moi) Hetiey i Win HTT IR Nit j a Hi i H i ip Ml y 1 i t st ih i Hh HH Br | I i i ate iV Hh nol Hi | Nh ; mi Nat Heh i oe — SSS era x eee = a a << oe ee ee FERS = “ Sa Sine Saas ee D Cornell University Library Sthaca, New York FROM Co lutn bie University 4A EXLOA GAGE... BATE DUE Cornell University Library HD7809 .A98 “WaT 3 1924 032 480 422 olin INTERNATIONAL LABOR LEGISLATION , i ee BY IWAO FREDERICK AYUSAWA SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN THE FAacutty oF PoLitTicaL SCIENCE CoLumBIA UNIVERSITY NEW YORK 1920 INTERNATIONAL LABOR LEGISLATION BY IWAO FREDERICK AYUSAWA SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN THE FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE CoLumBiA UNIVERSITY NEW YORK 1920 me eh h CopyRIGHT, 1920 BY “Tue FACuLTy oF PoLiticAL SCIENCE OF Cotums1a University, New York fu MARGARET LORING THOMAS PREFACE TuHIs is a study of the history and progress of inter- national labor agreements, treaties, conventions and con- gresses, resulting in labor legislation with international validity or important international bearings. In its prep- aration the writer received help from a large number of kind people. It was their friendship which made the publi- cation of this monograph possible. The writer is particularly indebted to Professors Samuel M. Lindsay and Henry R. Seager for their encouragement and guidance. They have given him unstintedly of their precious time in directing the research and examining the manuscript of this work. Acknowledgment must be made to Mr. K. Shidehara, Ambassador Plenipotentiary and Ex- traordinary of Japan at Washington for the personal in- terest he has taken in this work. Dr. John B. Andrews, Mr. Alexander Trachtenberg and many others are also gratefully remembered. Especially is the writer unde? great obligation to Mr. K. Kumasaki, Japanese Consul General in New York for appointing him to attend the Washington Conference of 1919 and also to Dr. M. Oka, former Director of Commerce and Industrial Affairs, Japan, for enabling the writer to attend in various capac- ities important sessions of the International Labor Con- ference at Washington. The help and interest of Mrs. Edward Thomas have been an ever-present inspiration. They will be long remem- bered with gratitude and deep appreciation. 375] 7 wmer wd a CONG ie wd CONTENTS PART I HISTORICAL BACKGROUND CHAPTER I ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL LABOR LEGISLATION (1818-1890) . The beginning of world-wide labor legislation ....... . Genesis of the idea: Robert Owen... ........04 06 » Daniel Legrand. «3065 6 @ swe eee eS ORR RH . Jérome Blanqui and Villermé. eh Ae lanciee Were ar Gah sel ee @OGE Gee ha . First official move by Swiss Canton of Glarus; development in France, Germany, England and elsewhere. .........- . Rise of the First Internationale... 2. 00 2... ee eee . Further progress of the movement; second Swiss move. . Development in France; Second Internationale; third Swiss CHAPTER II Procress TowarD INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS ON LABOR (1890-1900) . Congress of Berlin, 1890......-..- eo sote ee ae Ves sats . Spread of international action; Congress of Brussels, 1891 . Zurich Congress, 1893; rise of International Cooperative Alli- ance; Congress of London, 1896. ..-.. ....+24- . Congress of Zurich, 1897. 2 6 6 6 et ee ee ee Brussels Congress, 1899; genesis of the International Associa- tion for Labor Legislation. .. 2. 1 - ee ee ee ee 377] 9 PAGE 15 17 2I 23 24 26 29 31 36 39 43 49 10 CONTENTS [378 PAGE CHAPTER III INTERNATIONAL LAaBoR CONFERENCES AND TREATIES (1900-1913) 1. Paris Conferences, 1900...... hate pe inGirtensenace 153) 2. International Socialist Congress . . . . Cate CBA. 3. International Association for Labor Cenitletiins its feruiaiou and fUNCtIONSs. a. aa eh aes a ecg we wa & 56 4. Spread of the Association; dibcewient aawetineS IQOI-1904. 59 5. Events of 1904—socialist labor congress of Amsterdam; inter- national labor treaties; third delegates meeting at Basel . . 62 6. Berne Conference, 1905 .......-.-- eon eee eo = OF 7. Developments, 1905-1907. . - . 71 8. Socialist congresses at Stuttgart and: Cupetiiuckn: Gaethee de velopments, 1907-1913. - - - 6 eee ee ee ee eee ee 7B g. Berne Conference, 1913... - 2 ee ee ee ee 84 CHAPTER IV Wor.tp War, Peace CONFERENCE AND LABOR CHARTER (1914-1919) I. Outbreak of the war; attitude of the socialist and labor parties. 87 2. War-time labor conditions . . . Sede 92 3. International labor conferences during thé war, qomasians 97 4. Peace Conference; Commission on International Labor Legisla- tion; Labor Charter. ©. ee ee eee ee te ee ee 105 5. Internationales revived, 1919—Berne Socialist Conference; birth of Student Internationale; Third Internationale or Communist Internationale of Moscow... ......-.-.. ay ie i SET 6. Pan-American labor and socialist rowentents:. ereniee According to the official report on the first day, the delegates and their advisors expected to arrive were as follows: Governments’ dele- gates, 56, advisors, 51; employers’ delegates, 24, advisors, 21; em- ployees’ delegates, 24; advisors, 43. But this expectation fell short very much to the disadvantage of the workers’ side. See Prov. Rec., p. 9. 184 INTERNATIONAL LABOR LEGISLATION [552 organized... Many countries which were not signatory to the Peace Treaty made little or no attempt to send dele- gates to participate fully in the conference. In such cases only the diplomatic agents stationed in Washington were appointed to represent such governments, with the result that no special representatives either of the employers or of the workers * were present from these countries. The absence of United States’ delegates was regrettable. The U. S. Chamber of Commerce did not accept the invita- tion to send a delegate which was extended. The American Federation of Labor was represented by Mr. Gompers in person a few times, but unofficially and without a vote. Due to the restrictions imposed by the resolution * of the U. S. Congress, the government of the United States could not participate in any manner. But unofficially, the United States was represented by the presence of the Secretary of Labor, who was elected President of the Conference and who presided in that capacity throughout the entire session. Out of more than forty countries which were represented at the conference, only a few adhered strictly to the pro- vision of the Peace Treaty which requires that “ one at least of the advisors should be a woman” when questions specially affecting women are to be considered. Those countries which had women advisors were: Belgium (2), Canada (1), (Czecho-Slovakia (1), France (1), Great Brit- ain (3), Italy (1), Japan (1), Netherlands (2), Norway 1 Probably those governments were “ wise” which did not assume the responsibility of appointing delegates who could be challenged as not being really representative of either employers or employees. ? Those countries were Brazil, Chili, China, Colombia, Ecuador, Haiti, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Persia, Siam, Uruguay, Venezuela. ‘Joint Resolution of August 2, 1919. First Session of the 66th Congress. * Article 380 of the Peace Treaty (= article 3 of Part XIII), second paragraph, second sentence. 553] | THE WASHINGTON CONFERENCE OF 1919 (1), Poland (1), Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (1), Spain (1), Sweden (1). 5. The question of admission of German and Austrian delegates Whether or not the delegates from the enemy countries, including Germany and Austria, should be admitted to this Conference was a question pending since the Paris Peace Conference. On May 15, 1919, George N. Barnes, the chairman, convened the labor committee, in order to ex- amine the note of the German delegation on the peace con- ditions.» The labor committee then adopted unanimously the letter which was suggested by Mr. Barnes as the reply to the German note to the supreme council. This letter stated that the answer of the committee on the question of the admission of Germany was “in the affirmative,” that “af the Germans are to be kept out of the league for any considerable time, the committee thinks that they should be admitted earlier to the labor organization.” The committee, however, gave several reasons for suggesting that the ad- mission should be granted immediately after and not before the Washington Conference. This suggestion of the labor committee was adopted by the Council of the principal Allied and Associated Powers, which at its sitting on May 17 decided to give effect to the proposal. However, the communications between the Sec- retary General of the Peace ‘Conference, Mr. Dutasta, and Mr. Barnes, and those between Mr. Dutasta and Mr. Ar- thur Fontaine in May and August respectively, indicate a development in a different direction from the above stated decision. It appears that Arthur Fontaine held that in 1See Prov, Rec. pp. 5-6; 8-0, “ The Report of the Organizing Com- mittee,” by Arthur Fontaine, Second Session of the Conference, Oct. 29, IQI9. 186 INTERNATIONAL LABOR LEGISLATION [554 order to allow the admission of Germany after and not before the Conference it was necessary to go into the cum- brous task of modifying article 387 of the Peace Treaty.’ The matter was of special importance because it came up immediately before the signing of the Peace Treaty. In the meantime there was an urgent demand voiced by the Italian delegation that the Austrian delegates should be ad- mitted to the Washington ‘Conference. As time went on other complications arose. Even as late as September 6, when the Commission on International Labor Legislation met, no decision could be made. Finally, on September 11, the Supreme Council took up the matter and adopted a compromise resolution which read in part as follows: . . the question of the admission of German and Austrian delegates to the forthcoming labor congress at Washington should be left to the decision of that Congress. In the mean- time, the allied and associated Governments would put no obstacles in the way of the German or Austrian delegates de- sirous of proceeding to Washington in anticipation of a decision in their favor.? Consequently this question had to be disposed of before the conference undertook its main task of legislative delibera- tion. On the second day of the conference, the question of admission of the Germans was introduced. M. Guerin, the French employers’ delegate who led the employers’ party throughout the conference, stressed the fact that the French delegation had expected before leaving Paris that the Ger- 1 Article 387 (= article 1, section 1, pt. xiii), reads in part “ The ori- ginal members of the League of Nations shall be original members of this organization and hereinafter membership of the League of Nations shall carry with it membership of the said organization.” 2 [bid., p. 9. 388] | THE WASHINGTON CONFERENCE OF 1919 187 mans were to be admitted to the conference only after the session. He pointed out that the idea of the Supreme Council was the same. In opposition to the admittance of the Germans, he said: . .. Nor is it my intention to be chauvinistic, but distinction should be made between the nations that have acted towards us as barbarians and those who have only defended their rights. Let me call your attention to the fact that the treaty has not been ratified by America and fighting is still going on in certain regions. This is a question of national dignity and justice. It is important that the nation that has treated international covenants as “scraps of paper’ should not be on a par with nations which respect international treaties. Let us not forget the unprecedented barbarous manner in which the neutrality of Belgium was violated and the barbarous methods introduced by Germany into warfare! * The view of the employers’ representative was opposed boldly by M. Jouhaux, Secretary General of the Confédéra- tion Générale du Travail, and compatriot of M. Guerin. He said in part: We hope that a new era is coming, in which justice will reign and this ideal point must be considered over and above economic conditions. It is necessary that now at the opening of the deliberations of the International Labor Conference, Germany and Austria be immediately admitted... . Our present de- cision is of capital importance to the whole world. . . . My ap- peal is to the spirit prevailing among the working classes of the allied and associated powers and in their name I appeal to this assembly and propose to you that you adopt the proposal of the Organizing Committee in favor of the immediate admission of Germany and Austria.’ 1 Free translation, see pp. 17 and 23, of the Provisional Record, and day, Oct. 30, 1919. 2 Ibid. 188 INTERNATIONAL LABOR LEGISLATION [556 Before the proposition was finally submitted to vote, M. Carlier of the Belgian delegation, explaining the sentiments of the Belgian delegation, said: They [the Belgian delegation] do not wish to vote against it for economic reasons, the necessity of which is clear to every- body, but neither do they want to vote for the motion because Germany has cynically violated all her engagements toward Belgium, and because Germans—that is all the Germans—have systematically and diabolically prosecuted, during the four years of their occupation, the destruction of our entire industry." After the discussion had lasted for several hours the ques- tion was put to vote. Seventy-one were in favor, one (Guerin) against and one (Carlier) abstained from voting. Thus the question was settled with the adoption of the recommendation of the organizing committee “ that in an- ticipation of their admission to the League of Nations and in view of their expressed willingness to cooperate in the work of the labor organization, Germany and Austria are hereby admitted to membership in the international labor organization with the same rights and obligations possessed by the other members of the labor organization.” The German and Austrian delegates, according to their official reports, had already been appointed and the Ger- mans soon started on their way.” However, because of the difficulty of obtaining passage on the boats of either the allies or the neutrals, and owing, moreover, to the unex- pected brevity of the conference, the German and Austrian delegates did not come to the United States. 1 Prov. Rec., p. 18. 2¥For the official German and Austrian correspondence, see Prov. Rec., p. 41, 5th day, Nov. 4, 1919; also p. 162, 11th day, Nov. 13, 1919; p. 185, i2th day, Nov. 17, 1919. 557] THE WASHINGTON CONFERENCE OF 1919 189 6. The organization of the Conference; the officers; the Committee of Selection * On the third day of the Conference, October 31, 1919, steps were begun for the permanent organization of the conference. Secretary Wilson was elected President. Three Vice-Presidents were chosen, consisting of George N. Barnes for the Government delegates, Jules Carlier of Bel- gium for the Employers’ delegates, and Leon Jouhaux of France for the workers’ representatives. H. B. Butler of Great Britain was chosen Secretary General. A governing body for the conference, known as the “Committee of Selection” was thereupon formed, com- prised of representatives of the three groups as follows: Government :—Great Britain, Sir Malcolm Delevigne; France, Arthur Fontaine; Japan, Dr. M. Oka; Italy, Dr. Palma Castilione; Belgium, Prof. E. Mahaim; Argentina, Dr. Felipe Espil; Denwark, Dr. S. Neuman; Canada, Senator G. D, Robertson; Czecho-Slovakia, Charles Spinka; Spain, Dr. A. Posada; Switzerland, Dr. Hans Sulzer. Employers :— Great Britain, D. S. Marjoribanks ; France, Louis Guérin; Italy, Ferdinando Quarteri; Japan, Sanji Muto; Spain, A. Sala; Czecho-Slovakia, Francis Hodacz. W orkers:—Great Britain, C. Stuart-Bunning; France, Leon Jouhaux; Belgium, Corneille Mertens; the Nether- lands, J. Oudegeest; Spain, Francisco Cabellera; Sweden, H. Lindquist. Subject to the official staff of the conference a “ Secre- tariat’’ to transact sundry official business was formed. This body was under the Secretary General, H. R. Butler of Great Britain. He was assisted by Deputy Secretary General H. B. Greenwood of the United States, Dr. G. Pardo of Italy and Chief Assistant Secretary E. J. Phelan 7 ‘Prov, Rec., 3rd day, pp. 29-31. 190 INTERNATIONAL LABOR LEGISLATION [558 of Great Britain together with eight assistant secretaries from the United States, Great Britain, France, Japan and Canada. In due course, in view of the magnitude of the problems of the conference which obviously could not be settled by speech-making in the plenary session however prolonged, a number of committees were appointed by the governing body. These committees were: (1) Committee on Creden- tials, consisting of three members; (2) Committee on Un- healthy processes, consisting of twenty-one members repre- senting twelve countries; (3) Committee on Employment of Women, twelve members from twelve different countries ; (4) Committee on Standing Orders, nine members from nine countries; (5) Committee on Hours of Work, fifteen members, seven countries; (6) Committee on Applications for Admission, six members, five countries; (7) Committee on Unemployment, thirty one members, fifteen countries; (8) Committee on Tropical Countries, twenty one members, twelve countries.* Some of these committees, were divided into sub-com- mittees in order to consider various phases of the problem which was submitted to the main committee for study and report. These committees met separately. They held at least ten, or more sessions, during which the problems com- mitted to them were thoroughly thrashed out from various angles. 7. The question of credentials; the cases of France, South Africa, Japan, Cuba and Argentina The question of qualification of the delegates to the con- ference was an “‘embarrasing” one, to a number of the participating countries. Article 3897 of the Peace Treaty provides that “ the 1 See Prov. Rec., 11th day, Nov. 14, 1919, pp. 172-173. 2 See seventh paragraph, Article 3 of Part xiii, Labor, sec. 1, ch. i. 559] THE WASHINGTON CONFERENCE OF 1919 191 credentials of Delegates and their advisors shall be sub- ject to scrutiny by the Conference, which may, by two thirds of the votes cast by the Delegates present, refuse tol admit any delegate or advisor whom it deems not to have been nominated in accordance with the treaty provisions.” In compliance with this article, the Committee on Creden- tials was appointed, charged with the responsibility of de- termining the qualifications of delegates who had been chal- lenged. The Committee consisted of Sir Malcolm Dele- vigne of Great Britain, chairman, representing the govern- ment, Jules Carlier of Belgium representing the employ- ers and Jean Oudegeest of the Netherlands representing the workers.* Due to the absence from the Peace Treaty, of any speci- fication as to the form of the credentials, the committee was confronted with the difficulty of determining the validity of the credentials which were submitted in diverse forms, “ some giving precise information as to the industrial organ- ization of employers and workers consulted in regard toi the appointment of non-government delegates, others giving no such information.” ” Protests against the appointment of non-government delegates came from France, South Africa, Japan, Cuba and Argentina. The qualification of the French labor delegate was challenged by the French Confederation of Christian Workers on the ground that the French labor delegation was selected solely from the Confédération Générale du Travail and included none who were unaffiliated with that organiza- tion. In this case the Committee accepted the explanation of the French minister, giving weight to the statement that 1See International Labor Conference Manual, published by the Japanese Delegation, November, 1919, Washington, pp. 68-77; also Provisional Record, pp. 198-203. 2See Prov. Rec., pp. 83-84. 192 INTERNATIONAL LABOR LEGISLATION [560 the Confédération Générale du Travail had a membership of at least 1,300,000 whereas the Confederation of Chris- tian Workers had hardly 75,000 members. The committee recommended “ that no action be taken on the protest.” The case of the Japanese labor delegate will be treated in the next chapter. The challenge against the qualification of the South African delegation was laid before the committee in the form of a letter addressed to the conference by the National Union of Railway and Harbor Services of Cape Town. The complaint was based on the fact that this Union had not been consulted in the appointment of the labor delegate. However, according to the explanation of the official dele- gates from South Africa, the government had consulted with the South African Federation of Trades which has a membership of 43,000 including the mine workers’ union, the society of carpenters and joiners, the society of engin- eers, the building workers, etc. Comparing the total membership of unions unaffiliated with the Federation with the membership of the Federation, the government of South Africa could not be indicted as having failed to conform with the Treaty provisions. The committee’s re- port stated that it could “find no sufficient ground for questioning the appointment of the labor delegate for South Africa.” No action was taken on the protest. The case of the Cuban delegate was comparatively simple. It was raised by the President of the Cuban Federation of Labor Employers’ Association, who alleged, without giving particulars, that the Cuban government prevented the federa- tion from appointing a delegate by official interference. This allegation was contradicted by the official delegates from Cuba, who stated that the appointment was made after consultation with the associations of employers in Cuba, including the sugar, tobacco, railway and shipping indus- 561] THE WASHINGTON CONFERENCE OF 1919 193 tries, and that the Employers’ Federation was invited to participate in the conference. The committee decided that the government of Cuba had not necessarily disregarded the Treaty provisions in choosing the employers’ delegate and therefore it was recommended that no action be taken on the protest. At the time that the Committee on Credentials made its first report of findings,’ the Argentine delegation had not yet arrived and that made it impossible for the committee to pass judgment upon the protest that had been raised against the labor delegate from Argentina. As soon as the delegation arrived, the qualification of the labor delegate was subjected to the scrutiny of the committee and the findings were reported to the plenary sitting.” This was a case of much greater gravity than the former in that the protest was lodged by the International Federation of Trades Union and the objection was raised in the name of that organization. The letter of protest was addressed to the Committee on Credentials, signed by W. A. Appelton, President; L. Jouhaux, First Vice-President; C. Mertens, Second Vice- President; and J. Oudegeest, Secretary. The situation was as follows: The labor delegate was selected by the Argen- tine government from the association known as La Frater- nidad, which is the oldest union in Argentina, being an organization of railway workers, with a membership of 15,000. There is another labor organization known as the Argentina Federation of Trade Unions, which claims to have a membership of 80,000, affiliated with the Interna- tional Federation of Trades Union. The government de- legate from Argentina stated that the Federation’s member- ship fluctuated considerably from time to time and its pres-~ ent membership was probably between 20,000 and 30,000. 1Nov. 6, 1919, eighth session of the conference. 2 Prov, Rec. p. 198; also pp. 267-270. 194 INTERNATIONAL LABOR LEGISLATION [562 The contention of the International Federation was that the Federation of Trade Unions had a larger membership than La Fraternidad, hence was more representative and ought to have been consulted. Upon this ground, Jean Oudegeest dissented from the decision of the majority of the Com- mittee and held, as he had done in the letter of protest, that the Argentine labor delegate should be barred from the conference. The majority of the Committee admitted the claims of the Argentine government that La Fraternidad was a “labor union in conformity with the Argentine law,” that “it was the oldest organization,’ that it was “the only association which represented workers in all parts of the country and which is recognized by and has any responsibili- ties under the law of the State,” and finally that there was “no question as to the delegate being a bona-fide representa- tive of the workers so far as the railway industry was con- cerned.” The problem was understood by every delegate to be of serious moment. Impassioned speeches were made and after more than three hours’ debate, the report was put to a record vote. The motion of Oudegeest, to debar the Argen- tine delegate was defeated by a vote of 44 to 25. 8. Admission of. countries non-signatory to the Peace Treaty ; This question had originally been referred by the con- ference to the Commission on Applications for Admission. The principal countries under consideration were Finland, Luxembourg, Dominican Republic and Mexico. The In- ternational Labor Conference represents the governments officially and membership in it can only be granted on ap- plication from the government of a nation. Therefore the committee had no difficulty in deciding upon the cases of Luxembourg, Dominican Republic and Mexico, countries 563] THE WASHINGTON CONFERENCE OF 1919 195. whose governments had not at that time sent in their ap- plications directly. A unanimous report of the committee (no IIT) * stated: Decisions taken by the conference will impose some obliga- tion, at least morally, on the States members of the Organiza- tion. It is therefore the States, through their governments, and not individual organizations of employers and workers which become members of the International Labor Organiza- tion. It is therefore important that applications should be entertained only if they are submitted in due form by the government concerned. Difference of opinion developed on the question of the admission of Finland to membership and the report of the commission was divided.* The majority report, presented by Gino Baldesi was in favor of admission, on the broad basis of principle. The minority report, presented by Mr. Rowell, President of Privy Council of Canada was against admission. The minority held that the Supreme Council had no right to interpret the treaty, and that admission to the international labor organization was a question whose solution was under the jurisdiction of the League of Nations. Upon this ground, Mr. Rowell moved that the conference recommend to the League of Nations the im- mediate admission of Finland and in the meantime to grant the delegates informal participation in the Conference. The contention of Mr. Baldesi was that Germany and Austria presented an analogous case to that of Finland and that as the case of Germany and Austria had been referred to the 1See Appendix, pp. 142-143 to the Provisional Record, Nov. 12, 19193 see also p. 313, 16th day, Nov. 24, 1919. Luxembourg was admitted then on the same condition as Finland as soon as request for admission was telegraphed by the minister of State of Luxembourg to the con- ference. The vote was unanimous. 2See Prov, Rec. pp. 131-139, Nov. 12, 1919. 196 INTERNATIONAL LABOR LEGISLATION [564. Conference that of Finland might also be dealt with by it. Now that the former two countries had been admitted, there could be no ground, he thought, for contending that the Peace Treaty (article 387) excluded Finland from parti- cipation in the conference. Senator von Koch of Sweden was of the opinion that the power of the Supreme Council to interpret the Peace Treaty ceased when the League of Nations came into existence. He maintained that it was vitally important that a country like Finland which has an advanced industrial state should be admitted to the con- ference. The Senator’s opinion was supported strongly by the representatives of Denmark and Norway, countries which have a close bond of interest as neighbors of Finland. To enable that country to have its laws and conditions brought into accord with the decisions of the conference and to establish a harmonious standard for every country were the ends sought by these delegates. But Sir Malcolm Delevigne arose to support the motion of Mr. Rowell. He considered the legalistic construction of the Treaty pro- visions as not merely tenable but as all important. He as- serted that his opinion represented the judgment of the en- tire British delegation and that in case Finland were admit- ted in spite of the objection, the government of Great Britain would fight the case out before the permanent court of in- ternational justice. The situation was so complex that the question of the admission of Finland was discussed for two days. On the second day,’ the opposing forces again met, the labor dele- gates favoring admission and the employers’ and govern- ment delegates siding with the minority which recommended refusal of admission. Stuart-Bunning, the British workers’ delegate, then arose and contradicted every word said by ‘tith day, Nov. 13, 1919. See Prov. Rec., pp. 157-161. 565] THE WASHINGTON CONFERENCE OF 1919 197 Sir Malcolm Delevigne. He stated that the opinion of the workers was not at all in agreement with'that of the govern- ment delegation. He disapproved Sir Malcolm’s “ threat- ening words” which were expressed on the preceeding day; and he voiced in explicit terms the solidarity of the workers in words and action. Finally, Canada yielded to the op- position and brought in a Compromise Amendment which was accepted by Gino Baldesi and unanimously adopted. It read: The conference, without giving a ruling on the question of principle, welcomes the delegates nominated by Finland to at- tend the Washington meeting, and invites these delegates to take part in the conference on the same conditions as obtain in the case of other countries which have not adhered to the covenant of the League of Nations. 9. The question of Spanish as an official language One of the notable issues which was brought up early in the conference was that of making Spanish an official lan- guage. It was introduced with no intention apparently of pushing it as an issue of great consequence. However, a little reflection upon that subject makes it clear why it could not be lightly decided. On the first day of the conference, as soon as the French report of the Organizing Committee was rendered into English, Dr. J. C. Garcia, Government delegate from Ecuador, appealed to the conference on be- half of the Spanish-speaking peoples. He modestly re- quested that the report should be translated into Spanish also. He said there were at least twenty-five delegates who belonged to Spanish-speaking nations and who spoke Spanish. He then pointed out that there were as many as 18 nations represented at the conference, which used Spa- nish as their official language. 198 INTERNATIONAL LABOR LEGISLATION [566 The proposal received the ardent support of the Spanish government delegate Viscount de Eza, in whose opinion this question could not be brushed aside as “a matter of minor importance’ as Arthur Fontaine called it. He maintained that there was more than mere courtesy involved in the question. He said: “For the Spanish-speaking delegates this is a question of principle, and on this matter I must absolutely insist on the use of the Spanish language.” He drew attention to the fact that the notices put up in the conference hall were in Spanish, French and English. He said that out of courtesy for the present assembly and out of sympathy for the French and English languages he would, in order to avoid difficulties, renounce any further claims but he “ would like to have a definite answer as to whether the gentlemen responsible for the matter think that the standing orders will be adopted only at the end of the conference or whether there is any hope that in ai few days Spanish will be adopted as one of the official lan- guages.” * The issue threatened to precipitate a stormy discussion, but through the tactful management of the President, Secre- tary Wilson, and of Secretary General Greenwood, who announced that a Spanish text of the daily bulletin would be supplied through the courtesy of the United States government, the question was temporarily withdrawn. 1 See Prov. Rec., pp. 11-13. CHAPTER. VOI THE WASHINGTON CONFERENCE (CONTINUED) 1. Question of. the 8-hour day; main convention The general discussion on the first item of the agenda, namely, the application of the principle of the 8-hour day or 48-hour week as the limit of industrial work, was com- menced on the fifth day of the conference by George N. Barnes who introduced the subject on behalf of the Organ- izing Committee.* Mr. Barnes’ explanation was a lengthy discourse. He emphasized that labor had long ceased to be a mere com- modity, that it must be treated “in terms of sentient human beings,” that it is entitled to leisure, to live lives outside of the workshops, to time for recreation, for education and for the discharge of social and family duties. He pointed out specifically three or four “ general considerations which leap to the mind.” In the first place, he said with regard to the draft convention: It is not a mere basic 8-hour law or 8-hour rule with addi- tional pay for additional hours of work that we are after. That would not give us what we want. What we do want is leisure, and we must therefore keep that in mind all the time. We are after leisure rather than pay. Moreover even if we arranged for additional pay to be made to the workers for additional time—inasmuch as wages, after all, tend to certain levels, determined by many things apart from the hours of 1 Nov. 4, 1919, see Prov. Rec., pp. 41-46; for a brief synopsis of the matter, see Monthly Labor Review, Jan., 1920, pp. 8-10. 567] 199 200 INTERNATIONAL LABOR LEGISLATION [568 labor—the additional pay would tend to disappear from the very moment it began to be paid... . Secondly he emphasized that the convention should be so framed as to “ make it elastic enough to meet the needs of these men who labor, and at the same time, rigid enough to get something like uniformity in its application. Fire, flood, acts of God of any kind—all these have to be specifi- cally provided for.” He pointed out that “ administrative authorities differ in efficiency and therefore will be lax here and rigid there” and that therefore no absolutely uni- form regulation would be possible. As to the choice be- tween the 8-hour day and 48-hour week, he reminded the conference of the existence of places where Sunday rest is unknown. In those places, if the rigid eight-hour day. was enforced, a 56-hour week would result. With regard to the countries where industry is undeveloped, he said: “To bring India or Japan into competition would be simply to destroy their mass of industry, and to try would be tol court failure.” He moved then: That the draft convention on the 48-hour week prepared by the Organizing Committee be adopted by the conference as the basis for discussion, but that the question of its application to the tropical and other countries referred to in the 3rd para- graph of article 405 of the treaty be referred in the first in- stance for consideration by the special committee which shall report to the conference. Mr. Barnes argued further that while increased pro- duction must be had, it could be hoped for only through a better organization of industry, and by humanizing the conditions of work. Long hours of work would not con- tribute to that end but would be disastrous to man and to industry instead. 569] | THE WASHINGTON CONFERENCE OF 1919 oan Objection to putting this matter to an immediate vote was raised by the employers’ group. A substitute plan was sub- sequently presented by D. S. Marjoribanks of Great Britain and Jules Carlier of Belgium; but the draft of the amend- ment was not signed by the Italian, Dutch and Canadian Employers’ representatives. The employers were willing to accept the 8-hour day or 48-hour week in “ principle,” but they proposed to modify the provisions, especially those relating to maintenance of productive work, distribution and reconstruction of industry in the regions devastated by the war. A comparison of the employers’ amendment with the amendment proposed by Leon Jouhaux and seconded by Tom Shaw (British workers’ delegate) throws an interest- ing light on the different attitudes of the capitalist and the working man.*| The employers would replace the word “convention” by “ recommendation” wherever it occurs in the text of the draft convention.” They would simplify the list of industries to which the8-hour limit applies. They would construe the “ working hour ” to mean “ actual work- ing hour” and suggested adding the word “actual.” In- stead of the words “in case of accident,” they suggested the phrase “‘ either for preventing accident or in making good repairs after accident,” etc., and thereby they would make it possible to have longer working hours. For overtime to) be allowed per year they propose 300 hours instead of the 150 hours, which the original draft provided. A sweeping demand quite characteristic of the conser- vative mind of some employers was in the new article which they proposed for addition, which follows: * 1See Appendices ii and iii, in Prov. Rec., pp. 290-292, 15th day, Nov. 22, 1919. 3See Report i of the Organizing Committee, pp. 141-146. 3 See Prov. Rec., p. 201, article 12 (b). 202 INTERNATIONAL LABOR LEGISLATION [570 All countries without distinction—With a view to reducing the high cost of living, which is an inevitable consequence of the shortage of products and of the difficulty of distributing them, the conference recommends deferring likewise, for a period not to exceed five years, the enforcement of the 48-hour week in industries whose products are indispensable for food supply and in transport industries. These exceptions shall not be put into effect except by virtue of international agree- ments emanating from the International Labor Office, as special conditions for a definite length of time terminating with the reéstablishment of normal conditions of production. The workers’ amendment, on the contrary, showed vividly the “impetuous mood ” of the workers to extend as widely as practicable the application of the limitation of hours. of work. They demanded that the 8-hour convention should apply to “commercial” as well as “industrial” undertak- ings, and the term “ undertakings” was to mean both pub- lic and private work and “all branches thereof of whatso- ever kind.” Leon Jouhaux was not satisfied with the 48-hour week without explicit guarantee of the 8-hour day. He insisted that “the 8-hour day and 48-hour week”’ should be set up as the maximum. Samuel Gompers,’ who was granted the privilege of addressing the conference as a guest, claimed that the history of industry amply proved that “there is more produced by the workers, everything else being equal, in an 8-hour day, than in a 10 or 12-hour day.” The argument which lasted for a week generally centered around a few important economic considerations. That the present world was in dire need of increased production and that every tendency to lessen or limit production must be prevented was one appealing argument raised to oppose the limitation of working hours. Louis Guerin reiterated 1See Prov. Rec., pp. 60-64, 6th day, Nov. 5, 1919. 571] THE WASHINGTON CONFERENCE OF 1919 203 that the duty of the worker was to produce. “ More pro- duction,” he asserted, was the “only way to get shorter hours of work.” It was remarked in this connection that the introduction of the 8-hour day in France had resulted in the reduction of production by 15 to 20 per cent. Leon Jouhaux, who consistently championed the cause of better labor legislation, insisted on the other hand that if more production is needed, improvement should be made in tnachinery, management and facilities of production, rather than to lengthen the working hours. He asserted that ex- perience during the war and scientific investigation both had demonstrated that lessening the working hours resulted in increased production. Emphasis was likewise placed on the social and ethical importance of the shorter work-day. The question was finally referred * to the Committee on Hours of Work for close study of the problem in camera. The committee consisted of 15 members, each group (government, employers and workers) being represented; by 5 delegates. The committee held twelve sessions al- together * and the final report on the subject, exclusive of the application of the principle to the tropical and special countries, was made to the plenary session of the conference on November 24, by the chairman of the Committee, Arthur Fontaine.* The task of the committee was to revise the draft con- vention, which had been prepared by the Organizing Com- mittee, in the light of the opinion of the conference as ex- pressed in the debate. Thus the final report was in the 1See Prov. Rec., p. 99, 8th day, Nov. 7, 1919. 2See Prov. Rec., p. 119, 9th day, Nov. Io, 1919. 8The sessions were not open to the public. Only mimeograph re- ports, written partly in French and partly in English were available to the writer. 4See Prov. Rec., pp. 313-321, 347-352; etc., Nov., 1919. 204 INTERNATIONAL LABOR LEGISLATION [572 form of a draft convention which the plenary session should either adopt or reject. In presenting the draft M. Fontaine stated that in the opinion of the committee there were three ways of controlling the application of the principle. First the application should be controlled by the organiza- tions of employers and workers. Those organizations should be consulted about any changes or exceptions that are to take place. In some cases their previous agreement must be ob- tained. A! second control would be exercised by the inter- national labor office, to which several reports must be sub- mitted, reports about exceptions, the working of the details and others. Finally, the committee believed that several gov- ernments would exercise control. The convention as a whole provides an 8-hour day and 48-hour week for “all industrial undertakings public or private and to all branches thereof of whatsoever kind, other than undertakings in which only members of the family are employed.” * However, a glance at the con- vention draft reveals the caution of its authors, as they: have allowed far-reaching exceptions in order apparently to permit the applications of the convention on as wide a scale as possible under varying circumstances. Thus the provisions of the convention do not apply to “ persons hold- ing positions of supervision or management, or employed in a confidential capacity.” Furthermore, it states: * Where by law, custom or agreement between the employers’ 1See for the full text of the Committee’s report, accompanied by the draft convention and the draft prepared by the Organizing Committee, pp. 285-202 of the Provisional Record, 15th day, Nov. 22, 1919. 7 Article 2 of the “Draft Convention limiting the hours of work in industrial undertakings to 8 in the day and 48 in the week.” * Article 2, clause (b) of the “Draft Convention limiting the hours of work,” see also Prov. Rec., p. 288. 573] THE WASHINGTON CONFERENCE OF 1919 205 and workers’ organizations (or where no such organizations exist, between the employers’ and workers’ representatives ) the hours of work on one or more days of the week are less than eight, the limit of eight hours may be exceeded on the remaining days of the week by the sanction of the competent authority, or by agreement between such organizations or rep- resentatives : Provided, however, that in no case under the pro- visions of this paragraph shall the daily limit of eight hours be exceeded by more than one hour. Obviously this clause provides for the Saturday half holiday, where it is desired, without reducing the weekly limit of forty-eight hours. Where workers are engaged in “shifts,” exceptions are provided to allow employment in excess of 8 hours a day or 48 hours a week, provided that the average number of hours over a period of three weeks or less does not exceed 8 per day and 48 per week. Work in excess of such limitations is permitted in case of accident, actual or threatened, or in case of urgent work to be done to machinery or plant or in case of “force majeure,’ but only when necessary to avoid serious interference with the regular working of the undertaking.” A 56-hour week average is set as the maximum allowed in “ continuous pro- cesses in which work is done by a succession of shifts.” Holidays, it is provided further, must not be affected by this limitation of working hours. Overtime pay is set at “ time and a quarter ” as the minimum:.® The convention further places obligation on the employer to post conspicious notices in the works stating the conditions of employment fixed for the particular industry or trade. In the event of war or “ emergencies endangering the national safety,” the govern- ment may suspend the provisions of the convention. In 1[bid., article ii, (c). 2Ibid., article ii, (c). iy Sead 3[bid., article vi, (b). 7 ; 206 INTERNATIONAL LABOR LEGISLATION [574 general July 1, 1921, is fixed as the date for the convention going into effect. The adoption of the convention, with its ingenious de- vices to hold firm the principle of the 8-hour day and 48- hour week, while giving ample flexibility, was not easily se- cured. M. Fontaine had hardly resumed his seat when ai Canadian delegate arose to oppose the adoption of the draft.* His objections to the draft were not altogether pertinent but a close analysis of his nine points of objection reveals certain matters of economic interest which are fundamental. The delegates from Great Britain, France, Canada, South Africa and others took part in the discussion attempting to rebut his arguments, prolonging the debate for several hours. Mr. Crawford, the young South-African labor dele- gate proposed, with his usual tone of impulsive energy, that in order to eliminate the evils of sweating in industry, “home-work ” should also be included in the convention and be subjected to control.” His proposal was imbued with a rather acute sense of dissatisfaction over the draft, which “ failed’ as he asserted, “to protect the poor worker, the woman worker, the home worker and the children, the sweated workers.” His contention, briefly, was that the explicit exclusion of family work from legal control was in effect an official encouragement of the evil of sweating. He pointed out that the lessening of the hours of work in the well-regulated, sanitary factories, unaccompanied by control of home work, amounted to nothing less than forcing the poor worker to seek employment in his unsanitary home and thus fill up with sweating the leisure time obtained as due result of the convention. The Crawford objection, formulated in 1See Prov. Rec., p. 313. 2Ibid., pp. 319-320. 575) THE WASHINGTON CONFERENCE OF 1919 207 the form of an amendment, was finally put to vote but was overwhelmingly defeated. In the course of the debate, a number of interesting sug- gestions were brought up. The proposition of the Swiss labor delegate, Mr, Ilg, is of interest." He declared that the conference had been “ mistaken”’ in discussing the 8- hour day and 48-hour week. Said he: We ought to have found another basis for our discussion— an eight hour day and forty-five hour week, and as we have neglected to treat this subject on this occasion, we should at least make sure that it will be treated at our next conference. Gentlemen, the fight for 45 hour week has already been begun by the workers in several countries. It is impossible, sir, for the International Labor Conference to get around this question and not grapple with it honestly. The principle at least must be recognized ! He then submitted a motion to the effect that the next conference should treat this question as an item of the agenda. This motion received no immediate support, but the fact of his proposal needs to be recorded as indicating the direction in which the conferences of the future will necessarily move. 2. The problem of the “ undeveloped countries ”’—the case of Japan; her difficulties and claims The part that was played by Japan at the Paris Peace Conference, as one of the original “ Big Five,” was no in- conspicuous one. At present Japan holds a seat in the Governing Body of the International Labor Office as one of the eight powers of “chief industrial importance” in the world.* The one-time Hermit Kingdom of the mys- libid., p. 321. 2 Ibid., p. 353. See the official report with list of countries represented on the governing body. 208 INTERNATIONAL LABOR LEGISLATION [576 terious Orient is to-day no longer a nation that is simply heard of or discussed through the press. The pressure of this young and ambitious nation, now aspiring to be per- manently regarded as the leading power of unawakened Asia, is being felt universally. There is little doubt that this circumstance rendered the dilemma of Japan at this conference conspicuous. Her difficulty was this: A cer- tain enterprising portion of Japan saw her industrial ruin in the proposal of the Washington conference, while the government of Japan, anxious to maintain the position of distinction which had been won in the spheres of politics and diplomacy, would have liked to accept all the modern standards, at least in form. Her much-quoted declaration of industrial policy, that “every effort will be made to accelerate the unqualified adoption of the rule in harmony with the general trend of the world,” * is found in her answer to the questionnaire of the Organizing Committee. The thinking public of Japan demanded the immediate adoption of such a policy” as was then declared, and the far-seeing representatives of the government, such as Dr. Minoru Oka,’ fully realized that Japan must accept a cer- tain standard of labor somewhat similar, if not wholly equivalent, to that of her sister powers of the Occident, if Japan would show her readiness to assert equality among the powers. Thus the problem which confronted Japan at this con- ference was whether to accept the international standard at the risk of industrial ruin, or to beg exemption from the 1International Labor Conference Manual, p. 84. See “What Japanese Labor Wants” by S. Kusama in the Japan Review, Nov., 1919, pp. 13-15. *Dr, Oka, former Director of Commerce and Industrial Affairs in the Ministry of Commerce and Agriculture, was responsible for draft- ing and carrying into effect the first Factory Law of Japan which is still in force. 577] THE WASHINGTON CONFERENCE OF 1919 209 world of advanced legislation in order to secure her indus- trial foundations. A Washington paper in its headline in large letters wrote: “ Japan Balks at 8-hour Day!” ... “Working class claimed as much inferior to civilized na- tions,” etc. In seeking compromise many things had to be admitted. In short, Japan had to face here a “ hard choice in the full glare of the limelight of pitiless publicity.” * A little observation of the industrial conditions in Japan enables one to comprehend the nature of the dilemma which faced the Japanese delegates at the conference. The growth of industry in Japan is only of recent date. Her industrial expansion has been as sudden and phenomenal as the emer- gence of the nation itself on the international horizon. In 1900 there were only about 120,000 “ factory hands,” but in 1919 the number had increased to over 3,000,000. The increase of the number of factories has been even more phenomenal. In 1900 there were only about 1,400 factories but in 1919 there were 30,000.27, For a number of years Japan had been burdened with financial difficulties. As the result of the Russo-Japanese conflict, on the outbreak of the Great War she had an indebtedness amounting to some- thing like $1,500,000,000. But the Great War altered the situation. The greatest calamity to the rest of the world seemed, temporarily at least, “the golden opportunity of a thousand years” to Japan. With the disappearance of the competition of the European powers, she gained a free hand for trade expansion and commercial enterprise. Financial chaos, extinction of industry and general dis- aster in Europe spelt prosperity for Japan and suddenly, 1Article by Robert T. Small, The Washington Post, Tuesday, Nov. 28, 1919, pp. 1-2. See also p. 1 of the issue of Nov. 27, 1919. 2 These figures are based on the study of G. Spencer, who has spent over 18 years in Japan and who is now engaged in industrial research in the Interchurch World Movement. ane INTERNATIONAL LABOR LEGISLATION [578 from the condition of a debtor nation, she rose to be a creditor nation. Before the war her foreign trade showed a balance practically never in her favor, but with the open- ing of the war, as a foreign observer puts it, “streams of gold began to flow in.” Her pre-war exports showed a total annual value of something like 586,797,000 yen, the figure for 1914, but when the war ended they had risen to over 1,931,000,000 yen *—an increase of nearly 400 per cent, and the curve of increase seemed acutely on the rise! Such a situation, however, caused obviously by the war and other extraordinary circumstances, was, at least in part, abnormal. With the cessation of hostilities and resump- tion of trade competition by the world on a fiercer scale than ever, Japan knows not what future lies before her. In both quality and quantity, Japanese goods must meet competition in the markets which are reopened to her rivals and she must expect that some of those markets will be closed to her when European industry resumes its full swing. In other words, the financial success and industrial prosperity of Japan, in the eyes of those who observe, may be after all a transient phenomenon. A glance at the state of industrial regulation in Japan raises further doubts as to the stability of her industry.” No law regulating either the hours, wages or conditions of labor was in operation until three years ago. The first Japanese factory law was promulgated on March 28, 1911,* but its enforcement was not authorized by Imperial Ordi- nance until August 2, 1916.* An examination of this fac- tory act reveals a number of matters that are found but 1 See “ Exports and Imports, 1910-1918” (Seizohin-sonota-no-Yushits- niu gaku) published by Dept. of Agr. and 'Comm., Japan, pp. 1-8. ?See the International Labor Conference Manual, pp. 99-147. 3Law no. 46. ‘Imperial Ordinance, no. 193. 579] THE WASHINGTON CONFERENCE OF 1919 211 rarely in the industrial legislation of to-day. In the first place, it applies only to factories in which more than 15 operatives are regularly employed or “ where the business is of a dangerous character or is considered injurious to health.” * It applies in effect only to women and children, prescribing a maximum work-day of 13 hours. George N. Barnes has summarized the situation ably on the basis of the reports and statements of the Japanese government delegates at the conference. The law [he said], limits the working day to 13 hours per day and in one industry (raw silk) the largest in the country, 120 hours’ overtime is allowed in addition. Moreover, there is no weekly holiday like Sunday and 13 hours is actually worked in the silk industry every day, except 2 each month. That is, on the 1st and 15th of the month there are holidays [but no other]. In other industries the working day nominally is about 10, but actually is about 12, because of the fact that overtime is quite common, and therefore we have this condition of things in Japan: that in the silk industry which employs goo,000 * work-people, the hours are 13 per day, plus one hour overtime for 120 days in the year. In the cotton industry, the hours are 11.3 This statement is in line with the following table, show- ing the number of factories classified according to normal working hours, including rest time. The table is based on the Factory Inspectors’ Annual Report (K6/6-Kantoku Nenp6é, 1918-1919) and includes only the factories which come under the Factory Law. 1See article 1, i-ii of the Factory Law of IgII. 2 53% of this number does not come under the scope of the law. 5 See Prov. Rec., p. 423, 19th day, Nov. 27, 1919. Compare this with articles 3-8 of the Factory Law of 1911. Also article 3 of Ordinance no. 19 of the Dept. of Agr. and Comm., August 3, 1916. are INTERNATIONAL LABOR LEGISLATION [580 NuMBER OF FACTORIES CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO NORMAL WORKING Hours (Including rest time: a = one shift; b —two or more shifts) 8 hrs. | g hrs. | ro hrs. | 11 hrs. | 12 hrs. 13 hrs.| 14 hrs. a bja bj] ab a b a b a bla b Ag. Silk reeling.......- 4 6) 2 ..| 29 «| 77 «.| 392 21434 1845 -- Spinning... ----/ 6 ..) 1 a] 1 5} rr 18] 75 106] -- 16. Twisting .......... te ee] ee 4] 3200 «T] 25s | 132 9, + ete as Weaving ....--.--- 16 3] 71 156 6) 279 13/2579 226| 24 287 se Machine and engi- neering --.--.... 10 42 561 2) 244: ~«©«| 216017] 13 25 Ship building works and wagon shops.| 3 8 127, 2) 49 - 25 2 I Tools and imple- ments ....---+-- 17 ++! 32 «| 3142] TI5, ee] S65 4| 10 3 0°. Metalware works...| 46 ..|10q ../1857 3/471 3] 599 40] 34 17 +e Ceramics.......... 52 6/57 5) 403. «+1) 210 3, 656 +43] 3 GO as Paper mills-......- 3 ++} Tr 40 3) 46 6 159 94] -- see oe Matches and other combustibles ...-| 7 «.| 14 --| 93 3] 63 --| 56 2) 1 Se ste Oil and fat works --| 15 2) 18 1) 64 5} 31 1) 175 29] I sete Chemicals ..-...... 12 31 32 «5/135 15} 78 6 138 57) 2 Ts Totals ........ 189 14/382 13/3822 49|1699 50/4680 587/534 2138 3. The struggle of Japanese labor Under such circumstances it was evident that Japan was entitled to some modifications in the convention on the eight-hour day. For, as Mr. Barnes pointed out, “if Japan were to be brought down to the same level as other coun- tries,” the conference would be “ making Japan reduce her production by about 60% while the other countries were having to reduce theirs probably only by about 5, 10 or 1 The rest period, which is granted the workers whose normal work- ing time is less than 10 hours per day, is 30 minutes generally. For the workers whose normal working hours exceed 10 hours, a rest period running from 30 to 40 or even 60 minutes is allowed. In these factories there are many instances of work done for 1 or 2 hours or even 3 or 4 hours after the daily normal working time. Such extra work is done principally by the adult male workers. 581] THE WASHINGTON CONFERENCE OF 1919 213 15%.’ * However, an adjustment of the draft suitable to Japan was made doubly difficult by the condition in which Japanese labor was placed at home.? The laborers were demanding the recognition of labor unions and the repeal of a certain police regulation, which was alleged by them to be repressive, and thus their attitude was not in accord with that of the government even on international labor agreements. There was no greater unanimity of spirit among the Japanese labor and government delegates than there was in other delegations: Here irony had its way; the conference stubbornly asserted its internationalism. The voice of Japanese labor found its sympathetic echo among the representatives of European labor and the labor delegates unitedly opposed any modification of the eight- hour convention for Japan. How internationalism transcended petty national boun- daries at this conference was dramatically shown by the appeal which the Japanese labor delegate made to the labor leaders of other countries in protest against the efforts of the government and employers’ delegates to have Japan considered as a “ special country.” In one of the meetings of the labor delegates, Masumoto, the Japanese labor repre- sentative, pleading for the help of his colleagues in the emancipation of Japan’s millions of toilers said: ... I cherish no misgiving as to the hearty cooperation and sympathy which the labor leaders here assembled would mani- fest toward the workers of Japan, once they have acquainted themselves with the labor conditions of the latter. Inasmuch as the labor leaders of this conference, moved by sentiments of justice and humanity, are assuming the responsibility of 1See Prov. Rec., p. 423; also Report i of the Organizing Committee for the extent of the 8-hour day already in practice. 2 See “ Some Social Problems of Present Japan” in the Japan Review, Dec., 1919, Pp. 54-57. 214 INTERNATIONAL LABOR LEGISLATION [582 obtaining fair and humane conditions of labor, I have every reason to believe that the millions of toilers of Japan, will soon gain by your help the recognition of the right of association, the protection against unemployment, adequate living wages and the protection of women and children. . . . We need the hearty moral support and intelligent advice of all labor leaders assembled here to-day. The task before us is stupendous. That I will consecrate my whole life to the cause of labor and its welfare is my sincere promise to you. May I count on you to lend me your assistance and cooperation in our work? * The plea was not made in vain. The response of the energetic and militant laborities such as Jouhaux, Mertens, Oudegeest, Baldesi and others came like the attack of the Macedonian phalanx. The entire morning session of No- vember 27th was spent in the controversy over the question of “special treatment” for Japan.’ It is generally agreed now that few countries of the world took the International Labor Conference quite as seriously as did Japan. Principally it was the greatly agi- tated labor conditions in Japan which accounted for this attitude. The abnormality of the war-time industry in Japan brought a flood of gold into the hands of the entre- preneurs, but it precipitated discontent and unrest among the workers. Strikes grew to be common. Toyohiko Kagawa, who has devoted years of his life to social refor- mation, has recently written that “ formerly the nature of the strikes was more or less emotional, but now it is done simply from economic discontent. It shows the danger of the coming class struggle in Japan.”* According to his figures the number of strikes has increased in the course of 1The full text of Masumoto’s speech is found in The Japan Review, Jan., 1920, pp. 81-82. See Prov. Rec., pp. 423-432; see also section 4 of this chapter. *See The Japan Review, Dec., 1919, p. 55. 583] THE WASHINGTON CONFERENCE OF 1919 ay five years from the outbreak of the war, more than 730 per cent. In 1914 there were only 50 strikes recorded, but in 1918 there were 417. The number of workers involved has also increased proportionately. In 1914 only 7,904 struck, but in 1918 the figure rose to 66,457. Neverthe- less such a rapid spread of agitation and unrest could not be construed to mean that labor was gaining much ground. For years Japanese labor has had little or no freedom of organization. Or at least the right of association which is expressly granted by the constitution has in the case of the workers been so restricted that there could be no “ union” labor in the occidental sense of the term. The consensus of liberal opinion in Japan seems to agree on the point that the existence of so-called “article 17 of the Police Regulation’’ has been a menace to labor. All labor leaders, including Suzuki of Yu-ai Kai, have strenuously and bitterly contended that this “article 17” is “one of the worst laws of the land,” because it has been used as the weapon to crush and prevent the organization of labor.’ Accordingly it was quite natural that the tidings of the International Labor Conference, to be held in the spirit of the nine principles of the Labor Charter, were received by the labor leaders of Japan with high enthusiasm. Early in the summer of 1919, the forerunners of the labor-union movement in Japan, such as Suzuki, the Presi- dent of Yu-ai Kai, began to look forward to the sending of their representatives to the conference, in view of the provi- sions of article 389 of the Peace Treaty—which requires each government, in selecting the non-government delegates, to consult organizations which are “ most representative of employers or work people.” The government of Japan, on the other hand, having paid little attention to the organiza- 1See the translation of the entire article, Prov. Rec., p. 426; see also The Labor Movement in Japan by S. Katayama. 216 INTERNATIONAL LABOR LEGISLATION [584 tion of labor, and having consequently settled upon no defi- nite policy heretofore as to its treatment, was the first to experience the difficulty of the situation. If the govern- ment consulted Yu-ai Kai or any other labor union (of which there were very few, the total membership of the five embryonic unions in 1919 being less than 30,000), that would be tantamount to the official recognition of labor unions. Such a course, it was feared, would not only result in the undoing of the policies of police regulation but might even fan the fire of labor and socialistic propaganda which had already been kindled. The result of all this was seen in the elaborate “ scheme of multiple election”? (Fuku-Senkio Hé) which the govern- ment devised in order to grant voice not only to the few organized but also to the vast unorganized workers of the empire in choosing the labor representative of Japan. The recourse taken to this ingenious device enabled the govern- ment, temporarily at least, to stave off the question of rec- ognition of labor organization, because no one apparently knew whether a member or non-member of a labor union was to be elected. Finally, in September, the so-called Gen- eral ‘Conference of Labor Representatives was called in Tokio by the vice-Minister of Agriculture and Commerce. To this assembly came the delegates who were elected in all localities of the country by the aforesaid method of “mul- tiple election,” in order, as it was directed by the govern- ment, to elect the labor representative. But this assembly proved an ill-fated enterprise. From the first minute of the conference protests were raised by the union men against the alleged interference of the government in selecting the delegates. It was found that less than one-third of the delegates present were really workers themselves, and it 1See the report of the Committee on Credentials, clause 5, p. 5 of the Prov. Rec., 7th day, Nov. 6, 1919. 585] | THE WASHINGTON CONFERENCE OF 1919 337 was claimed that the representative of labor must be a manual worker who toils and not a non-laborer who only theorizes. Sharp questions were raised as to whether or not labor organizations were recognized. On the first day of the conference, Suzuki left the assembly in protest and he was followed by several others. The discussion lasted three days and finally Uhei Masumoto, the chief engineer as well as the director of a Japanese ship-building company, was chosen. That such a choice was not altogether for- tunate is clear from the following description: * This remarkable transformation of a man—from a high priest of capital to a champion of labor—created a sensation throughout the land. Some thought it to be a national scandal. A savage storm of protests accompanied Mr. Masumoto’s nom- ination, and grew in force and fury after his acceptance of the post. Indignation meetings were held in cities and towns. There were street demonstrations and parades. On the day of Mr. Masumoto’s departure a long procession of workers, clad in mourning, marched to the Yokohama wharf, waving funeral banners and chanting a dirge. Our delegate was obliged to board his ship secretly by a rope-ladder at a safe and respectful distance from the shore, etc. Beyond doubt there is a bit of hyperbole in this descrip- tion but it was a fact that Japan at this time was a “ seeth- ing mass of unrest.” The papers such as Tokio Asal, Jiji and Nichi-Nichi, and the columns of current period- icals of the time were monopolized by reports or comments on the incidents of the election and sending of the labor delegate to the Washington conference. The amount of publicity given to the conference was thus unparalleled. The seriousness with which the Japanese government re- garded this conference was further attested by the extra- 1See “ Mr, Masumoto, Japan’s Labor Delegate” in The Japan Review, Dec., 1919, p. 43. 218 INTERNATIONAL LABOR LEGISLATION [586 ordinarily large delegation which it sent. On their arrival at Seattle, they were met by the “ Japanese Special” which had been despatched thither to transport these fifty-odd delegates, advisors, secretaries, interpreters and other offi- cial and unofficial force of attachés,t across the continent to the capital, calculated to arrive at Washington on the very day and hour of the opening of the conference. But uncertainty as to the position of the representative of Japa- nese labor still confronted the delegation. The delegation, on their arrival at the Capital, were in- formed that protest had been raised by Mr. Gompers about the qualification of the labor representative from Japan. Thus they were greeted with the omen of battling difficul- ties which were to involve them till the last day of the con- ference. The protest had originally been raised by Bunji Suzuki, the President of Yu-ai Kai and others who sent their letter of complaint to Samuel Gompers, and the latter submitted the communication to the conference. The matter was referred to the Committee on Credentials, and subsequently the committee, after examining the case upon the basis of the explanation given by the government delegates, reported back to the conference on November 6, that “no action should be taken on the protest in respect of the Japanese delegation.”* However the matter was not allowed to rest. Corneille Mertens of Belgium presented a resolution in which “the workers’ delegations to the International Conference at Washingotn noted the absence of the official workers’ delegate for Japan,” and this was adopted.® Nor 1A group of more than 20 men, representing the silk and other financial interests of Japan, accomipanied the delegation all the way to Washington. Beside them, there were again more than 20 Japanese newspaper men assembled in Washington. See Prov. Rec., p. 84. 3 Tbid., p. 79. 587] THE WASHINGTON CONFERENCE OF 1919 219 was the committee’s report unanimous in recognizing the qualification of this delegate. Jean Oudegeest had it re- corded in the report as a member of the committee, that “in future the labor delegate should be chosen in agree- ment with trades unions of Japan.” Suzuki’s protest had its effect. The labor-union move- ment in Japan has gained here a foundation-stone for its future structure.* 4. The Committee on Special Countries; the convention applying to Japan It was obvious without going into minute study of the industrial, climatic, social and other conditions of each country, that a number of countries had to be granted special consideration by the conference. Henceforth a commission originally designated as the “Committee on Tropical Countries” was appointed by the governing body with the unanimous consent of the conference,” to consider the matter. That the need of such an action by the con- ference had been contemplated is clear by referring to the provisions of the Peace Treaty. Under the “General Prin- ciples’ of the Labor charter (art. 427, paragraph 2), the treaty states in explicit terms that the signatories to the covenant “ recognize that differences of climate, habits and customs, of economic opportunity and industrial tradition, make strict uniformity in the conditions of labor difficult of immediate attainment.’ Hence the task of the com- mittee was to carry into effect this principle of “ recogni- tion of differences.” Elsewhere in the treaty, it is specifi- cally provided that: 1Since then a bill to legalize and to subject trade unions to govern- mental control with sundry statutory restrictions has been prepared by the government of Japan. The bill will be presented to the Parlia- ment at its coming session. 2See Prov, Rec., p. III. 220 INTERNATIONAL LABOR LEGISLATION [588 in framing any recommendation or draft convention, the con- ference shall have due regard to those countries in which climatic conditions, the imperfect development of industrial organization, or other special circumstances make the industrial conditions substantially different and shall suggest the modi- fications, if any, which it considers may be required to meet the case of such countries.* Membership on the committee was on the basis of grant- ing full representation to the countries principally concerned and of adding three government, three employers’ and three workers’ delegates from non-tropical countries. The com- mittee was constituted as follows: China 1 (g.); India 3 (g., e. and w.) Japan 3 (g., e. and w.); Siam 1 (g.) ; South Africa 3 (g., e. and w.); tropical America 3 (g., e. and w.), together with the following delegates from other countries: Mr. Barnes, Baron Mayor des Planches, Dr. Sul- zer, Mr. Marjoribanks, Mr. Guerin, Mr. Zagleniczny, Mr. Oudegeest. Mr. Baldesi and Mr. Stuart-Bunning. Certain of these members sent their substitutes to the meetings, but in view of the importance of the decisions of the committee, Japan took this committee most seriously and Dr. Oka, the government delegate, and Sanji Muto, the employers’ dele- gate, came in person, while the workers’ delegate was rep- resented by a substitute, a graduate of the Imperial Univer- sity of Japan. India and South Africa were no less con- cerned about the committee’s deliberations. All their dele- gates were present at all sessions. Early during the conference strong objection was ex- pressed among the Japanese labor delegates to being in- cluded among the “ undeveloped,” ‘“ backward” countries. Here the national or racial pride was alloyed with the eco- nomic interest of the laboring class. To keep Japan from inclusion among the special countries meant winning the 1 Article 405, clause 3, of the Peace Treaty. 589] THE WASHINGTON CONFERENCE OF 1919 aay struggle for shorter working hours. If the labor delegate succeed in preventing Japan from being treated as a “special country ” by this committee, that would virtually mean the eight-hour day for the workers in Japan, on the one hand, and, on the other, the retention of the claim, which Japan must assert, that Japan is not inferior industrially to other powers any more than in the spheres of political, military or educational achievements. On account of the designation “Committee on Tropical Countries,” the Japanese labor delegate insisted that “Japan is not a tropical country, but is similar to Italy, Spain and the United States.” * Quoting from Huntington’s Civiliza- tion and Climate, he maintained that “ Japan lies in a zone favorable to her industrial activities, not unlike North America and Europe”; hence it was ridiculous to include Japan in this group of special countries. The labor element of the delegation designated this committee as “Eta-mura,” or the Outcast-community, “ Eta” being the most detested and despised social outcasts in Japan and their name the synonym for an object of scandal. However, at the first meeting of the Committee, it was proposed that the name of the Committee should be altered and that it should thenceforth be called the ‘“Committee on Special Countries.” Without objection, the proposal, ap- parently innocent, was adopted; the result was that Japan, a non-tropical country, had as much right as a tropical country to remain in the group, as long as she claimed that special conditions existed in Japan. The Committee held 14 sessions altogether, and each session was a scene of acrimonious debate.” In spite of 1See The Minority Report presented by '‘Shichiro Muto, substitute for the labor delegate from Japan, Prov. Rec., p. 325. 2The best reference for this committee’s proceedings is the Report by Prof. H. W. Hetherington, secretary of the Committee on Special Countries. 222 INTERNATIONAL LABOR LEGISLATION [590 the admirable efforts of the chairman, George N. Barnes, the Committee failed to arrive at complete unanimity. The claim of the Japanese labor delegate that Japan should not be treated as a special country came as the minority re- port to the plenary session of the conference. The whole- hearted support of the European labor delegates was en- listed in favor of the minority report and they demonstrated their solidarity when the conference took up the majority and minority reports for deliberation on November 27.* The united attack on Japan by all the leading European labor delegates and their protest against granting her spec- ially longer hours than other industrial nations, lasted for nearly four hours while the government delegates rebutted at length.” The situation was finally relieved by the strong and appealing speech made by the reporter, George N. Barnes, who eloquently demonstrated the injustice of forcing the eight-hour day upon Japanese Industry. The situation was tense and dramatic; finally the majority report was adopted by the close vote of 45 to 43. The majority report of the committee, which was adopted, recommended that Japan be granted a “ delay” of five years for applying the provisions of the main con- vention. In the meantime the following modifications were adopted: Coal mining and work in the quarries must be immediately brought under the main convention, but for the silk industry a 60-hour week is allowed, while all other industries “ might be operated on a basis of a 9!4-hour daily maximum or a 57-hour week.” It is further provided that a factory, to be brought within the scope of the Fac- tory Law, should be one employing to persons or more in- stead of 15 as hitherto provided. The 48-hour week must 1See Prov. Rec., pp. 423-432, roth day, Nov. 27, 1919. 2See the drastic motion presented by Jouhaux, Oudegeest and Mertens, Prov. Rec., p. 468, 20th day, Nov. 28, 1919. 591] THE WASHINGTON CONFERENCE OF 1919 223 also apply to children under 15 years of age. Furthermore a weekly rest period of 24 consecutive hours must be uni- versally provided; and overtime must be arranged for in conformity to the provisions of the main convention.* 5. India’s case; convention applying to India It can be summarily stated that the greatest difficulty which is encountered by conferences of this description does not, as may be commonly expected, come from countries which are totally undeveloped. On the contrary, inasmuch as the endeavor of a conference is to set up a standard applicable to as many of the countries participating in the standardization as is practicable, on the demiocratic basis of equality, either the totally undeveloped or the extremely advanced are excluded from consideration as a whole and the difficulty is experienced in adjusting the claims of the countries where industry is only partially developed or where the development is in a transition stage from unorgan- ized family industry to the modern factory system. The lack of experience in labor legislation, the insecure and inadequate equipment for the administration of protective laws, the absence of organization of labor and capital with power to prosecute efficiently agreements as to standards of hours, wages and conditions of work; these are the com- mon features found in the countries in the Orient, in the tropics and in places where the factory system of produc- tion is not widely developed. India is no exception from this general rule.” 1See article 9, a-h of the Draft Convention on the Hours of Work. 2 See the Foundation of the Indian Economics by R. Mukerjee. The author of this voluminous work denies that India is industrially un- developed. Instead, he sets forth a claim that India has developed her industry along the lines peculiar to herself which are normal and unlike the materialistic development of the west. 224 INTERNATIONAL LABOR LEGISLATION [592 Due to the absence of organized labor, the delegate sent to the conference as representative of labor in India was such practically only in name and therefore was without the authority, or the authoritative background, which other labor delegates possessed with the backing of the organized millions of workers in their respective countries. This was an obvious handicap on the part of the Indian labor delegate although his zeal and sincere efforts to promote the best interests of his fellow toilers at home were admir- ably demonstrated on various occasions. Statements made by W. V. Joshi, the representative of Indian labor at the meetings of the Committee on Special! Countries were chal- lenged and contradicted by both the employers’ and govern- ment delegates who asserted that the vast majority of workers in India would not accept Mr. Joshi’s statements. In such cases, Mr. Joshi would simply state that in his “opinion,” the workers in India would want shorter hours, better wages and such conditions of work as he pro- posed. In considering the case cf India as a “ special country ” to which modifications of the main convention should apply, the committee had the advantage of access to a good deal of information regarding industrial conditions, officially supplied by the Indian government.* In addition the government, employers’ and workers’ delegates supplied abundance of information, pertinent to the question of hours of work, but even all this information could not be considered complete or even adequate to permit of a final decision as to what should be done to India. The immense size of the country and the wide differences. in the condi- tions obtaining in the various provinces made it difficult 1 This information is found in Report iv, appendix A, pp. 27-33, of the Organizing Committee to the International Labor ‘Conference. Published ‘September, 1919, Govt. Ptg. Office, Washington, D. C. 593] THE WASHINGTON CONFERENCE OF 1919 228 to generalize the situation or to apply any uniform standard. The outstanding feature was not so much the absence of industries, as the limited number of industries sufficiently organized to justify limitations of any kind. Thus, to use the expression of the Committee’s report, “in India con- ditions do not approximate to anything which is known in the western world.” * Nevertheless, generally speaking, it is safe to assume that the total number of workers employed in industry in India, including factories, mines, railways, efc., is relatively small,’ the predominant occupation being agriculture, which as carried on usually on a small scale. So far as the figures available show, there were in 1915 only 1,135,147 persons. employed in industry, including both the public and private establishments coming under the operation of the Factory Act of 1911. When we consider that the total population of India is safely above 300,000,000, this small number is insignificant. Of this number, 99,291 were employed in 171 establishments under cither the government or other public bodies, while 1,035,856 were employed in private companies or by individuals. According to the Memoran- dum presented by M. R. Murray, the employers’ delegate from India, the latest available figures showed that during 1918, the average number of workers employed in and about the mines regulated by the Indian Mines Act was 237,738. He claimed that “the total number of workers in organized industry and mines together would therefore ‘amount to only 0.4% of the people of India.” 1See column 2, pp. 323, of the Provisional Record, 16th day, Nov. 24, I9I9. 2The best authority on this subject is the Report of the Director of Statistics, the last copy of which is dated “Calcutta, March 14, 1918.” ‘This is the only publication which attempts to give figures regarding the number of workers employed in industrial undertakings. The figures are for 1915 only and cover only the factories coming under the Indian Factory Act of 1911. Mines are excluded. 226 INTERNATIONAL LABOR LEGISLATION [594 Considering now the “ industrial ” undertakings: in 1915 there were 279 cotton spinning and weaving mills employ- ing 274,467 workers and 73 jute mills with 251,173 work- ers. As for the remaining 3701 establishments with a total of 609,507 workers, the average per establishment would amount to only 164 employees. It should be noted in this connection that these figures include cotton ginning and jute pressing, both of which are seasonal occupations employing as many as 154,668 persons during the harvest- ing of the cotton and jute crops. Leaving aside for a while the cotton and jute industries, there are only 454,839 workers engaged in railways, engineering workshops, iron and brass foundries, rice mills, printing presses, arsenals, dockyards, sugar and tobacco factories and other works of various descriptions. In 1917, this being the most recent date for which the information is available,’ there were 1,076,201 persons em- ployed in factories in the twelve provinces of India coming under the operation of the Indian Factory Act.? Of these workers 907,103 or 84% were males and 169,098 or only 16% were females. 857,221 were men and 158,644 were women, making altogether 1,015,865 or over 94% adults while 60.336 or barely 6% were children under the age of 14 years. Under such circumstances, even if other considerations were temporarily suspended, it would seem that the rigid application of the 8-hour day to India should not be con- sidered a pressing issue.