
government. Acted upon by the necessity which
the churchmen were under to preserve themselves
in the estimation of the church and prevent their
social ostracism, they deeded an unlimited number
of acres to clergy to be used presumably for religious
purposes.

The church, using its power and
66

acting

ANALOGOUS PROBLEMS

67

upon the people in this way, accumulated an enormous property, until the civil power, fearful of the
wealth of the clergy, enacted a statute in the sixteenth century called the statute of Mortmain, which
declared that no church society should receive title to
real property except in a certain manner, this statute
being for the express purpose of stopping the unwise
accumulation of property in the hands of the church.
The law proved effectual and never since its passage
has the evil been extended. The principle of limiting the amount of property to be held by a corporation was recognized, the basis of the statute being
the public policy which demanded that no such enormous accumulation of wealth should be permitted in
a few hands. The statute of Mortmain was a measure for the protection of the public rather than individual rights directly, and as an illustration may by
analogy be applied to the relation of employer and
employed, for the enormous accumulations of wealth
in the hands of employers, because of the fact that
they secure the larger proportion of the product of
industry through the employee's necessity, as shown,
is a menace to government, and a perpetual source
of corruption, bribery and every form of political
misrule and the perversion of the functions of government. It has come to be such a menace as justifies
the use of a remedy similar to the Statute of Mortmain; a remedy looking to the fixing of a reasonable

68

T H E RIGHTS OF L.ABOR

profit to employers, and the prevention of the concentration of the larger proportion of the profits of
industry in a comparatively few hands, which condition, it is well known, is rapidly appearing in the
United States.
From the point of view which considers the individual interests of the employees directly, the statute
which fixes the rate of interest at a certain per cent
is an instance of the intervention of law to prevent
one man from securing an undue profit for his investment when such undue profit deprives another man
of his property. The money lender's rights end at a
reasonable interest.
From what we have outlined, it should be unquestioned that a law which will determine the amount
of profit which an employer, whether one man or a
corporation, may realize from the investment of
money in industry in connection with the energy of
an employee or employees, would be as just and
effectual as the Statute of Mortmain, the law fixing
the rate of interest, and all the many laws which
protect the weak from their necessity.
For whatever money an employer or stockholder
actually contributes to an enterprise or corporation,
such employer or stockholder should receive a certain rate of interest with a small per cent added for
risks, and all profits over and above the expenses of
the industry, and this fixed per cent upon money in-

ANALOGOUS

PROBLEMS

69

vested, should be shared by those who contribute
their energy or labor to such industry, many of whom
are both employers and employees. The principle
cannot be questioned; the only controversy that can
arise is as to what is a reasonable rate of profit.

CHAPTER VII.
THE REMEDY PROPOSED.

The remedy proposed for the unequal distribution
of wealth in industry, is as follows:
i. Fix by statute a maximum per cent profit upon
capital invested, which shall be allowed to stockholders in corporations, silent partners in partnership, and to all who contribute money or other property to an enterprise.
2. Declare by statute that all profits realized from
any enterprise, after expenses and the per cent allowed
to those contributing money or property, be divided
among those who do personal service in the factory
or other industry, such division of profits to be made
upon the basis of the wages and salaries now paid
employees.
We have seen that it would be just to enact a law
fixing the rate of profit. The suggestion that the per
cent of profits remaining to employees, after deducting expenses and the per cent allowed to employers
for money invested, be divided among employees in
proportion to the wages they now receive, is seen
70

T H E REMEDY PROPOSED

71

to be just and natural when we remember the readily
established fact that the present wages paid to employees of different classes is determined by the
amount of skill necessary to perform the given work.
I do not mean that the difficulty in
performance
attaching to an occupation wall regulate wages, but
the difficulty in performance will have an effect upon
the supply of employees ready to do that work, for
the more difficult the work the more skill required,
and the greater time and application necessary to attain the knowledge and skill that is demanded. The
more difficult the work the fewer the persons who can
do it, hence the smaller the supply, and a small supply increases wages. The less difficult the work the
less the skill required, hence the supply is greater and
the wages lower, as in manual work to which almost
any person can turn his hand. The present difference in the scale of wages is thus based on difference
of skill and knowledge, which, being a form of capital,
should be recompensed, as it is, by better wages.
But the present scale of wages is also the measure
of the efficiency of the employee in production. The
employee whose skill and knowledge make it possible for him to produce a more valuable product in a
given time, should receive larger wages and a larger
proportion of the profits than an employee whose
labor is less efficient in production. The present
relative scale of wages is based upon this difference

72

T H E RIGHTS OF LABOR

of skill and efficiency, and may, therefore, be justly
taken as a natural and equitable basis upon which to
divide the remaining profits among employees, and
law may so declare.
I have no intention of suggesting that the present
payment of wages by the week or month shall be
discontinued, or in any way changed.
Employees
should receive the wages and salaries they now receive in the same manner that they now receive
them, such wages and salary to be used as now to
pay current expenses, and to be figured as part of the
cost of production. There need be no change as
to this. The object of this inquiry is to discover
and secure to the employee his interest in the profits
over and above his zvages or salary.
Taking the scale of wages as a basis, let us then
apply practically the suggestion made, in order to
discover its effects in operation.
John Jones invests $10,000 in the business of making bricks, manages the industry himself, and employs 9 men, who are to receive wages as follows.
3—$25 per month or $300 per year.
2—$40 per month or $480 per year.
2—$50 per month Or $600 per year.
2—$60 per month or $720 per year.
1—$83.33 P e r month or $1,000 per year.
The owner himself, as manager, is allowed $1,000,
which would be the amount for which he could hire
a man to run the business for him.

THE REMEDY PROPOSED

73

The proportion of the wages each man would receive would be:
3 men 3-31 of the whole wages paid.
2 men 4.8-31 of the whole wages paid.
2 men 6-31 of the whole wages paid.
2 men 7.2-31 of the whole wages paid.
1 man 10-31 of the whole wages paid.
Since 3 men received 3-31 of the wages paid, they
would be entitled to 3-31 of the profits over and
above expenses and the 10 1-2 per cent (in Illinois)
allowed to owners upon their capital invested, assuming that to be the rate fixed. In the same way the
others would be entitled to their proportion.
Assume that the expenses are as follows:
F o r Wages
F o r Material
Incidental Expenses

$3,100
3,500
500
$7,100

;

Assume that the bricks produced sold for $14,000.
The net profit would be $14,000—$7,100 =$6,900.
This $6,900 is to be divided between the owner,
John Jones, and the 9 men working with him. John
Jones first receives 10 1-2 per cent on the $10,000
he invested, or, $1,050, which would leave to be
divided $6,900—$1,050= $5,850.
3 men together receive —• of $5,850 or $566.10 or $188.70 each.
2 "

"

«

ti 8 "

"

" $905.56 " $452.74

"

2 "

"

"

gL. "

"

"$1,132.20" $566.10

"

"

" $1,358.64 " $679.32

"

«

" $1,887

"

u

2 "

"

"

~

1

"

"

i? "

"

"

$1,887

74

T H E RIGHTS OF LABOR

3 men each—wages $300 profits $188.70; - income $488.90
2 "
" — "
$480
$452.74
$932.74
2 "
" — "
$600
$566.10 ;
" $1,100.10
2 "
" — "
$720
$679.32 ;
" $1,399.32
1 "
" — " $1,000
$1,887
2,884.00

If profits were divided by the month or quarter,
the employees would receive the same proportion of
any profits declared.
Applying the same methods to the packing business
in Chicago, we reach the following results. (Census
1890—Bulletin of Manfts. 222.)
Employees
Wages.
Capital.
17,923.
$11,031,366.
$40,013,632Incidental Expenses.
Value of Product.
$203,825,092.
$6,222,708.

Cost of M.
$173,736,558.
Profit.
$12,834,460.

Assuming 10 1-2 per cent in Illinois upon the stated
capital, or $4,201,431, there remains to be divided
among the employees $8,633,029, which will give
to 17,923 employees average $481.11 This estimate
is made upon the basis that the capital stated is the
actual capital invested, but it would appear that the
capital upon which the per cent profit should be
allowed is much less than the amount stated, as will
be seen from the following statistics, showing what
is included as capital. It would seem that many
items included are not legitimately capital invested,
but rather items of expenses or otherwise.

T H E REMEDY PROPOSED

75

SLAUGHTERING AND PACKING.

Capital Employed
Hired P r o p e r t y
Plant.
Land
Buildings
Machinery
Live Assets.
R a w Material on H a n d
Stock in Process or Finished
Cash, Bills, etc., Receivable
Total

Total.

$40,013,632
7~ 755,000
4,567,536
5,708,226
3,166,888
4,826,738
16,091,152
4,897,992
*40,013,632

It seems clear that the items for land, buildings
and machinery, etc., may be properly classed as
capital,for the money invested in these items remains
invested, and does not again return to the investor,
by the sale of the land, buildings and machinery.
It is permanently used in the industry for the purposes of production. But the items given as "live
assets" do not appear to be properly capital, but
rather items of expense. " R a w material" is purchased
upon the credit of the establishment, or with funds
realized from the sale of the product. Capital does
not buy raw material, as is readily seen from the fact
that in the packing business the capital as given is
but $40,000,000, while the raw material cost $173,000,000. Nor can "stock in process or finished" be
classed as capital of the employer, for it contains
raw material which is not capital, and it is produced
by the combined efforts of capital and labor. It be-

76

T H E RIGHTS OF LABOR

longs to both, proportionately, and is not capital
invested. Nor are "cash, bills, etc., receivable"
capital invested. They represent product which has
been sold, and in which labor, as we reasoned, has
a share. Such items represent receipts and may go
to pay expenses or profits. None of these "live assets" can be justly classed as capital invested, and
upon which interest should be allowed. They lack
the quality of being permanently invested, as is the
character of capital. The raw material will be made
up, and its value received back when the product is
sold. Only such an amount if any as is paid by the
employer directly for raw material, in the beginning
of the enterprise, should be considered capital. Such
amount, being permanently invested, may partake of
the nature of capital, but when raw material is purchased by the receipts of the industry, it is the common property of the employer and employed, since
purchased by the income of the business in which both
have a share, and can only be classed as expense.
The employer invests money in raw material only
in the beginning of the enterprise, or until receipts
come in from goods sold. The amount of capital
actually spent for raw material is small comparatively, since such material is secured upon credit
and paid for when the receipts from the sale of goods
come in.
Omitting, then, these items from the amount of

T H E REMEDY PROPOSED

capital invested, the situation
lows:

would

n
be as fol-

Capital; land, buildings and machinery
Assume as capital invested in "raw material"

$14,217,650
1,000,000
$15,217,650
Add to this capital, $5,000,000 for liability assumed
upon stock subscriptions for purposes of credit, and
the capital in round numbers is $20,000,000. Deduct the 10 1-2 per cent assumed, or $2,100,000,
from the profits, $12,834,460, and there remains
$10,734,460, or in round numbers $11,000,000,to be
divided among the 17,923 employees of every kind,
officials and workmen engaged in the business, or
average $615.48, making the average income of employees just double what it is at present. This would
secure • to them the fruits of their labor, to which
they have an inherent right, and in no way interfere
with employers except where they now impose upon
the rights of employees. Those employers who do
not realize more than the maximum per cent, which
no doubt includes the larger proportion of employers,
would not be affected by this change. Such employers
would be benefited; it is only the monopolists of
large industries and railroads whose income would
be lessened, if any were, and this would be but
justice, from the conditions we have outlined.
Parenthetically it may be said, that from the above
conclusions that "live assets" cannot justly be classed

78

THE RIGHTS OF LABOR

as capital, it is evident, if our conclusions are reasonable, that the 26 per cent average before estimated
as the profit on capital invested is the per cent upon
capital invested and also upon "live assets," which
we have shown are not capital. Since "live assets"
make up about one half the capital outlined, it would
seem that the profits upon the real capital invested
would be double 26 per cent average, or 52 per cent
average profit upon actual capital.
In seeking what proportion of the profits each employee should have, the following will explain the
method of determining such proportion.
In the packing industry in Chicago there are 17,923
employees, but the wages will be much different in
the various occupations. In the absence of statistics
showing the wages paid each employee, we will divide
the employees into arbitrary classes, which will serve
as well for the purpose of illustration. The average
wages now paid is $615.48. Many will receive less,
some more than this amount. The total wages paid
are in round numbers $11,000,000. Divide the employees into classes as follows:

T H E REMEDY

Employees.
5,000 *
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000

800
700
600
500

Wages.

$4°°
45°
500
600
700
800

goo
1,000

100

1,500
3,000
4,000

15

6,000

200

PROPOSED

T o t a l wages tol P e r cent of
class.
total wages.
$2,000,000
1,800,000
1,500,000
1,260,000
700,000
640,000
630,000
600,000
750,000
600,000
400,000
go, 0 0 0

7

10,000

70,000

1

20,000

20,000

i7>923

w

11,000,000

20
110
18
110
15
110
12
110
7
110
6.4
110

1

6.3
110
6
110
7.5
110
6
110
4
110
.9
110
.7
110
.2
110
110

j

no

What the profit received by each employee would
have been in 1890 had this system been in operation,
is readily obtained by securing the proportional share
due each class of employees, and dividing the total
due to that class by the number of employees in
that class, as follows:
The profit which we assumed would be due to employees was $ IT, 000,000, round numbers, i - i i o o f
$11,000,000 is $100,000. The amount due each employee is readily found as follows:

8o

THE RIGHTS Of LABOR

Profit
Employees Per cent. Profit to class to each. Income.
5,000
4,000
3,000

20
110
18

no
12

2,000
no
1,000
800

6.4

no

700

600
500

6
'110

200

6
110

$

15 .9
fief
7
110

400

=15

1,500,000,

500

1,000

1,200,000

600

1,200

700

1,400
1,600
1,800

no
7
110

700,000
640,000

6.3

45o

800

$

800
900

630,000
600,000

7.5
110

1,000

2,000

750,000

no

1,500

3,000

900

600,000

.7
110

6,000

4,000

8,000

90,000
70.000
l

3,000

400,000

4
110

100

$

2,000,000
1,800,000

6,000
10,000

20,000

20,000

12,000
20,000
40,000

From the above demonstration, the justice, practicability and simplicity of the maximum rate of profits
such as is proposed is manifest; as it will seemingly
double the income of employees, it would, by increasing their purchase power to that extent, double
the general prosperity of society, while at the same
time doing injustice to no man. The statistics and
estimates given above may not be absolute, but they
will serve at least to explain the system here suggested, to remedy the unjust distribution of the
profits of industry.
In connection with the system outlined, the em-

T H E REMEDY PROPOSED

81

ployees should have free access to the books showing
the expenses of running the business and profits
realized, in order that they may be able to protect
themselves when necessary; and by having access to
the books of account, the employees could, by choosing a committee of their own number, satisfy themselves that they have not been imposed upon. If
they discovered any mistake it could be corrected,
or if the employer refused to correct it, they could
sue the corporation in the courts for an accounting,
and by an examination of the books in court justice
would be done.
To remedy the evil now known to exist in the fact
that employers, more particularly stockholders, issue stock for which no sufficient payment has ever
been made to the corporation, and upon which practically no liability is assumed, as where a coporation
whose property is valued at say $5,000, money really
invested or liability assumed, issues stock nominally
valued at $50,000. Dividends are paid upon $50,000 when in justice they should be paid upon money
or property actually invested. By this large capital
the profits are absorbed. In order that employers
should be prevented from this imposition upon employees, the law should declare that an inventory be
taken in every enterprise, and that the maximum
profit be allowed upon this actual value, rather than
the fictitious value of watered stock, or "live assets."

82

T H E RIGHTS OF LABOR

An inventory could be easily obtained, and any increase be readily determined from the books of the
concern at the time profits are divided. In order to
protect the rights of the employee, law may justly
regulate this matter as indicated.
When once upon a just basis, there could be no
further imposition, unless the employee through his
own neglect permitted it.
Another injustice is seen in the fact that the
amount represented by subscribed stock is largely in
excess of the value of the capital actually invested.
An illustration will best explain this condition, A
capitalist may invest $50,000 in land, buildings and
machinery. This is actual capital. The first year
he realizes 10 per cent net profit, of this capital, or
$5,000. The second year his profits are 25 per cent
net, or $12,500. The next year, his business being
established and the employees more skilled, he realizes $25,000, or 50 per cent. Observing this large
profit, he now figures that $25,000 profit is 10 per
cent on $250,000. He now organizes a corporation
with $250,000 capital. He contributes his land,
building and machinery, inventoried at $126,000, in
order to give him the controlling interest in the corporation, and then sells the remaining stock for
$124,000, which is clear profit to him, but which
justly should go in part to the employees, since it is
profit realized from the business.

THE REMEDY PROPOSED

83

As will be seen,it is possible for him to do this because of the large profits; but we have shown that
such large profits were possible because the proportion which should have gone to, and which rightfully
belonged to the employees, never reached them, but
was secured by the employer because of the employee's weakness. The corporation when organized
pays 10 per cent annual dividends, which does not
appear excessive, but when we realize that this large
capital is based upon an injustice and is really only
a division among many stockholders, instead of going
to one owner, of profits which belong to employees,
the injustice is evident.
If profits to the employer were based upon capital
actually invested, and restricted to a fair dividend on
the value of such actual investments, no such large
capitalization would be profitable, or possible.
The same injustice is apparent in a corporation.
Thus,three men form a company with $25,000 capital, actually invested in buildings, machinery, etc.
They, with the help of the employees, develop a
business which in a few years makes a net profit of
50 per cent on capital actually invested. They
realize that this is equal to 10 per cent on $125,000,
so they increase the capital stock to $125,000, not
because the additional capital is needed in the business, but because they may secure $62,000 clear
profit'from the sale of the stock, and still retain the

84

T H E RIGHTS OF LABOR

controlling interest. In justice the profits which
make this capitalization possible, should go in part
to the employees, and if the profits allowed to capital
invested were fixed at a reasonable rate, it would go
to them, and this injustice be removed. The $62,000
realized from the sale of stock belongs to the employees in part, for it is profit realized from the
business.
Large capitalization is thus seen to be but a division between stockholders of profits which should
go to employees, such capitalization being made possible because of the fact that the employee does- not
receive his just proportion of the profits.
It is thus evident that although all the stock in a
corporation, upon which dividends are paid, is in fact
paid for in full by the person holding such stock,
the injustice is not therefore removed. It does not
matter so far as the justice of the situation is concerned, whether one man or three thousand stockholders impose on employees. It is the same injustice whether one man secures what belongs to the
employee, or it is divided between three thousand
holders. The title to such stock is tainted by injustice, as is seemingly evident. If a certain reasonable proportion of the net profits were allowed to
capital actually invested, and such amount were
divided among stockholders, there would be no injustice. It is when the employers impose upon the

T H E REMEDY PROPOSED

85

employee, and securing profits due to the employee,
divide such profits among themselves, then injustice
exists which demands removal.
To illustrate the situation, below are given some
figures suggesting the capital stock of certain corporations and the assessed value of their property
in Illinois for 1893. Admitting that the assessed
value is only one-fifth what it should be, then fully
two-thirds of the corporation stock represents stock
upon which no actual investment has been made,
but upon which dividends are paid, thus absorbing
the profits.
CORPORATIONS.

Pullman's Company
Union Stock Yards & Transit €0
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul R. R...
Chicago & Eastern Illinois
Chicago & Western Indiana
North and West Chicago Railway Co \s
People's Gas Co
Chicago Telephone
Chicago City Railway Co
Total.

Capital
Stock.

$30,000,000
26,000,000|

71,795,161
32,416,915,
16,000,000
20,000,000
3,750,000
3,280,000
9,000,000

Assessed
Valuation.

$1,695,500
425,557
2,848,607
2,263,368
1,389,217
1,500,000
250,000
508,000
1,350,000

$212,242,076, $12,240,248

If the real value of this property, plus stock paid
for, is five times as great as assessed, it would be
worth about $61,000,000, and at that valuation the
present capital stock would still be more than three
times as large as the real investment of money or
property.
2. As to the injustice suggested in relation to the.

86

T H E RIGHTS OF LABOR

rules and regulations by which employees shall be
governed while at work; in relation to the discharge
of employees; the reduction of the wages and the
management of the enterprise.
*
Under the present conditions these matters are
regulated by a board of directors or trustees in a
corporation, by the partners in a partnership.
The
employees of a corporation or partnership have no
voice whatever in determining what the rules and
regulations shall be, for what causes employees may
be discharged, or how or when a reduction of wages
shall be made. These matters are regulated, as we
saw, by the employer, unless some express agreement
is made in the contract, touching these questions,
and there is no such express agreement because the
employer, by taking advantage of the employee's
weakness may force him to sign a contract which
contains no express agreement, and hence by virtue
of the common law, the employer secures full control
and may discharge employees, reduce wages and
make such regulations to govern employees at work
as he desires, and his interests in the profits suggest.
i. As to reduction of wages, while such reduction
would become of less importance under the system
suggested, the employee could be protected from imposition, by a law declaring that when any reduction
in wages is made, it shall be a certain per cent from
all salaries and wages of all officials and workmen.

T H E REMEDY PROPOSED

87

Since the officials would themselves be affected by a
reduction they would not hastily lower wages. But
in view of the fact that the employer might reduce
wages in order to reduce expenses and thus insure
his maximum profit at the expense of the employees,
it would seemingly be just and advisable for the law
to declare that any reduction to be made shall be
made only after such reduction has been accepted
by a majority of the employees. A reduction of wages
is practically a notice to end the contract of employment, and both parties should, therefore, consent to
the reduction, as the parties to any contract should
consent to a change in such contract. If such reduction were not accepted by employees, the employer
would have the right of ending the contract upon
proper notice, and for good cause, which notice
should be established by law and sufficient damages
allowed for a breach without cause and notice.
2. As to the rules and regulations, it appears that
the evils existing in this direction could be remedied
as follows:
Enact a law declaring, that whenever a majority
of the employees in any industry, who must be
governed by a given rule, petition the directors to
abolish such rule or regulation, it shall be removed.
This would give the employer full control except
where he abused the privileges allowed him, and
would protect the employees in their rights. A like

88

T H E RIGHTS OF LABOR

petition should be sufficient to secure the removal
of an unjust or incompetent foreman or other supervisory employee.
3. As to the discharge of employees, it would
seem that the privilege of discharging incompetent
men, and of employing new men, should be left as
now to the judgment of the officials, but in order to
protect the employee the law should declare that for
a discharge without good reason, which would be a
breach of contract, the employee should be given
damages to an amount double his wages for one
month, to be sued for at once, or for such an amount
as would be due him in profits at the end of the
quarter, or some other certain amount. He should
be given damages equal to what he might have made
had he not been unjustly discharged and the contract broken. This is justice and reason, and would
be in harmony with the law of contracts which allows
damages for a breach of contract, equal to the damages to an innocent party; not only actual damages,
but an additional amount where malice is involved.
So much for the remedy to secure employees the
fruits of their labor, and their right to self-government.

C H A P T E R VIII.
RIGHT TO ENACT THE REMEDY.

Following what has been suggested, comes the
question, "May the people, by right, enact a statute
fixing the maximum rate of profit?"
It will be seen from what has been outlined, that
the question of the right of the people to enact a law
fixing the maximum rate that shall be allowed for
capital invested in industry turns upon the answer
given to the question, " T o what proportion of the
profits realized in industry has the employer a just
and equitable title?" Having determined the proportion to which the employer is entitled, it is clear
that what remains is the property of the employee.
If the employer can justly claim title to but 8 or 12
per cent average, as his reasonable proportion of the
profits, then the remaining profits are the property
of the employees, and law may protect such property.
The determination of what is a reasonable profit to
the employer upon money invested in industry, raises
the question, "How may title to property be
acquired?" It is evident that such title may be justly
acquired in but one way.
89

go

T H E RIGHTS OF LABOR

1. By expending labor in connection with the
property acquired.
This expenditure of labor may be realized in different ways.
i. By expending labor in securing the product
or raw material of nature in any form; as agriculture
or mining, upon which no labor has been applied in
cultivation or manufacture.
2. By expending labor in artificially cultivating
and securing natural products, as in any form of
agriculture or stock-raising.
3. By expending labor in realizing a new or
manufactured product from the natural product or
raw material which may be had from the earth.
The labor expended in securing the natural product or raw material is almost entirely manual labor,
there being but little capital used to aid such labor.
The huntsman may use a spear or bow and arrow,
the fisherman a hook, but the greater proportion of
the labor employed is the personal efforts of the
workman.
2. Labor spent in artificially cultivating and securing the natural product was largely personal
in the earlier stages of agriculture, but by the invention of implements, this personal effort is extensively assisted by improved machinery; but this
improved machinery is also labor in a form different
from the personal labor of the individual, but of less

RIGHT TO ENACT T H E REMEDY

9*

importance than personal service, since without labor
it can produce nothing. It is but energy stored up.
3. Labor expended in realizing a new product
from the natural, or raw material, was in the beginning largely individual, as in the making of pottery
by hand, but the multiplication of tools and machinery at the present time materially aids the individual
efforts of the workman, but such tools and machinery are but another form of labor.
It appears that title to property, whether such
property be natural product or manufacture, is acquired justly, only by the expenditure of labor or
energy in some manner. Until labor is expended in
one of the three ways mentioned, no title to property
can justly be acquired so that such title shall deserve
the protection of law, one of whose functions is the
protection of title rightfully acquired. Title by descent is securing a title formerly acquired by the
labor of an ancestor.
The title acquired by the expenditure of labor
is seen to be a just title, of which a man is the
possessor by natural right, since by his birth he
is the absolute owner and possessor of himself and his
power, energy or labor. When he expends labor he
gives up a portion of himself as payment for the product realized. It logically follows that unless a man
expends labor in securing possession and title to any
property, he has no equitable title to such property.

92

T H E RIGHTS OF LABOR

It follows as well that where two individuals expend
labor in securing or creating the same common property, they would possess an equal interest in the
product secured or realized. Where of two individuals, working together in securing or realizing a product, one expends twice as much energy or labor as
does the other, then logically the first should receive
two-thirds of the value of such property or product.
It follows that if one of two such individuals expends nine-tenths of the labor exhausted in securing
or creating the product, then such one should receive
title to and possession of nine-tenths of the property
or product secured or created, or its value when sold.
The one has put into the property secured or realized,
an amount of himself equal to nine-tenths of the
property or product; the other one per cent. We may
logically conclude that since the employer and the
employed are engaged in a common enterprise, and
expend their labor in securing, as in mining or agriculture, or producing, as in manufacturing, a property
or product in the securing or realizing of which they
have both expended their labors, that the employer
justly has title to such part of the value of the product secured or produced, as the stored labor he
expends by virtue of his capital invested in its production, compares with the labor expended by the employee, personally, in conducting the industry from
which the property is secured or realized. If the

RIGHT TO ENACT THE

REMEDY

93

labor spent by the employer is the same as that
spent by the employee, then they each possess by
natural right a title to one-half of the product secured or created, or to one-half of its selling value.
Under the competitive system such value, as has
been shown, cannot be secured to the employee. If
the labor expended by the employer, by virtue of his
capital invested, is but one-tenth as great as the labor
spent by the employee, then the employer has title
to but one-tenth of the value of the product.
It follows also that since the employer and employed are occupied in the production of a product
in the creation of which both expend their labor, and
since it may be and in fact is, that through necessity
and weakness the employee may be and is, by means
of the contract of employment, deprived of this
property to which he holds an absolute title, as
shown; and since it is the undenied function of society by law, to protect the title to property, and to
protect the rights of the weak against the strong, it
follows without question that in order to so protect
the title of the employee to his just proportion of the
product secured or realized in industry, the people
may by law declare the relative proportion of labor
that is expended by the employer and the employee.
The people, by law, may then declare that the employer expends in industry such a proportion of labor
as is equal to a certain per cent of the capital in-

94

THE RIGHTS OF LABOR

vested in industry, such per cent to be paid from the
net profits, the only condition being that such rate
be just. It may secure to the employee the net
value of the property he produces in industry, and to
which such employee has an absolute, natural, and
unquestionable right, until he has voluntarily sold it,
or otherwise disposed of it. If 8 or 12 per cent
average is a sufficient return upon capital invested
in industry, the people may with justice so declare
by law.

C H A P T E R IX.
OBJECTIONS ANTICIPATED.

I. An argument sometimes presented in connection with share of profits due employers is, that
employers own the tools and machinery with which
the employee works, which although in many cases
is not true, is admitted to be the rule; and it is said
that since the employee working without the assistance of improved tools and machinery, can secure or
create only about one-tenth or one-fifth as much as
when assisted by machinery, therefore the employer
who owns the tools and machinery should receive
all profits in excess of the value of what the employee
can secure or create, working without the tools or
machinery. A miner working alone, we assume,
can secure one ton of coal per day, but by the aid
of machinery and division of labor, ten tons; therefore the employer is entitled to the nine tons. A
car builder working alone could make, we assume,
one car in a month, but with the aid of machinery
and division of labor, his part in the work equals
five cars, It is argued that the other four cars,
therefore, belong to the employer. The absurdity
95

96

T H E RIGHTS OF LABOR

and error of this proposition is readily shown, for by
using the same argument it is evident that the employee should receive all the product.
Thus, an
employer possessing improved machinery can create
nothing with such ^machinery, unless the employee
applies his skill in running it. Therefore the employee, since he owns himself, and since no product
is possible without his labor, should receive all the
product created. This would be as reasonable as
the above.
It is clear that the employer cannot by right receive all but what the employee could produce
working alone, not, at any rate, by virtue of the
argument outlined.
2. Another suggestion made in this connection
is that the owner of machinery is a great benefactor,
and by the use of improved inventions, cheapens
product to the consumer and aids progress, and
therefore should be allowed such a profit as will encourage invention and manufacturing. This is all
true, but it is not just nor reasonable grounds upon
which to justify imposition upon employees.
A
reasonable profit allowed to manufacturers is as extensive an encouragement as reasonably should be
demanded, and to fix by law what such reasonable
rate should be, would in no way lessen inventive activity, nor manufacturing; for if an employer cannot
secure 50 per cent profit upon money invested, be-

OBJECTIONS ANTICIPATED

97

Cause it has been declared unjust and an imposition,
he will not ; therefore, allow his capital to lie idle
when he may, with the same assurance of success,
and no doubt with greater chances for success, realize
8 or 12 per cent average above all expenses. It can
be shown that many of the evils of over production
and under consumption are caused by too great an
encouragement to invention and manufacturing. But
the employer will invest his money at the best rate
he can obtain, and if law declares 8 or 12 per cent
average to be the limit of Justice^ he will invest his
money for that rate, become an employee himself,
and share in the profits of employees.
Inventions
and extended manufacturing would increase the net
profits, and there can be no hesitation in saying that
the same impulse that now impels men to accumulate would impel them under a law allowing 8 or 12
per cent average upon capital. They would increase
their capital in order that their per cent be enlarged.
The laws of patents are not intended to give the
employers license to plunder the employee, and a
profit such as is suggested, it would seem, is a
sufficient inducement to those who by investing
money in industry, introduce improved methods.
Men manufacture new inventions and processes because they believe they can realize profits by so doing, and for no other reason. If they could not
realize 50 per cent or 100 per cent, they would be as

98

T H E RIGHTS OF LABOR

well encouraged by 8 or 12 per cent average profit
and a profit as employees. Possibly the majority of
employers do not now make much more than 8 or 12
per cent average.
The fact, then, that an employer owns machinery
or a patent which he has, as so often occurs, bought
from some dependent employee at a small price, or
claimed because the employee "thought it out" during working hours, is no ground upon which to justify
the present large profits secured by certain employers
upon money invested in industry,
3c The profit secured by employers because of
the employee's necessity, as shown, cannot be justified upon any of the arguments named, nor can it be
justified upon the ground of services performed by
employers, for they do no service as employers in industry, they do nothing but contribute capital to the
enterprise. The only services performed in connection with industry, the only labor expended by individuals, is that spent by the employees, who comprise the workmen, foremen, and managers, and
receive for their services wages and salaries as
regulated by supply and demand, except where
the managers, by controlling the majority of
the shares of stock, unjustly vote themselves a
salary higher than supply and demand would
allow. It cannot be asserted, therefore, that the
employers, meaning by such word, as explained,

OBJECTIONS ANTICIPATED

99

stockholders, silent partners, or others who contribute money or property to industry, can justly
claim their present large profits on the ground of
services rendered.
4, It is also asserted that since the employer
takes so great a risk, he must have the possibility of
large profits, in order to induce him to engage in
manufacturing or other enterprise. But it is this
possibility for large profits that induces employers to
risk their money in hazardous ventures, much after
the fashion of the gaming table. And this possibility for profits is the cause of unnumbered failures
where speculative men, led on by hope of profits, enter rashly into manufacturing or other industries where
there is reasonably no demand for them. It is this
possibility that induces so much capital to flow into
investments of the same character, and by an over
production of that class of goods, to cause failure, depression, the closing of industries, and the discharging
of employees. It is evidently unreasonable to argue
that this profit is required to induce capitalists to
invest. It is this same possibility of profits that gives
rise to the risk. Remove the possibility, and the
risk will likewise decrease. A maximum rate of
profit allows for risk, and therefore could not be
opposed to any right employers might have because
they assume a risk more or less extensive.
5.

To some minds it might appear that employers

TttE RIGHTS OF LABOR

ioo

pay the wages received by employees, from their own
capital, and should receive some profit upon that, but
it may be readily shown that employers do not pay
employees from their capital, except for the first few
weeks of employment at most, or until the goods
produced are sold, after which time all wages are
paid from the receipts of the business. This must
be clear upon the statement, but in order that it may
be shown by facts, the following table showing capital
invested, wages paid, and cost of material is of value,
since, as may be seen, the cost of material is in nearly
every instance greater than the capital invested.
It
is evident that employers cannot purchase materials
with which employees are to work, and with the
same capital pay the employees' wages. The employer cannot justly claim profits because he pays his
capital to the employees, for wages are paid from
the product of labor.
ALL INDUSTRIES.—CHICAGO.

Capital.
$359,739,598.

Wages.
$123,955,001.

Cost of Material.
$409,493,027.

CARS.-—RAILROAD AND S T R E E T .

Capital.
$9,949,830.

Wages.
$4,091,099.

.

Cost of Material.
$8,828,658.

M E N ' S CLOTHING.

Capital.
$16,132,024.

Wages.
$10,154,661.

Cost of Material.
$21,906,311.

OBJECTIONS ANTICIPATED

IOI

W e have outlined, that the fact that the employer
i. Owns the machinery and tools,
2. Is protected by patents,
3. Or because of services rendered,
4. Or risk taken,
5. Or capital paid as wages,
can in no view of the conditions be made a basis
upon which the employer can sustain his securing
the larger proportion of the fruits of industry, as he
has done because of his strength and the employee's
weakness.
6. It is asserted by those who advocate the single
tax upon land values as a remedy for certain social
errors, that such a tax would, by increasing the demand for labor, increase wages, and thus secure to
the employee his full proportion of the product secured
or realized in industry. Without questioning the
beneficial results that might follow the institution
of the single tax, it seems that it would not secure
to the employee his full proportion of the product
he assists in producing, nor the right of self-government of which he is now deprived as shown.
Admitting that this remedy would, by increasing
the supply of available land, cheapen its selling
value, and make it possible for the people to obtain
land more readily, still the fact that land would be
cheaper means that rents for land and for houses
would fall, and as a result the price paid for mer-

102

T H E RIGHTS OF LABOR

chandise and all products would decrease, since rent
would be removed from the price asked of the consumers. Now, it seems reasonable that since the
rent paid for houses occupied by employees, and the
price of goods purchased by them would fall, it would
necessarily follow that wages, which like rent and
the price of goods, would be dependent upon supply
and demand, would also fall, since the cost of living
has much to do with the scale of wages. The cost
of living being reduced, but competition being still
prevalent, employees would compete as they do now,
and wages would fall so that the employee would not
secure the benefits of the reduction of prices, as he
would do did not competition cause a fall in wages at
the same time it cut the price of rent and goods.
Lessening the price paid for land and the rent paid,
would turn the amount saved in this manner not into
the hands of the general people or the employees,
but rather would increase the wealth of the employer to that extent. It would be similar to the
Monster that Hercules sought to kill, which having
three heads, when one head was destroyed its power
was transferred to the other heads. So the employer,
by taking advantage of the weakness of the employee
in competition, would secure the larger proportion,
if not all the benefits that might result from the
single tax. If any benefit came to the employee in
wages, it would, it seems, in no degree represent
what is rightfully his property.

OBJECTIONS

ANTICIPATED

I63

It should be said in this connection, however,
that were the remedy here proposed put into operation, the employees, whose wages might be increased,
would be enabled to build homes with their surplus,
and since homes demand land, the price of land
would advance and rents as well; and thus a proportion, perhaps a large proportion of the increased
wages would be absorbed by land-owners and landlords in increased prices for land and rents, and thus
landlords would secure benefits intended for the
people. In order to prevent this result, the single
tax, which aims at landlordism, would seemingly
prove an effective remedy. There are at least two
unjust systems that absorb the product produced or
secured by those who work; the employer who takes
advantage of the employee's weakness in competition,
and deprives him of his property, and the landlord
who takes advantage of the necessity of the people
for the land, The single tax would apparently remove landlordism, but not the power of the employer. The maximum rate of profit would protect
the employee from the power of the employer. Each
remedy seems to cover subject matter not included
under the other, and both, it would seem, are necessary before full Justice can be realized. It is unnecessary to here analyze which is the more needed
reform. But that the single tax, if admitted to be
beneficial in opening land for occupation, would not

104

T H E RIGHTS OF LABOR

remove the injustice outlined in this inquiry, seems
apparent.
7. It will be asserted that the system here proposed is socialistic, but a brief examination must
show that socialism and the industrial union here
outlined are as far separated as north from south; the
aim of socialism being the conduct of industry by
the State, the union here suggested being the conduct of industry by those interested in industry
Socialism aims to remove the competitive system
in the sale of products, but industrial union in no
way removes or lessens such competition, The only
competition it aims to remove is the competition of
man with man,which is seen upon examination to be
but justice, for employees as explained should sell
their product
in the competitive market, but not
themselves, for the sale of themselves deprives them
of what is justly their own. Industrial Union, as here
explained, means the application of the principle of
self-government and the protection of property rights,
to industry. If the American Republic is socialistic,
then an industrial union would be, for it is based
upon the same justice and system as is the Republic.
There is no interference by government. The law,
which is the will of the people, would declare that industrial tinion is 7tecessary to justice, and at that
point the interference of government would cease,
whereas socialism anticipates the continuous inter-

OBJECTIONS

ANTICIPATED

*°5

ference of government with industry.
Socialism
would arrange industry so that the profits realized
would be secured by the government, all workers
being but employees of the government; but industrial
union secures the profit of industry to those who produce the product upon which the profit is realized,
and distributes such profit equitably among those
by whose labors the product is produced. It is evident
that this industrial union is in no way socialistic, but
only the establishment of a natural and just system.

CHAPTER

X.

JUSTICE OF THE REMEDY.

The justice of the remedy proposed is apparent
upon but brief consideration, for the analogies we
have named, the fixing of the rate of interest, of the
rate per mile that may be charged by railroads, and
the Statute of Mortmain, form a sufficient foundation,
so far as precedents go, for the statute here suggested,
and reason upholds it. If the laws regulating interest and passenger and freight rates are just, then a
law fixing the maximum profit that stockholders, or
those who furnish money to enterprises shall receive,
is equally just. Such laws are for the protection of
the people, and the law outlined fixing the rate of
profit would accomplish the same end. Law has
already held that money when not accompanied by
the personal service of the person owning such money
is worth a certain interest, differing with the locality,
being higher in new countries, where the demand
for money is greater, less in settled districts, and it is
universally recognized that unless the restraining
hand of law is placed upon money lenders, saying,
"Thus far shalt thou go,"those who lend money would
103

JUSTICE OF T H E REMEDY

IO7

impose upon the necessity of the borrower. This is a
sufficient justification for the law.
Capital contributed to industry by stockholders or
employers is no more sacred from the restraint of
law than money loaned for a rate of interest. If
there is, and it is evident there is, a point at which
interest upon money ceases to become reasonable
and becomes usury, there is equally also, a point at
which the profit upon money invested in industry is
reasonable, and beyond which such profit becomes an
imposition upon the rights of the workman, the fruits
of his labor. If there is a point at which railroad
rates are reasonable and beyond which they become
unlawful plunder, then there is a point at which law
should say to the employer: "Thus far. Here is the
boundary line of your reasonable profits, beyond this,
mark, the profits are the property of those who toil
and by whose efforts the product was realized, and
your profit made possible."
Law should ever place
an armed guard at the point where the rights of the
strong end and those of the weak begin. The justice
of fixing for all time, by positive legal enactment, the
legitimate rate of profit that those who invest nothing
but capital in industry, should receive, cannot be
questioned in the light of reason, of precedent, and of
the relative condition and necessity of the employer
and employed.
W e have seen that the present common law relat-

io8

T H E RIGHTS OF LABOR

ing to employer and employed favors the employer,
and encourages him to secure a contract of employment upon the question of wages only; we have observed the weakness and necessity of the employed
and the power of the employer; we outlined how the
strong employer takes advantage of the weak employee by reason of his necessity and deprives him of
his natural rights by coercion; we have shown by
facts that the employers deprive the employed of the
fruits of his labor, and of the right to control himself;
we have shown that the employee is the tool by
which many employers, because of their strength and
the employee's weakness, live in splendor and enjoy
the blessing of luxury, education and social position,
while the employee receives such portion as the inexorable law of supply and demand, taken advantage
of by the employer, deals out to him, which leaves
him poor indeed, his family uncared for, his children
uneducated, his life a round of toil.
W e have asked how this great injustice to labor
may be removed, and the employee be secured in the
fruits of his labors in industry; we outlined a remedy
in declaring that law fulfilling its functions may and
should declare that stockholders and all who invest
capital in industry, but do not give their personal
services to industry, should be restricted to a certain
rate of profit, which rate shall be determined by
statute; we outlined the justice of such a remedy,

JUSTICE OF THE REMEDY

109

and that the rate might with reason be fixed at a per
cent upon capital invested, equal to from 8 to 12
per cent.
That such a change in industry would be just, and
that it would raise those who toil to a higher plane of
existence, and by reaction raise the general prosperity, increase the general good, and advance mankind
far upon its long journey to justice, must be evident
to any reasonable mind.

CHAPTER XL
RESULTS FROM THE REMEDY.

The changes that might reasonably be expected
from the realization of the remedy here proposed, are
matters of speculation, but may in a general way
be ascertained.
The first result of the maximum rate of profit would
be as shown, that the employees would realize an
income much larger, perhaps double, that which they
now receive. They could live upon what they now
secure. Add one-fourth of their increased income to
the expense of living and they may live comfortably,
leaving them three quarters of their increased profits
as a surplus.
It is evident that this surplus would be used to
build homes, take the children out of the factories
and off the streets, and place them in schools; take
the mothers from the workshops and place them in
their natural place, the home; give young men an
income such as will support a family, and allow them
to build homes; double the schools and colleges; decrease, if not abolish the paupers, tramps and the
unemployed; put the star of hope before every man,
for by right living each could accumulate a property
110

RESULTS FROM T H E

REMEDY

III

such as would at once, and in his age, support himself and those dependent upon him; it would remove
one of the great causes of poverty and inharmony,
and as a consequence such poverty and discord must
disappear, and the general prosperity and stability of
society increase as it has never done in the history of
the world.
But the remedy proposed, while raising the standard of living among employees, would at the same
time increase the general prosperity of employers as
well, as is readily seen from the fact that the average
employee would have surplus purchase power. He
would buy more clothing of the clothing merchant,
who in turn would purchase more of the wholesale
clothier, who would demand more raw material,
more wool, and the materials that go to make clothing, and hence the wool grower and farmer would be
benefited.
The employee would buy more groceries, meats and
food of the merchant, and he in turn would buy more
of the product of the farmer.
The employee, being able to keep his children at
school and his wife at home, would also be able to
purchase books and periodicals; the retail dealer
would sell more goods, and would buy more of the
publisher, who would therefore buy more paper, more
printing material.
The workman would fit up his home, which would

112

T H E R I G H T S OF LABOR

mean larger purchases of the local dealer, and by
the manufacturer of the lumber dealer, and all this
activity would give employment to laborers, who
would again spend their income in purchasing the
products of employers and merchants.
The fact that children now employed in factories
and stores could be placed in schools, would increase
the number of teachers demanded, and give employment to contractors and workmen in erecting school
buildings.
The fact that employees would be able to build
homes would increase the demand for building material, give work to builders, and activity to loan
associations*
The demand for every kind of wearing apparel, for
food products, for house furnishing goods, for all the
necessities and luxuries of life, would be increased, the
employer's business be enlarged, and his legitimate
profits multiplied with the growth of his business
and capital.
But not only would such a change benefit the
dealer, the manufacturer, the farmer, and all classes,
but it would have a remedial effect upon many, if not
all, the questions of public policy which now agitate
the general mind; the tariff . question, the money
problem, immigration, trusts and combines, all would
be influenced by the establishment of justice in industry.

RESULTS FROM T H E REMEDY

"3

The tariff question would become not an issue between the manufacturer and wage earner, but a
question of expediency for the well-being of industry.
The charge that the manufacturer raised the price of
goods because of the tariff, would lose its force,since
the advanced price, if real, would be shared by all
classes, since such profits could not all go to manufacturers, but to the laborer as well, and that means
that they would be equitably distributed. Purchase
power would be the same under a low tariff or high
tariff; the condition of employer and employed would
rise and fall together, and any effect from a tariff,
protective or for revenue only, or free trade, whether
good or evil,would be shared jointly by employer and
employee, which means the general public, for every
man is an employer or an employee.
The money problem would assume less importance
from the fact that the circulating medium would be
distributed among the people, rather than accumulated and controlled for the benefit of the few.
Immigration would not present the force it now
does, were every employee reasonably secure in his
employment and profits, while he satisfactorily performed his labors. It is the fact that the immigrant
may and does by competition, work for less wages
than the native employee, that he is to be feared,
but this evil removed, the coming of industrious emigrants would mean not competition and poverty, but

H4

THE

RIGHTS OF LABOR

a larger market for produce, and a more extended
field of industry. New citizens, finding it impossible
to crowd out the home workmen, would by the assistance of newly created capital,or perhaps imported
capital, erect hew shops, till new farms to supply
their w a n t s ; build new schools for their children,
new houses for their families; and all in no way interfering with the progress of industries already
established, but assisting them. Immigration would
then become but a natural growth and development
of the resources of the nation to which they come,
in_ no way detrimental, in many ways beneficial.
Then indeed would the motto of the Republic, " E
Pluribus Unum,"havea new and broader significance,
and the industrious and worthy of the world be welcomed to the nation, to awaken to life her untilled
farms, her unworked mines and her unlimited resources.
Strikes, boycotts and lockouts would be removed,
since the causes which now make them possible
would be abolished. Fifty per cent of all strikes
arise from the fact that wages have been reduced by
employers, or because the employees demand higher
wages. It is evident that if the system of wages and
division of profits here proposed were adopted, the
question of wages could not well be made the basis
of a strike or lockout, for there would be no object
for employees to strike, since their profits would be

RESULTS FROM THE REMEDY

115

the same under any wages. The only point at which
trouble might arise would be when one class were
reduced and not all, but this would be averted by a
law requiring a general reduction, if any.
The rules and regulations have caused 25 per cent
of the strikes, but to allow the employees the power
of objecting to unjust rules would place a restraint
upon the employer, such as would induce him to impose only just rules. The fact that the employer
discharges an employee would not be cause for strikes,
because such employees, if unjustly removed, would
have a full remedy in the courts. Fear of damages
would tend to prevent injustice on the part of employers.
Labor organizations, with the expense which they
involve, would not be necessary, under their present
form at least, since the object for which they were organized, the establishment of justice -in industry and
the betterment of the working classes, would be in a
large degree accomplished. The nation would no
longer be disturbed by the constantly recurring conflict
between employer and employed, but all would pursue their occupation in peace.
The industrial and financial depressions which have,
like the incoming tides, swept over the nation, would
be lessened in power if not abolished, for such depressions are caused by the undue production in industry, leading to the closing of industries, failure

II6

T H E RIGHTS OF LABOR

of profits and wages, and the consequent reduction of
the purchase power of the people. The investment
of money in industry when the demand is sufficiently
met by present institutions, and the absorption of
money by speculators, are seen to be the cause of
these disturbances, and the cause or causes removed,
the disturbed waters must return to an equilibrium,
and remain tranquil, and these industrial catastrophes
be felt no more.
As to the proper distribution of taxes, the remedy
proposed would seemingly have a good effect, for the
following reasons:
i. Employers would aim to make their inventory
of property and money invested as high as possible,in
order to make their per cent of profits as large as possible.
2. The fact that this inventory would be made
the basis of taxation assessment, as is evident, would
tend to check over valuation and to make the inventory fairly represent the real value of capital invested.
The assessed value for taxation would thus be more
nearly what it should be, and this check would tend
to prevent over valuation to the injury of the employee, for the higher the valuation, the higher the
tax. These two antagonistic forces would tend to
establish an equilibrium of justice.
And trusts and monopolies would lose their dreaded
aspect, for all employees of trusts and monopolies

RESULTS FROM T H E

REMEDY

117

would share in the profits realized, and such profits,
instead of accumulating in a few hands as they now
do, would be distributed among the many, and the
evils of concentration be averted. Any forced advance in prices would advance the income of all.
Trusts would mean a greater efficiency in production
by a more extended division of labor; and t h e benefits
of increased production, low prices and larger profits,
would be realized by the employees as well as the
employers, as a class. And the entire people would
in every way be advanced.
W e have examined the present system, seen its fallacies and the evils resulting from them. We have
outlined the method by which a beneficial change
may be justly realized, and seeking the natural consequences of such a change, have seen the grand
possibilities for the advancement of individuals of all
classes to a higher standard of life, a larger hope, a
nobler aspiration, a more harmonious society, a
grander civilization; and realizing its possibility, we
have but to go down and establish it at the ballot
box, that in its possession a new day may awaken, a
legitimate hope be realized, a higher destiny be
secured.
T H E END

The Pullman S t r i k e . By Rev. William H. Carwardine, Pastor of the First Methodist Church,
Pullman, 111. Fourth edition. Chicago: Charles
H. Kerr & Company, 175 Monroe Street. Paper,
25 cents, postpaid.
The Pullman strike has passed into history. The
Pullman problem remains unsolved, and every patriotic
American must do his part in solving it. For it is
only part of a larger problem, one that is already
upon us.
Had the strikers any real grievances, or were they
the dupes of ambitious men with private ends to serve?
Which ought the people to demand of their legislators, that they restrict the power of organized capital,
or that they go further in repressing the movements of
organized labor?
The answers to such questions depend rather on facts
than on logic, but facts are hard to arrive at, when
statements come from the parties vitally interested in
the disputed questions. Mr. Carwardine's little book
has therefore a high and permanent value both to the
citizen of to-day and the student of the future. For
he is neither a capitalist nor, in the restricted sense,
a workingman, but an observer, with nothing to prejudice him in favor of either side. This being the case,
his testimony in favor of the men and against the
Pullman Company is most convincing, and it is no
wonder that the allied monopolists have done everything possible in indirect ways to discredit the little
book, nor that its sale has been phenomenally rapid
among those who are hoping and working for social
progress toward a more humane civilization.
Not a single important statement in the book has
been successfully challenged, and fair-minded men
may read it with the certainty of getting at the facts.

PUBLICATIONS OF

CHARLES H. KERR & COMPANY,
CHICAGOAmber Beads. By Martha Everts Holden ("Amber"). Brief essays
on people and things, full of humor and pathos. Paper, 50 cents ;
cloth, §1,00.
An Ounce of Prevention, to save America from having a government
of the few, by the few and for the few. By Augustus Jacobson.
Paper, 50 cents.
Asleep and Awake
By Raymond Russell. A realistic story of
Chicago, attacking the double standard of morals. Cloth, $1.00.
Auroraphone, The. By Cyrus Cole. Telegraphic communication
established with the planet Saturn. Paper, 25 cents; cloth, 50
cents.
Beginning, The. A novel of the future Chicago as it might be under socialism. Introductory letters by Dr. Thomas, Judge
Tuley and others. Paper, 25 cents.
Beyond the Veil. By Alice Williams Brotherton. An allegorical
poem of the life to come. Paper, 20 cents.
Blessed be Drudgery. By William C. Gannett. The most popular
sermon of the decade. A hundred thousand sold. Paper, 10
cents.
Browning's Women. By Mary E. Burt. Essays on the women
portrayed in Robert Browning's poems and dramas. Cloth, $1.00.
Cabin in the Clearing, The, and other poems. By Benjamin S.
Parker. A large volume of popular poems. Cloth, $1.50.
Circumstances Beyond Control, or, A Hopeless Case. By Luther
H. Bickford. A breezy story turning on hypnotism. Paper, 25
cents.
Comfortings. Compiled by Rev. Judson Fisher
A book of selections suitable for use at funerals or for presentation to those in
sorrow. Cloth, $1.00.
El Nuevo Mundo. By Louis James Block. A Columbus memorial
poem. Cloth, gilt top, $1.00.
Elsie, a Christmas Story. From the Norwegian of Alexander Kjelland.
Translated by Miles Menander Dawson. Cloth, 50 cents.
Essays. By James Vila Blake. Familiar subjects, but masterly
treatment. Remarkable for purity of style, Cloth, library style,
$1.00.

Evolution. Popular Lectures and Discussions before the Brooklyn
^Ethical Association. Cloth, $2.oq.

^

Charles H . K e r r & Company's Publications.

Evolution and Christianity. By J. C. F . Grumbine. A study of
the relations of modern science and popular religion. Cloth, 30
cents.
Evolution of Immortality, The, or Suggestions of an Individual Immortality, based on our Organic and Life History. By Dr. C.
T. Stockwell. Cloth, 60 cents.
Facts and Fictions of Life. By Helen H. Gardener. Essays on live
topics by one of the foremost women of the time, Paper, 50
cents; cloth, $1.00.
Faith that Makes Faithful, The. By William C. Gannett and Jenkin
Lloyd Jones. New edition from new plates. Paper, 50 cents;
cloth, $1.00.
First Steps in Philosophy. By William Mackintire Salter. Discusses the questions: What is Matter? What is Duty? Cloth,
$1.00.

Flaming Meteor, The. Poetical works of Will Hubbard Kernan.
Unique and remarkable poems by a brilliant though erratic
author. Cloth,'$1.50.
From Earth's Center. By S. Byron Welcome. A novel picturing
a society living under the Single Tax. Paper, 25 cents.
From Over the Border, or Light on the Normal Life of Man. By
Benj. G. Smith. A book of prophecies and fancies of the life to
come. Cloth, $1.00.
Genius of Galilee, The. By Anson Uriel Hancock. A historical
novel of the life and times of Jesus. Paper, 50 cents; cloth, $1.50.
Gospel of Matthew in Greek, The. Edited by Alexander Kerr and
Herbert Gushing Tolman. Special vocabulary for beginners.
Paper, 50 cents; cloth, $1.00.
History of the Arguments for the Existence of God. By Dr. Aaron
Hahn. An important work for students. Paper, 50 cents.
Information for Nurses, in Home and Hospital. By Martin W. Curran Practical and scientific; not a quack "Home Physician."
Cloth, $1.75.
Inquirendo Island. By Hudor Genone. A witty but not irreverent
story of a country where the Arithmetic was the Bible. Paper
25 cents; cloth, $1.00.
Jetta: A Story of the South. By Semrick. A delightful little romance for summer reading. Paper, 50 cents.
John Auburntop, Novelist. By Anson Uriel Hancock. A story of
a western college boy and college girl. Paper, 50 cents; cloth, $1.25.
Last Tenet Imposed upon the Khan of Tomathoz, The. By Hudor
Genone. An instructive story of a non-elect infant. Paper,
25 cents; cloth, $1.25.
Laurel Blossoms, or "My Fortune." Compiled by Delia E. Billings. Poetical selections arranged for fortune-telling. Cloth,
plain edges, $1,00; gilt edges, $1.50.

Charles H. K e r r & Company's Publications.

3

Legends from Storyland. By James Vila Blake. Stories, new
and old, illustrating how the idea of miracles arises. Cloth,
illustrated, 50 cents.
Lessons from the World of Matter and the World of Man. By
Theodore Parker. Eloquent passages from unpublished sermons.
Paper, 50 cents; cloth, $1.25.
Liberty-and Life. By E. P. Powell. Crisp, popular lectures on the evolution theory as related to religion and life. Paper, 50 cents.
Manual Training in Education. By James Vila Blake. A summary
of the many good reasons for manual training. Paper, 25 cents.
Modern Love Story, A, which does not end at the altar. By Harriet E. Orcutt. Highly original; widely discussed. Paper, 25
cents; cloth, $1.00.
Money Found. By Thomas E. Hill. Advocates national ownership
of banks. Full of information on finance. Paper, 25 cents;
cloth, 75 cents; leather, $1 00.
Morals of Christ, The. By Austin Bierbower. A comparison of
Christian ethics with contemporaneous systems Paper, 50 cents;
cloth, $1.00.
More than Kin. By James Vila Blake. A delightful book, half
story, half essay, all uplifting and refreshing. Cloth, paper side,
$1.00.

Natural Religion in Sermons. By James Vila Blake. Cloth,
paper label, uniform with the author's other works, $1.00.
People's Party Shot and Shell. By Dr. T. A. Bland. A concise
statement of the principles now advocated by the People's Party.
Paper, 10 cents.
Poems of James Vila Blake. Remarkable for depth of thought
and purity of style. Cloth, paper label, red burnished top, $1.00.
Political Facts. By Thos. E Hill A handbook of information for
American voters. Paper, 25 cents; cloth, 75 cents; leather, $1 00.
Proofs of Evolution. By Nelson C. Parshall. A popular summary
of the proofs from geology, embryology, etc. Cloth, 50 cents.
Pullman Strike, The. By Rev. William H. Carwardine, Pastor of
the M. E. Church at Pullman, 111. Paper, 25 cents.
Pure Souled Liar, A. An anonymous novel, ' 'terse, compact, rapid
and intense," scene in a Boston art school. Paper, 30 cents.
Religion and Science as Allies, or Similarities of Physical and Religious Knowledge. By James Thompson Bixby, Ph. D. Cloth,
50 cents; paper, 30 cents.
Right Living. By Susan H. Wixon. Sixty chapters of practical instructions for the young on problems of duty. Cloth, $1.00.
Russian Refugee, The. By Henry R. Wilson. A delightfully entertainin story, full of action and interest. 618 pages. Paper, 50c.
Sailing of King Olaf and Other Poems, The. By Alice Williams
JSrotherton. Full of melody and variety. Cloth, $1.00.

4

Charles Ho K e r r & Company's Publications.

St. Solifer, with Other Worthies and Unworthies. By James Vila
Blake. Story-essays, subtle and entertaining. Paper, 50c; cloth, $1.
Seed Thoughts from Robert Browning. Selected and arranged by
Mary E. Burt. Imitation parchment, 25 cents.
Self, The, W h a t Is It? By J. S. Malone. A criticism of the philosophy of materialism. Cloth, $1.00.
Sermons of Religion and Life.
By Henry Doty Maxson, with biographical sketch by H. M. Simmons. Cloth, $1.00.
Silhouettes from Life. By Anson Uriel Hancock. Stories of the
backwoods and the western prairies. Paper, 25c; cloth, $1.00.
Social Status, The, of European and American Women. By Kate
Byam Martin and Ellen M. Henrotin. Paper, 25c; cloth, 50c.
Sociology. Popular Lectures and Discussions before the Brooklyn
Ethical Association. Cloth, $2.00.
Study of Primitive Christianity, A. By Lewis G, Janes. A critical
and historical work, radical and scholarly. Cloth, $1.25.
Theodore Parker. By Samuel Johnson. A comprehensive sketch
of Parker's life and work. Cloth, $1.00.
Un-American Immigration. By Rena Michaels Atchison Facts regarding the character of recent immigration into the United
States. Cloth, $1.25.
N
Unending Genesis, The. By H. M. Simmons. A simple yet thoroughly
scientific story of the creation of the world. Paper, 25 cents.
Washington Brown, Farmer. By LeRoy Armstrong.
How the
farmers held their wheat and the Board of Trade was beaten.
Paper, 50 cents; cloth, $1.00.
Where Brooks Go Softly. By Charles Eugene Banks. Simple
poems of nature and life. Paper, 50 cents; cloth, $1.00.
Woman, Church and State. By Matilda Joslyn Gage. An account
of the status of woman through the Christian ages. Cloth, $2.00.
N e w Occasions. A monthly magazine containing a series of
lectures delivered before the Brooklyn Ethical Association on "Life
and the Conditions of Survival." $1.00 a year; 10 cents a number.
The following back numbers can be supplied:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Cosmic Evolution as Related to Ethics.—Dr. Lewis G. Janes.
Solar Energy.—A. Emerson Palmer.
The Atmosphere and Life.—Robert G. Eccles, M. D.
Water.—Rossiter W. Raymond, Ph. D.
Food as Related to Life and Survival.—Prof. W. O. Atwater.
The Origin of Structural Variations.—Prof. Edward D. Cope.
Locomotion and Its Relation to Survival.—Dr. M. L. Holbrook.
Labor as a Factor in Evolution.— David Allyn Gorton.

Any book in this list will be sent prepaid on receipt of price.

Charles H, Kerr & Company, Publishers,
175 Monroe St., Chicago.

A Story from Pullmantown. By Nico Bech-Meyer.
Chicago: Charles H. Kerr & Company, 175
M onroe Street. Paper, 25 cents; cloth, 50 cents
postpaid.
The year 1894 will pass into America's history as a
memorable one. Throughout the nation the irrepressible conflict between human rights and "vested rights"
has been growing more intense. Upon the town of
Pullman all eyes have been focused, for here the national struggle has been reproduced in miniature, reproduced in a fashion so concrete that the dullest
minds have understood. Rarely has so grand a theme
been found ready to the artist's hand, and never has
the artist appeared so promptly.
Mrs. Nico Bech-Meyer is an American by adoption
and loyalty, though a Norsewoman by birth. She has
acquired a mastery of the English language that most
of our native authors might well envy. But she does
not often let the reader stop to think of her style,
the movement of her story is too rapid.
Very artistically yet simply she discloses, as her story
proceeds, the insufferable oppressions of the Pullman
company; she interprets the mental struggle of the
more intelligent of the working people; she closes her
book with their final decision to begin the strike, and
every reader who has followed the story from the beginning will feel that as free men and women they
could not have done otherwise.
This book is full of inspiration for those who are
tempted to think of the strike as only a failure: "Never
yet have great changes been effected without birthpains. There are walls which must be torn down,
and old stuff which must be thrown out. Better to lie
down on the street and die than to live a slave's life
and leave it as an inheritance to their children,"

WOMAN, CHURCH \ STATE
A Historical Account of the S t a t u s of
W o m a n through the Christian Ages
with Reminiscences of the
Matriarchate
BY MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE
A few brief extracts from many long reviews and letters:
An earnest and eloquent book.—Philadel
phia Press.
We have read this book with interest and
satisfaction.—Boston
Investigator.
The book will be especially valuable for
study in woman's clubs.—Woman's Tribune.
The subject is a n i m p o r t a n t one a n d has
never received t h e attention it deserves.—
Unity.
The a u t h o r ia well provided with facts
and authorities, and uses them to t h e best
advantage.—Philadelphia Item.
You always have something* to say worth
hearing, and know how to say it.—PROF.
ELLIOTT (JOUES, Washington, D.C.

Mrs. Gage, who has long been known a s a n
able and eloquent advocate of woman's
rights, rolls up a heavy score of wrongs
against women on t h e p a r t of t h e church.—
Nero Orleans
Times-Democrat.
Your splendid book on woman was duly
received. It seems to me t h e most powerful appeal ever made to women, and will
r a n k among t h e memorable and classic
works of all time.—PROF. J. RODES BUCHANAN, Califoi*nia
The amount of valuable information lu
cidly and clearly stated in this volume of
554 pages, is amazing. I t is packed with
knowledge from beginning to end. No one
can possibly regret buying it; it is a valuable addition to t h e library of any free and
t r u t h loving mind.—The Progressive Thinker, Chicago.
This is a work of a n a t u r e which h a s long
been desired; t h e book deals n o t only with
church and woman, b u t as its title reads,
with woman, church and state. The work
is quite encyclopedic. We cannot well convey an idea of t h e vast number of facts
printed in its pages. I t is of interest and
use to the student of church history, of
woman history and of t h e history of t h e
state.—The Truth Seeker.

It shows much research a n d learning.—
Advance.
I t is a revelation and ought to be read extensively. —Kansas Farmer.
The work cannot fail to command attention among thinkers.—Chicago Times.
The a u t h o r claims t h a t self-development
is woman's role, n o t self sacrifice.—Brooklyn Eagle.
The a u t h o r is very severe upon t h e Rom a n chuich for its part in the subjection of
women.—San Francisco
Chronicle.
Perhaps t h e fullest and strongest presentation of t h e case f i om t h e radical woman's standpoint.—Boston Transcript.
The subject of these pages is n o t a pleasant one to contemplate, but t h e presentation is so bold and direct as to impress us
with its sincerity, and t h e language is expressively clear. —Review of Reviews.
To t h e reader interested in h u m a n evolution and whose h e a r t is alive to t h e need of
better conditions for race advancement,
this book will open up new vistas for
thoughtful c o n t e m p l a t i o n . — L U C I N D A B.
CHANDLER, in t h e Arena.
In "Woman, Church and State" Matilda
Joslyn Gage h a s formulated a collection of
far-reaching historic facts which in themselves a r e silent arguments for the progressive en use t h e a u t h o r so ably c h a m pions. The author has woven a personality
into her writings t h a t keeps t h e inteiest
awakened throughout.—Boston Ideas.
If this work of Mrs. Gage serves to arouse
In women stronger purpose and deeper respect for their sex, if it sei ves to liberate the
minds of women from t h e bondage of ecclesiastical authority, and t h e spirit of subordination, it will accomplish t h e woik
whereunto it was sent by t h e noble purpose
of its author.—The
World's
AdvanceThought, Portland. Oregon.

C l o t h , gilt t o p , 545 p a g e s , $2.00 p o s t p a i d ; half l e a t h e r , $3,00.

Charles H . Kerr & Company, Publishers, 175 Monroe Street, Chicago„

Sickness
and
Accidents

Modern Methods
of Treatment

A Manual for Every Home

P R E F A C E TO T H E SECOND E D I T I O N .
The success with which my exertions have been crowned in this
little work, has far exceeded any reasonable expectations, the entire first edition having been sold within a few months after publication.
The present edition has been carefully revised, and all errors,
wherever detected, have been expunged.
Notwithstanding the small compass, the scope of the work will
be found quite extensive, since condensation has been the aim of
the author in every page, where brevity did not demand any important omission. It would have been an easier task to have produced a larger volume, but, as Pope says, "Half our knowledge
we must snatch, not take." If this be true of general erudition,
it is certainly true of Medical information as it is taught in the
Training Schools of to-day, and in view of this fact there seems
to be a real need for books which present their subjects in an
assimilable form.
The author would here acknowledge his obligations and return
his thanks to Mr. E. Aloysius Moore, graduate The Mills Training School, for much valuable assistance in the correction and
preparation of this edition.
M. W. C.

OPINIONS OF T H E P R E S S .
"Full of practical information in regard to the treatment of the sick."—Indianapolis
Journal,
"The advantage is that this little volume will be instantly accessible, while without
it one might have to search a library for a suggestion and then discover it too late."—
New York Tribune.
''This publication is one of the very few text-books on this subject which can be
recommended.''— The Nurse.
1
'It has the advantage of being prepared by one who knows the details of the subject on which he writes."—Religio Philosophical Journal.
"It is pre-eminently a useful book prepared by a trained nurse."—Rochester Herald.
"The information it contains can be relied upon as being correct and reliable."—
City Hall Record.

A Few Personal Questions.
Important

to those w h o h a v e children, relatives or friends
w h o m a y at some future time be sick.

What is the effect of impure air on the human body?
How can you ventilate a room without making a dangerous
draught?
What is the right temperature for a sick room?
What kinds of food are suitable for the sick?
Knowing the proper dose of any medicine for an adult, what
proportion of it would you give a child i, 2, 3, 4, 7 or 14 years
old?
What is the normal temperature of the body?
What do you infer when the temperature is too high or too low?
How much can it vary without cause for alarm?
What is the effect of a cold bath, a warm bath, a tepid bath,
a hot bath, a vapor bath, a cold wet pack, a hot-air bath, a solar
bath? How are they properly administered?
How is massage applied, when is it needed and what is its
effect?
Do you know how to revive the drowning by artificial respiration?
Do you know how to apply
the great discoveries medical science has made in the
last few years, of antiseptic
dressings for wounds and
•~sores?
Do you know how to report a patient's symptoms in such a way
that the doctor can judge of them properly?
Do you know what anaesthetics can safely be given to relieve
pain, and how?
What is inflammation and how should it be treated?
How should a bandage be applied to the head, to the leg, to
the ankle, to the knee, to the groin, to a finger, to the thumb?
How can bleeding be stopped quickly?
If you do not know all these important things, do you know just
where to turn for the information if occasion^arises?
No? Then you need Martin W. Curran's new book, "Sickness
and Accidents." It answers all these questions and many more

Sickness and Accidents
equally essential to any one who has children or friends who are
liable to become sick or meet with an accident at any time.
Some of the other important and unique features of the book
are these:
Recipes for a great variety of food and drink expressly adapted
for the use of the sick.
A table showing the technical name', common name, proper dose
and physiological action of over 350 of the principal remedies usually prescribed by doctors.
Directions for poultices of linseed meal, charcoal, yeast, bread
and milk, hemlock, chlorine, carrot, cayenne, mustard, vinegar,
oakum, alum, ice, etc.
A table of poisons, the symptoms which follow taking them,
and the necessary antidotes.
Directions for bandaging a wounded finger,
hand, arm, foot, head, jaw, groin, etc., with
outline drawings like the one shown here,
illustrating the directions so exactly that no
mistake need be made.
A table of the principal fevers, including
measles, scarlatina, chicken-pox, small-pox,
typhoid, erysipelas, etc., showing the period
of incubation, the day when the rash appears, the character of the rash, and other
symptoms by which each may be distinguished. Following the table are full instructions for the hygienic treatment of each
disease.
A table of the abbreviations used by physicians in prescriptions,
with the Latin and English equivalent of each.
A full vocabulary of medical terms, with definitions.
Don't wait till sickness comes; then you will be too late to
send for the book and have it do you any good. Get it now, and
study i t ; the knowledge it gives may easily save life and health.
The book contains 350 pages of the type shown in this circular, and is printed on handsome paper and well bound. To introduce it into every horrjp the publishers have decided to offer it at
the low price of $1.00 in cloth or $1.75 in flexible morocco,
stamped in gilt. An - agent is wanted in every county in the
United States, but where the book cannot be had of an agent
the publishers will send it prepaid on receipt of Drice.

Charles H. Kerr & Company, Publishers/
175 Monroe Street, Chicago.

OOKS

O F REF

Books That Will Help Educate the People to Use
•: Ballot In Bringing About Peaceful Remedies
for Social Wrongs,

Jk Story £fomPullmantown.fy^^^
novel picturing the life of the people of Pullman, and making the reader realize and
feel the terrible condition of the workmen which led up to the strike. For the" men
themselves, this strike has been a failure; such books as this will yet make it acsuccess
for the cause of humanity. Cloth, 50 cents; paper, 25 cents.
T P t l IS* • P i 111 t T l 21 f l ^ 5 f " t " i l n = *
B y R e ¥ . Win. H . Carwardine. Plain"
T ^ T *
m n H W l l . W J U . i r k A > . f a cts and figures by an impartial observer, the minister of the M. E . Church at Pullman. The Railway Times says:
"That the book will create a sensation, and will be one of the most valuable contributions to labor literature ever written, can be safely admitted." Paper, 25 cents

People's Party Shot and Shell. K £ A K
scientific, political and economic facts which cannot fail to convince any honest man
of brains that the old parties are hopelessly corrupt and that the hope of relief from
oppressive conditions lies in the success of the People's Party. Paper, 10 cents.
B
Explains tbe cause of
lVTotiPV P o i l f l f i
yPr<>£ T h o m a s E . Hill
J.TJ.Uli^*Jf
1 V ^ l l U i hard times and the remedy
for the government ownership of banks. Plenty pf money to all legitimate borrowers
The profit of banking to go to the whole people. The book is a mine of information
on finance, gold, silver, banking, etc. Every man who talks politics needs it, Paper,
25 cents; cloth, 75 cents; leather, $i 0 oo,
t osave Ameri
Afl f^illfir'A n f P^Vf*X7€±t\^r\c\f\%
c a from hav=
n i l V U U L ^ v i & 1 %* V W l l ^ l V S l l e ing a government of the few,
by the £%yr and for the few. By Augustus Jacobson. A clear, concise, unanswerable argument in favor of a graduated succession tax on estates, that will take only
$2.50 from an estate of $1,000, but $5,000,000 from an estate of $10,000,000. Paper,
50 cents.
•
A n
R l O ' h f ' C t I*1T T tk \\€%V
anonymous work by a young
A ^ b " ^ y * 3~*€&M\Jl* i a w y e r o f Chicago, whose name
is for the present withheld. He explains in this the present status of employer
and employee before the law, with wonderful clearness and precision, and then goes on
tcKadvocate a specific reform in the law that would secure to the workman the justice
he has hitherto been seeking: in vain—his rightful share in the product, This book
will make a sensation, and its author will be heard from again. Paper, 25 cents,

HPtl A
1 1 1 C

r UUI ^ 0 , 1 Ui O Vr^^lL^l*
F1 n m "Pzirfh'Q f^fHnfi^r

B

y s %ron welcome, A

single

Tdk

story>

livdy a n d

entertaining in style, which gives a complete picture of everyday life in a society
organized under Single Tax principles. Mr. Henry George says of it; " I most
heartily commend 'From Earth's Center ' It contains in entertaining form an explanation of the practical workings of the 'Single Tax,' and is in many other matters
of social concern suggestive to a high degree." Paper, 30 cents.

Charles H. Kerr & Co., Publishers, 175 Monroe St.; Chicagp.