Cornell University Library 
 
 HD6515.B75S3 
 
 The brewing Industry and the brewery wor 
 
 
 
 !|i 
 
 II 
 
 ll 
 
 il 
 
 
 
 •1 
 
 1, 
 
 • 1 
 
 r 
 
 ii 
 
 :i 
 
 II 
 
 II 
 
 ill 
 
 
 3 1924 002 335 127 
 
•.J -■'■> 
 
 (-1 
 
 c.r 
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 NEW YORK STATE SCHOOL 
 
 OF 
 
 INDUSTRIAL AND LABOR 
 
 RELATIONS 
 
 AT 
 CORNELL UNIVERSITY 
 
The original of tliis book is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924002335127 
 
The Brewing Industry 
 
 ad the 
 
 Brewery Workers' Movement 
 in America 
 
 By HERMANN SCHLUTER. 
 
 PROPERTY Cr L?'!'F?ARY 
 
 NEW ycf:;( ^-k r^^rn 
 
 INDUSTRIE ArCLAluii U}nii,i:^ 
 
 CORNELL UNIVERSITY 
 
 ONCINNATI. O. 
 Published by the Internadonal Union of United Breweiy Workmen of America. 
 
 1910. 
 
Copyright 1910 
 
 BY 
 
 The Int. Union United Brewery Workmen 
 OF America. 
 
 press of 
 
 . rosenthal & co. 
 
 cincinnati, o. 
 
ip<iDE;:x:. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 Preface 7 
 
 PART I. 
 
 The Beer-Brewing Industry. 
 
 Introducrion 13 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 The Beer-Brewing Industry in the Middle Ages. 
 
 1. In Germany 18 
 
 2. In England 20 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 The Beer-Brewing Industry in the American Colonial Period. 
 
 1. New England 24 
 
 2. New Amsterdam 27 
 
 3. The Middle and Southern Colonies 34 
 
 4. The Decline of Beer-Brewing in the Colonies 38 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 The Modern Beer-Brewing Industry. 
 
 1. The Beginnings 42 
 
 2. Lager-Beer 51 
 
 3. From Small Production to Great Indhistry 56 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 Brewing as a Great Industry. 
 
 1. The Development of Capitalism During the Civil War 60 
 
 \ Capitalism in the Beer-Brewing Industry 62 
 
 |3. The Concentration of the Industry 69 
 
 4. The Organization of the Brewery Capitalists 76 
 
 5. Comparative Review •_■ •, 82 
 
4 Index. 
 
 PART 11. 
 The Brewery Workmen's Movement. 
 
 CHAPTER I. PACE. 
 
 Prior to Organization 89 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 Beginnings of Organization. 
 
 1. The First Attempts 95 
 
 2. The First Brewery Workmen's Unions 100 
 
 3. The Strike of 1881 104 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 Permanent Organization. 
 
 1. Consequences of the Defeat 108 
 
 2. The Order of the Knights of Labor 110 
 
 3. Renewed Organization of the Brewery Workmen 114 
 
 4. The Labor Movement of 1886 119 
 
 5. Foundation of Brewers' Unions Throughout the Country 121 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 The Founding of the United Brewery Workmen and the 
 
 First Victories. 
 
 1. The First Convention 128 
 
 2. The Founding of the Brewers' Journal 131 
 
 3. The Convention in Detroit 133 
 
 4. Achievements 138 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 The Struggle of 1888. 
 
 1. The Brewery Capitalists and the Labor Movement 142 
 
 2. The Outbreak of the Struggle in Milwaukee 146 
 
 3. The Brewers' Pool in New York 148 
 
 4. The Lockout in New York 153 
 
 5. Before the State Board of Arbitration 160 
 
 6. The Struggle Through the Country 166 
 
 7. Special Conference in Chicago 168 
 
Index. 5 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 The Development of the United Brewery Workmen. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 1. Dark Times 171 
 
 2. Struggle and Strife on the Pacific Coast 173 
 
 3. A Change for the Better 177 
 
 4. Growth of the Organization 180 
 
 5. The Course of the Struggle in N'ew York 188 
 
 6. Termination of the Struggle in New York and Its Con- 
 
 sequences 196 
 
 7. On Firm Ground 204 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 The American Federation of Labor and the Brewery Workmen. 
 
 1. Founding of the Federation 209 
 
 2. The Knights of Labor and the Federation of Labor 212 
 
 3. Jurisdiction Disputes 219 
 
 4. Antagonism Between the Federation and the Brewers 222 
 
 5. Indlustrial or Trade Organization 229 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 Labor-Union and Political Organization. 
 
 1. The Labor-Union and Its Weapons 234 
 
 2. Political Action 243 
 
 3. The Brewery Workmen and the Political Struggle 247 
 
 4. The Brewery Workmen and Capitalist Politics 252 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 Hygienic Conditions of the Brewery Workmen. 
 
 1. Diseases of the Trade 254 
 
 2. Accidents 257 
 
 3. Causes and Remedy 258 
 
 4. Free Beer 261 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 Achievements and Prospects. 
 
 1. Condition of the Organized Brewery Workmen 264 
 
 2. Possibilities of Expansion of the Organization 270 
 
 3. The Need for Enlightenment 274 
 
6 Index. 
 
 PART III. 
 Obstacles to the Development of the Brewing Industry. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 Prohibition and Sunday Closing. tmsb. 
 
 1. The Puritans 281 
 
 2. The Saloon and Sunday Closing 286 
 
 3. Sunday Laws and Professional Politicians 292 
 
 4. The Prohibition Movement 295 
 
 5. The Brewing Industry and Prohibition 300 
 
 CHAPTER 11. 
 Workingmen and Prohibition. 
 
 1. The Social Aspect of the Alcohol Question 304 
 
 2. The Position; of the Workingmen with Regard to Prohibition 307 
 
 3. Workingmen and the Sunday Question 311' 
 
 CHAPTER in. 
 Taxes and the Brewing Industry. 
 
 1. The Brewing Industry and the Rulers 315 
 
 2. Taxation of Beer in Modern Times 321 
 
 3. Who Pays the Indirect Taxes? 326 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 /^NLY in very recent times, and then only to a very 
 ^^ imperfect degree, is it possible to gather from the 
 historical records of any industry any information with 
 regard to the conditions of the workingmen and the part 
 played by them in industrial development. 
 
 This applies especially to the scanty literature which 
 deals with the development of the beer-brewing industry 
 in the United States. In this literature the brewery work- 
 men receive no attention, and one who seeks to learn 
 something of their condition must have recourse to 
 occasional publications in old newspapers and to verbal 
 tradition. 
 
 The present work undertakes, therefore, besides the 
 historical account of the development of the beer-brewing 
 industry, to portray' the conditions of the workmen em- 
 ployed in it, to show the development of the organization 
 which they founded in order to better their lot, to record 
 the struggles which they had to wage in defense of their 
 interests. In contrast to former writings on the brewing 
 industry in this country, it is the purpose of the present 
 work to emphasize the part played by the workingmen in 
 the industry and to treat the subject from the working- 
 men's standpoint. It is not a "non-partisan" work which is 
 here offered, but one which seeks to advance the interests 
 of the workers. 
 
 The significance of the trade unions and of the labor 
 movement generally for the working class can be seen all 
 the more clearly in the history of the brewery workmen's 
 movement and its development, because this movement 
 began only a comparatively short time ago; the difference 
 in the condition of the workmen before and after the 
 
8 Preface. 
 
 organization exhibits a contrast which must convince 
 everyone of the advantage of trade unions and the struggle 
 of the workingmen for the improvement of their condition. 
 For the brewery workmen themselves the history of their 
 organization is of importance because the knowledge 
 gained thereby will enable them to make use of the 
 lessons of the past in their present and future struggles — 
 to correct the errors which were formerly committed, and 
 to give due consideration in the future struggles to the 
 weapons which were useful in the past. 
 
 Not only for the brewery workmen, but for workmen 
 of other trades, this history of the brewery workmen's 
 movement contains many a valuable lesson and many a 
 good example. The progressive and militant spirit of the 
 organization, especially the extraordinary solidarity which 
 has obtained in the brewery workmen's movement, were 
 the causes of the rapid success which was achieved. 
 Without these it would have been impossible to gain the 
 advantages which the Brewery Workmen's Union has 
 won — that improvement which has actually come about 
 in the condition of the brewery workmen in the last 
 quarter of a century. The whole working class can learn 
 from the history of the brewery workmen how and in 
 what spirit trade struggles must be conducted. 
 
 Not only the working class, however, but the capitalists 
 also, may be able to learn something from this work. It 
 is possible that there are still a few brewery capitalists 
 here and there who imagine that the time will come when 
 the brewery workmen's organization will be annihilated 
 and the former idyllic conditions will return. If any 
 such there be, let it be said to them here that in reading 
 this book they may learn that modern industry and the 
 modern labor movement are indissolubly connected, that 
 the existence of the one without the other is hardly con- 
 ceivable, and that the trade and labor movement is a 
 
Preface. « 
 
 necessary result of the industrial development of any trade. 
 They who would conduct production on a large scale and 
 turn out goods by the method of great industry, must take 
 into account the labor movement with its struggles and 
 victories. The greater number of the brewery capitalists 
 have come to recognize this and have become familiar with 
 the idea that the brewers' unions and the United Brewery 
 Workmen are things which they must take into account, 
 in one form or another, as long as capital and wage- 
 labor exist. 
 
 The various questions which have arisen in the brewery 
 workers* organization in the course of time and which are 
 considered in this work are here all judged from the point 
 of view of the entire labor movement. The welfare of 
 the whole working class, and the advancement of its 
 aspirations, not merely the welfare of any single group 
 or trade, ought to be the supreme law for all who consider 
 themselves the spokesmen of labor. The general -accept- 
 ance of this fundamental principle in the trade-union move- 
 ment of this country would free it from the narrow-minded 
 character which is still to be found in many of its more 
 conservative branches and which is detrimental to the 
 movement as a whole. 
 
 ~A discussion of the Prohibition movement and all that 
 is related to it could not be omitted from a work treating 
 of the brewing industry in a country where, more than in 
 any other land, the efforts of the Prohibitionists have come 
 into conflict with the brewery interests. But in this, as 
 in all other matters, the interests of the workers differ from 
 those of the capitalists in the industry. In this matter 
 also the workingmen must follow their own course and 
 represent their own class interests, which are not identical 
 either with those of the Prohibitionists or with those of 
 the brewery capitalists. The position of the brewery 
 
10 Preface. 
 
 workmen with regard to this question is here considered 
 from this point of view. 
 
 May the brewery workmen learn from their own his- 
 tory that a firm and unified organization is necessary to 
 maintain and improve their condition, and that constant 
 readiness* for battle is half the victory. May the record 
 of their struggles in the past inspire them to new endeavors 
 for the attainment of that great goal toward which the 
 whole progressive labor movement of the world is striving 
 — the emancipation of labor from all the fetters which 
 oppress it today. 
 
 The Author. 
 New York, ipop. 
 
PART I. 
 
 The Beer-Brewing Industry. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 r^ROM the time when man first took up the struggle 
 A for food, clothing and shelter, when men's activities 
 were first directed to labor — ^that is, to definite efiforts to 
 supply themselves with the necessities of life, we find, in 
 accordance with the scriptural saying that "man shall not 
 live by bread alone," the production and use of intoxicating 
 drinks. Hardly any people has been able to dispense with 
 the stimulating effect of such drinks. The most ancient 
 traditions give an account of the production of beverages 
 made by the fermentation of saccharine liquids. The 
 biblical antiquity of wine production is well known. 
 Travelers among peoples never before reached by civiliza- 
 tion find even there intoxicating beverages of various 
 kinds. It would seem that the only regions in which such 
 drinks have not achieved a lasting domination are those 
 countries where opium, hashish, or similar substances 
 serve the purpose of helping men to forget for a while 
 their daily sufferings and anxieties. 
 
 As has been said, the Bible tells stories of the effects 
 of excessive indulgence in wine. In very early times we 
 learn also of beverages produced by the fermentation of 
 some kind of grain. This "beer" of ancient times, it is 
 true, was very different from the beverage which is known 
 under that name by all civilized peoples today. Our 
 modern beer is indeed the product of a long development, 
 and the production of this beverage is influenced by social 
 conditions. But at any rate it may be said that the pro- 
 duction of intoxicating drinks from grain, often flavored 
 with aromatic substances, has appeared wherever man has 
 acquired the art of cultivating the soil and has adopted a 
 more or less settled habitation, except only in those 
 countries where the use of other means of intoxication 
 
14 Introduction. 
 
 and stimulation have made the use of fermented drinks 
 unnecessary. 
 
 Our oldest records of the making of drinks by the 
 fermentation of grain come from ancient Egypt. The 
 traditions related that Osiris, an Egyptian king, introduced 
 beer into his realm two thousand years before the time 
 of Christ. In this case truth surpasses fiction. From 
 papyrus documents and inscriptions which have been 
 found in Egyptian tombs and ruins, it appears that some- 
 thing known as "barley-wine," and even several kinds of 
 it, were produced in this ancient civilization as much as 
 five thousand years ago. An exact description of a 
 Pharaonic brewery has been discovered, and in sepulchral 
 inscriptions have been found recipes for the making of 
 beer. From Greek writers it seems that five himdred 
 years before our era this barley wine was the common 
 drink of the Egyptians. In Egyptian tombs has been 
 found malted barley which had been preserved there for 
 thousands of years. We are told, indeed, that the students 
 of ancient Egypt were very fond of beer, and that not 
 infrequently they forgot their studies over their cups, as 
 sometimes happens in modern times. It is certain, then, 
 that the ancient Egyptians produced a beer-like beverage 
 by transforming barley into malt, adding saffron and other 
 spices, and allowing it to ferment. There was even an 
 Egyptian Munich ; Pelusium, a city at the mouth of the 
 Nile, was famous as a beer city. 
 
 It was not only the Egyptians who learned the art of 
 brewing at an early period; it was familiar also to the 
 ancient civilizations of Asia. As early as 1100 B. C. the 
 Chinese government issued decrees forbidding the exces- 
 sive drinking of beer. This Chinese beer was probably 
 made from rice. It is an interesting fact that among the 
 Chinese of that time we find drinking customs which are 
 almost identical with those of the present. The "Rund- 
 
Introduction. 15 
 
 trinken" — that is, the passing around of a filled horn from 
 which all drank in turn — ^which is so popular in modern 
 drinking clubs and among students and turners, was in 
 vogue in ancient China. The drinking of healths, toasts, 
 and similar drinking customs also prevailed. In fact, the 
 old Chinese seem to have been so fond of health-drinking 
 that their religious teacher, Confucius, deemed it necessary 
 to preach emphatically against the drinking of intoxicating 
 liquors, just as our religious leaders feel themselves called 
 upon to do today. 
 
 In ancient India, at the same period, they brewed a 
 beverage for the making of which malt was used. This 
 fermented drink, called "soma," was used in their religious 
 ceremonies. The Hindus, in whose religious observances 
 intoxication played an important part, used to pray to 
 their god : "O Indra, we call upon you to sit down among 
 us and get drunk with us, your friends !" 
 
 The preparation of beer seems to have come to the 
 northern peoples from Egypt, but it is possible that it 
 was independently developed among them. In wine coun- 
 tries, such as Italy and Greece, the beer brewing industry 
 could not make any headway. Indeed, beer was despised 
 in these countries. In many Mediterranean lands, how- 
 ever, where beer is practically unknown today, we find that 
 before and at the beginning of the Christian era there was 
 a comparatively large use of beer-like beverages. Among 
 the Iberians of the present Spain a kind of beer was made 
 from barley and wheat. They soaked the grain in water 
 and kept it warm till it sprouted. Then it was dried and 
 ground into a meal and used for the preparation of a fer- 
 mented drink. In Gaul also a similar beverage was in 
 use, and it is said that in some backward parts of France, 
 England and Belgium, with an originally Keltic popula- 
 tion, this Keltic beer has continued in use to the 
 present day. 
 
16 introduction. 
 
 Among the peoples of Asia Minor, especially on the 
 Black Sea coasts, we find beer at an early time as the 
 national drink. Even about 400 B. C. the Armenians in 
 Asia Minor produced a barley wine which was highly 
 intoxicating and which they drank through straws because 
 the grains of barley swam in the liquid. About 700 B. C. 
 we learn that the Phrygians and Thracians drank beer, 
 and it is further reported that some tribes on the Black 
 Sea used beer to intoxicate their warriors before they went 
 into battle. These means are said to be still used today 
 to inspire soldiers with martial ardor when they are sent 
 out to meet death by the rulers of the earth. 
 
 It is reported by Roman writers that the national drink 
 of the ancient Germans was a beverage made of barley 
 and wheat. It also appears that they were then familiar 
 with the preparation of malt. 
 
 Thus we see that in almost all countries of antiquity 
 the preparation of beverages by fermentation from grain 
 was in vogue, and that only where other drinks, especially 
 wine, made these beer-like beverages superfluous beer 
 brewing did not thrive. 
 
 These beers of antiquity were all made without hops, 
 except perhaps in China, where hops were used at an 
 early date to flavor the beer. In the brewing of ancient 
 countries, however, we find other aromatic plants used 
 for flavoring beer. In some places, for example, young 
 sprigs of pine were added to the beverage. It has not 
 yet been established with certainty just when the use of 
 hops began. It seems that this plant was brought into 
 Europe from the East by the barbarian migrations. Hop 
 gardens are first mentioned in a grant which was issued 
 in the year 768. But it is not certain whether hops were 
 at that time used for the preparation of beer. A German 
 abbess states later that hops were not used in beer-brewing 
 until the eleventh century. About 1070 hops were very 
 
Introduction. 17 
 
 commonly planted in the province of Magdeburg and 
 in Bavaria. 
 
 The word "beer" is of German origin. The etymology 
 is disputed. While some scholars derive it from the Old 
 Saxon "here" (barley), others trace it to the Old German 
 "peor" (also "bior," "pier") and Middle Latin "biber" or 
 "biberis" (beverage). Another old Germanic expression 
 for beer was "alu" ("alo," "ealo"), which has remained 
 in the English "ale." 
 
 ■By the legendary "inventor" of beer-brewing, Gam- 
 brinus, who, as we have seen, had in reality nothing to do 
 with the invention of this art, is to be understood Jan 
 Primus, (Johann the First), Duke of Brabant, of whose 
 name Gambrinus is a corruption. Jan Primus lived at 
 the end of the twelfth century and was made an honorary 
 member of the brewing guild of Brussels ; when in the 
 fourteenth century brewers' guilds were formed all over, 
 they selected "King Gambrinus," who in the meantime 
 had become a legendary figure, as their patron. 
 
 We see that the history of beer-brewing reaches back 
 into the oldest records of mankind. Even when historic 
 facts are lost in the mist of legend, the traditions tell of 
 beverages which the primitive peoples prepared by fer- 
 menting grains. 
 
 "There is nothing new under the sun !" 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 The Beer-Brewing Industry in the Middle Ages. 
 
 1. IN GERMANY. 
 
 IN studying the development of the beer-brewing in- 
 dustry in the Middle Ages it is important to consider the 
 part played by the monasteries and their inmates. 
 Originally the preparation of beer was a part of the work 
 of the household, and as such was performed principally 
 by the women. In the ninth century the monasteries 
 began to take up the brewing of beer. They erected 
 larger brewhouses, in which beer of the best quality was 
 produced in larger quantities. As early as the year 816 
 the monastery of St. Gallen had its brewhouse, and two 
 centuries later we find that not only all the larger mon- 
 asteries, but also all the important courts and castles of 
 the rulers had their own brewing plants. From the 
 monasteries brewing passed into the cities, which began 
 to develop principally in the tenth and eleventh centuries. 
 In the eleventh century beer was drunk in Hamburg, 
 which came from Bremen, Brunswick, Halberstadt, 
 Wismar, and Goslar. Until the fourteenth century, first 
 Bremen and then Hamburg played an important part in 
 the brewing industry. In the thirteenth century we find 
 breweries existing in all the larger cities of Middle and 
 South Germany. Home brewing was the rule, and the 
 licensed brewer brewed as much as he could sell. Then 
 came the municipal brewhouses, in which each inhabitant 
 might brew his own beer, in a certain order and at a fixed 
 time, paying a tax to the city for the privilege. 
 
 The cities charged a duty on the importation of beer 
 made in other places, and in some cases innkeepers were 
 even forbidden to sell it. Princes and bishops even at 
 
In Germany. 19 
 
 this time saw that the brewing business would furnish 
 an excellent means of filling their pockets. They claimed 
 the brewing and sale of beer as their exclusive right and 
 granted the privilege of selling it only on condition of 
 large payments to themselves. The taxation of beer and 
 punishment for evasion of the tax were even then wide- 
 spread. At Aix in the year 1272 such evasion of the beer 
 tax was punished by chopping off the right hand, and 
 the law provided that the house in which beer was brewed 
 without the tax having been paid should be demolished. 
 The brewers who made bad beer were not treated quite so 
 severely. At Dantzig they were set in the pillory. 
 
 The grain then principally used in brewing was barley, 
 though wheat was also employed to some extent. Only 
 in years when there was a bad harvest and therefore a 
 shortage of bread, the use of oats was officially prescribed. 
 This happened at Augsburg in 1433 and at Breslau in 
 1533. In the latter city, about the year 1300, we find that 
 malting was a separate business from brewing. In 1290 
 at Nuremberg a decree was issued commanding that 
 brewers use barley and expressly forbidding the use of 
 oats, spelt, rye, or wheat. 
 
 In the fourteenth century North Germany was the 
 chief seat of the beer-brewing industry, and from that 
 time till the sixteenth century it flourished in all the 
 Hansa cities. From these cities much beer was exported, 
 and Hamburg beer even reached Asia by way of Novgorod 
 in Russia. In the year 1376 Hamburg is said to have 
 had no less than 1,075 breweries; we must not imagine, 
 however, that these were large establishments like those 
 of modern times. The Hansards knew how to stimulate 
 the spirits of their soldiers by the use of fermented drinks. 
 In the year 1399, when seven Hansa cities decided to lay 
 siege to Stockholm, it was agreed that certain ones of 
 them were to send large quantities of beer in order to 
 
20 The Beer-Brewing Industry in the Middle Ages. 
 
 raise the fighting spirit of the men. Einbecker beer, made 
 in the Hanoverian city of Einbeck, had a particularly- 
 high reputation in the Middle Ages. It is said that 
 Einbecker beer was sent as far as Jerusalem. In the 
 large cities of Germany there were special houses where 
 this beer was sold. The Einbecker House in Hamburg 
 was in existence till the great fire of 1842. What Munich 
 is today, that was Einbeck in the Middle Ages — the beer 
 city par excellence. Only the devastations of the Thirty 
 Years' war put an end to the fame of Einbeck as a brewing 
 city and to the importance of the brewing industry 
 throughout North Germany. 
 
 2. IN ENGLAND. 
 
 At the end of the ancient and beginning of the 
 medieval period the art of beer-brewing was not confined 
 to Germany; in England it was then no less developed. 
 The art had been brought over from France, and the 
 method of preparation was similar to that already de- 
 scribed as in use in Spain. 
 
 Excessive indulgence in beer had a bad effect upon 
 the English people at this period. Drunkenness was 
 very common in England in the eighth century, and 
 priests and monks did not set a good example to the 
 common folk in this respect. The church and its associa- 
 tions actually promoted the drink habit. The great 
 number of festivals which the church held in honor of 
 the numerous saints developed into regular drinking 
 bouts. Drinking went on even inside the church. Beer 
 was brewed specially for these festivals, and the people 
 who attended them also brought quantities with them 
 from home. Those were thirsty times, and we may be 
 sure that no one left the festival till the last drop was 
 finished in honor of the saint. 
 
In England. 21 
 
 Such excessive drinking at church festivals is found 
 also in Denmark and Germany at this time. It is partly 
 to be explained by the fact that attendance at the festivals 
 was not prompted solely- by religious motives; in the 
 main what brought the people together was the oppor- 
 tunity found to transact their business there, to sell their 
 products and to buy whatever they needed. Various 
 kinds of handicraft were carried on in the monasteries 
 and at the festivals the products were sold to the peasants. 
 
 In the centuries that followed the people of England 
 were never averse to taking a drop. The masses drank 
 ale, beer, and mead; but among the rich, and especially 
 in the monasteries, the use of wine gained ground. It 
 is historically reported that at the battle of Hastings, 
 which was fought between the English and the Normans 
 in the year 1066, the whole English army was drunk when 
 it went into action. Here again the old means were used by 
 those in power to instill a fighting spirit into the warriors. 
 
 In general, each household looked out for the satisfac- 
 tion of its own thirst ; that is, each family brewed enough 
 beer for its own use. Only in the monasteries was beer 
 made in larger quantities. The numerous "ale houses," 
 which were already very common in England in the 
 eighth century, also brewed their own supplies. These 
 ale houses were mostly kept by women, who were not 
 always of the most virtuous character, and their great 
 number promoted the drinking habit. The authorities 
 frequently tried, by various regulations, to check drunken- 
 ness and elevate the general moral tone. They aimed to 
 permit only one ale house in each place and to set a limit 
 to the amount of beer that could be brewed or sold at 
 each, by limiting the amount of grain which the owner 
 was permitted to purchase; whoever bought more was 
 punished in the most cruel manner of the times. Beer 
 was cheap, in spite of the high value of money. For one 
 
22 The Beer-Brewing Industry in the Middle Ages. 
 
 penny one could get three or four gallons of beer or ale. 
 Later on, the price of the drink was regulated by the 
 authorities according to the price of grain. In the year 
 1266 it was provided that when wheat cost three shillings 
 to three shillings fourpence a- quarter (eight bushels), 
 barley Is. 8d., and oats Is. 4d., brewers in the cities must 
 sell two gallons of beer or ale for a penny. In the rural 
 districts they had to sell three or four gallons for a penny. 
 By the middle of the fifteenth century the price of beer 
 had risen considerably. The best quality was sold at 
 twopence a gallon, second quality at a penny, and third 
 grade at a halfpenny a gallon. 
 
 As already mentioned, the ale houses were usually 
 kept by women. The frequenters of these houses also 
 were not confined to the male sex. The English women 
 of that time liked a good drink and furnished a steady 
 contingent of visitors to the drinking places. To combine 
 use with pleasure, they used to bring food with them — 
 "sometimes fish and sometimes flesh," as a song of the 
 time says — and ate and drank together. It is said that 
 our picnics grew out of this custom. 
 
 It is not quite clear how beer differed from ale before 
 the use of hops was introduced. Both terms were in use 
 in England. Not until 1440 were hops added to the 
 beer; but before that time various other aromatic sub- 
 stances were used to flavor the drink — pepper, nutmeg, 
 ground-ivy, and other materials. Oak and ash bark were 
 also added to beer. Hops came to England by way of 
 Holland. Their use met with much opposition and was 
 frequently entirely forbidden because the plant was sup- 
 posed to be injurious to health. From that time on the 
 beverage made with hops was called beer and that without 
 hops ale. But later on it became customary to add hops 
 even to ale, in order to make it keep longer. In the year 
 1440 the difference between ale and beer was defined as 
 
In England. 23 
 
 being, that ale had to be used while fresh, while beer was 
 made to keep by the use of hops. An especially good 
 and strong brew was at that time made in March. The 
 Englishman had his "March ale" as the German now has 
 his "Marzen-bier." It is most likely that this term and 
 this custom was carried from one country to the other, 
 perhaps by traveling monks, the principal artists in the 
 beer-brewing of that time. 
 
 To what an extent beer-brewing went on in England 
 in the Middle Ages and how great was the consumption 
 of beer by the people is shown by the fact that in the 
 year 1650 in the city of London 1,500,000 barrels of beer 
 were sold. Not less than 13,000,000 barrels were con- 
 sumed yearly in England, and that country then had a 
 population of 5,000,000. This means more than two and 
 a half barrels per head, counting men, women and children. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 The Beer-Brewing Industry in the American 
 Colonial Period. 
 
 1. NEW ENGLAND. 
 
 IN view of the extensive use of beer in England and the 
 importance of the brewing industry at that time, it is 
 but natural that with the settling of North America by 
 the English the preparation and consumption of beer was 
 brought over to this country. 
 
 In December, 1620, the Pilgrim Fathers landed in 
 the harbor of Plymouth. When a small party went on 
 shore to reconnoitre and found no water to quench their 
 thirst, one of them laughingly remarked that it was a 
 pity they had not brought along some beer from the supply 
 on board the Mayflower. The Christmas festival was 
 celebrated on board the Mayflower, it is reported, with a 
 good drink of beer, a proof that the Puritans of that 
 time, unHke their successors, knew how to combine 
 their religious observance and convictions with the use 
 of alcoholic beverages. 
 
 In the first year of the settlement the colonists planted 
 the grain necessary for brewing beer, but with poor result, 
 for the soil of Massachusetts was not well suited for the 
 raising of barley. They therefore imported the materials 
 for brewing, and also some beer itself, from England. In 
 the year 1629 forty-five barrels of beer and four hundred- 
 weight of hops were brought to Massachusetts Bay at 
 one shipment. Malt was also imported after the attempt 
 to make it from maize had been tried with but slight suc- 
 cess. A poem of that time informs us that the Pilgrim 
 Fathers had such a tremendous thirst after alcoholic 
 drinks that for want of beer they made intoxicating 
 
New England. 25 
 
 beverages out of pumpkins, parsnips, and shavings of 
 walnut wood. 
 
 John Jenney was the first professional brewer who 
 came to Plymouth, in 1623, but it is not known whether 
 he pursued his trade in the colonies. In the beginning, 
 brewing in America was naturally a domestic occupation ; 
 the colonists brewed beer, just as they baked bread, for 
 the use of their own families. The government of the 
 colony, however, soon discovered that the taxation of 
 beer was an excellent means of meeting the public 
 expenses. As early as 1637 the General Court of Massa- 
 chusetts enacted a law imposing a fine of one hundred 
 pounds on any person who should brew "beer, malt, or 
 other beverages" without a license; it is possible that 
 this referred only to the brewing of beverages for sale, 
 while brewing in one's house for household use was free 
 to all. At this time the same authorities granted a 
 monopoly of brewing to a certain Captain Sedgwick, who 
 had already erected a brew-house "at his own expense," 
 as was strongly emphasized. 
 
 The saloon license and the advantages which it gives 
 to the authorities were also soon discovered by the shrewd 
 Pilgrim Fathers. In 1634 the first tavern license was 
 issued in Boston to one Samuel Cole, to whom the right 
 of selling beer was granted. Two decades after the 
 founding of the colony there existed a number of places 
 where one could get a draught of beer for money and a 
 few pleasant words. 
 
 The government of the colony made various regula- 
 tions in regard to the preparation, price, and sale of beer. 
 In 1637 the brewers of Massachusetts were forbidden 
 to sell stronger beers to tavern keepers than such as cost 
 eight shillings a barrel. In 1640 it was decreed that no 
 one should be allowed to brew beer unless he was a good 
 brewer. The price of beer was also regulated. Beer that 
 
26 The Beer-Brewing Industry in the American Colonial Period. 
 
 sold for threepence per quart had to contain six bushels 
 of malt per hogshead; beer for twopence per quart, four 
 bushels; at one penny a quart, two bushels; and less 
 proportionately. In 1645 the price of beer was fixed at 
 twopence a quart. In 1677 is was officially decreed in 
 Massachusetts that beer which contained three bushels 
 of malt per barrel was to be sold at threepence a quart. 
 Every additional bushel of malt per barrel raised the price 
 of beer one penny. In spite of all their piety, the Pilgrim 
 Fathers seem at an early time to have known the adultera- 
 tion of beer. In 1677 the General Court of Massachusetts 
 established a regulation according to which beer might 
 only be prepared from good barley malt. Additions of 
 syrup, raw sugar, or any materials other than malt were 
 punishable with a fine of five pounds for each offense. 
 The authorities also looked out for the comfort of travelers 
 and in October, 1649, the General Court issued an order 
 that each hotel keeper must keep good beer, so that 
 travelers should not be compelled to buy expensive wines. 
 
 In spite of the fact, already mentioned, that barley 
 could not be raised to great advantage in Massachusetts, 
 so that most of the malt had to be imported, beer was in 
 the middle of the seventeenth century an important staple 
 of trade in this colony. A historical writer remarks that 
 beer was at that time the favorite drink of the colony. 
 Large quantities of beer brewed in Albany, New Amster- 
 dam, and other places were shipped by way of Boston. 
 
 In the meantime, beer-brewing had been introduced 
 in the other New England colonies. In 1638 was opened 
 the first tavern in Rhode Island, which was used also as 
 a brewery and a grocery store. In 1640 Ipswich built its 
 own municipal malt-house, but it was ordered that no 
 one was to malt old wheat except for his own use. We 
 learn that in 1641 Watertown erected a malt-house and 
 
New England. 27 
 
 that the raising of hops was then common. This city 
 had at that time two breweries. 
 
 The demand for malt was mostly supplied by importation 
 from Europe. The colonies, however, imposed a duty on 
 malt and in the year 1665 Boston merchants who imported 
 malt appealed to the General Court for a reduction or 
 abolition of the tariff. Their requests were fruitless. On 
 the contrary, a few years later, the General Court 
 increased the import duty from one penny a bushel to 
 seven pence. The intention was to protect the home pro- 
 duct, in spite of the fact that barley did not thrive in 
 Massachusetts. 
 
 It can hardly be said that Connecticut had in the first 
 century of its settlement a complete beer-brewery. Here 
 the greatest efforts were made to produce malt from maize 
 for home brewing; but they met with very little success. 
 
 The first license for beer brewing in New Hampshire 
 was granted in 1670 to Samuel Wenthworth, who lived 
 in Portsmouth. 
 
 Beer-brewing spread wherever the colonists dis- 
 possessed the red men from the land. The wider the white 
 man's territory, the greater the domination of the beverage 
 prepared from barley, hops and water. 
 
 2. NEW AMSTERDAM. 
 
 To a far greater degree than in the New England 
 colonies, beer-brewing was developed during the first 
 century of the colonial period in New Amsterdam, the 
 present New York. The brewing industry flourished on 
 Manhattan Island at that time to a higher degree than it 
 ever has since then, and the fame of New Amsterdam 
 beer was widely extended. The first Dutch settlers of 
 Manhattan were familiar with the preparation of beer, 
 for in Holland the art of brewing was widespread. There 
 is no doubt, therefore, that the first inhabitants of Man- 
 
28 The Beer-Brewing Industry in the American Colonial Period. 
 
 hattan brewed their own house beer, but shortly after 
 the settlement brewing became an independent industry. 
 As early as 1612 Adrian Block and Hans Christiansen 
 erected at the south end of Manhattan Island a row of 
 buildings, of which one soon became a beer-brewery. 
 This was the first brewery in America, and the building 
 is of further interest because the first white child in New 
 York was born under its roof. This child was Jean Vigne, 
 who later became famous as a brewer, and played an im- 
 portant part in the public life of the colony. 
 
 This first brewery in New Amsterdam was followed 
 by several others. Their success induced the government 
 of the colony to erect its own brewery. The erection of 
 this first public brewery in America was begun in 1632, 
 during the administration of Peter Minuit, and was com- 
 pleted under his successor, Van Twiller. This government 
 brewery stood on the so-called West India Company's 
 farm, and was situated in the Marckveldt, the present 
 Whitehall street. In March, 1633, this brewery sold beer 
 for the first time to the colonists. The "state beer," 
 however, was sold only until 1638. Private breweries 
 had by that time made such progress that the government 
 institution was not able to meet their competition and 
 closed its doors. The building was converted into a 
 warehouse. 
 
 Under Governor Van Twiller, who was a jolly fellow 
 and liked a good swig, the number of drinking places 
 increased greatly in Manhattan, and with them also 
 increased drunkenness. The first "saloon" was opened under 
 Minuit, Van Twiller's predecessor as Governor of New 
 Amsterdam. But at that time in all of these drinking 
 places there was sold more wine and whiskey than beer. 
 The mother country was careful to see that her sons across 
 the sea were well provided by the importation of all kinds 
 of spirituous drinks. 
 
New Amsterdam. 29 
 
 In the year 1638, when Wilhelm Kieft took the place 
 of the jolly Van Twiller as Governor, he felt himself com- 
 pelled to take steps against drunkenness. In the first 
 year of his administration, he forbade the retail sale of 
 wine and whiskey by tavern keepers, so that they could 
 sell only beer. The result of this measure was a consider- 
 able revival in brewing and the sale of beer. This fact 
 suggested to Kieft, who was not only a pious man, but, 
 as so often happens, also a shrewd business man, the 
 idea of putting a tax on beer, in order to replenish the 
 empty coffers of state. The business sense of Kieft was 
 shown in the prohibition of the sale of wine or whiskey 
 in taverns, because this gave the monopoly of the sale 
 of these drinks to the West India Company — that is, to 
 the government. How little the measure was prompted 
 by a desire to prevent drunkenness is evident from the 
 fact that Kieft set up a distillery, the first in this region. 
 
 In June, 1644, Kieft and his advisers decided to put a 
 tax on beer. The income derived from it was to be used 
 for clothing the soldiers and repairing parts of the forti- 
 fications which had fallen to ruin. Besides the governor, 
 the colony had a kind of popular representative body, and 
 this body protested against the tax because it had been 
 imposed without their consent. But Kieft disregarded the 
 protest and issued a proclamation giving the details of 
 the tax. For every half-barrel retailed by the tavern 
 keepers two guilders (80 cents) was to be paid to the 
 state, the brewer and the tavern keeper each paying 
 half. Every citizen who brewed beer for home use was 
 to pay at half the rate. Wine and whiskey were also 
 taxed proportionately. 
 
 This was the first instance of the taxation of drinks 
 in America, but the example was soon followed by the 
 New England colonies. The measure did not end with 
 imposing a tax, but included various regulations as to 
 
30 The Beer-Brewing Industry in the American Colonial Period. 
 
 the preparation and sale of drinks. The system of con- 
 cessions and licenses for the retailing of alcoholic drinks 
 was developed. The price and quality of beer were 
 minutely prescribed. It was provided that no liquors were 
 to be sold during the hours of church service, and every 
 evening at nine o'clock the ringing of the city hall bell 
 gave notice that all taverns must close. A kind of super- 
 vision of the brewing itself was introduced ; the brewers 
 had to inform the governor as to the quantity of beer they 
 had produced before they could get permission to sell it. 
 
 The taxation of drinks was such a convenient way of 
 providing funds for the state that Governor Kieft, soon 
 after the imposition of the first tax, raised the amount to 
 three guilders ($1.20) per barrel. This increase of the 
 tax was also effected without the consent of the popular 
 representatives — ^the "eight men," a kind of assembly. If 
 the introduction of the tax made bad blood, the raising 
 of it intensified the agitation. Brewing as an independent 
 industry had developed greatly. The brewers had all 
 become rich and were considered "good citizens" and 
 therefore exercised a great influence. A general opposition 
 arose against the tax and against the manner in which it 
 had been imposed. In order to pacify the brewers and 
 tavern keepers, the governor permitted them to add the 
 tax to the price of the goods which they made and sold, 
 so that not the brewer nor the dealer, but the consumer, 
 would have to bear the burden. But the agitation had 
 gone so far that the brewers and dealers refused to pay 
 the tax, basing their action on the fact that the consent of 
 the "eight men" had not been given to its imposition, and 
 this was a violation of the rights of the citizens. But 
 Kieft paid no attention to this argument and he forced 
 the brewers to pay the tax by simply confiscating the 
 supply of beer in their cellars and giving his soldiers an 
 opportunity to get a good drink. In 1642 the governor 
 
New Amsterdam. 31 
 
 set up a government inn, which he tried to further by- 
 granting, all sorts of privileges. A monopoly was created 
 for the accomodation of travelers who came for the most 
 part from New England and Virginia to New Amsterdam. 
 Strangers were not permitted to stay more than one 
 night with a private family, and were thus compelled 
 to stay at the government inn, and pay money for their 
 accommodation. 
 
 In the year 1647 Kieft was recalled and Peter Stuy- 
 vesant succeeded him as governor of the colony. It was 
 demanded that he revoke the tax on beer, but on the 
 contrary a new tax was imposed and new regulations 
 promulgated for the control of brewing and selling. Stuy- 
 vesant ordered a complete separation of the business of 
 selling from that of brewing ; the brewers were forbidden 
 to retail their product, and the tavern keepers were not 
 allowed to brew their own beer, which had up to that 
 time been customary. Governor Stuyvesant tried to en- 
 courage the coming of visitors to the city by seeing to it 
 that there were good hotels where they could stop. 
 
 It would seem that about this time the consumption 
 of spirituous drinks was comparatively high in New 
 Amsterdam. According to a report of Stuyvesant, about 
 the year 1651, a quarter of the city of New Amsterdam 
 consisted of whiskey-saloons, tobacco stores, and beer 
 houses. Perhaps this should not be taken literally, but 
 the fact remains that the consumption of intoxicating drinks 
 was enormous. The income from the tax on drinks 
 amounted to four gulden per head for each man, woman, 
 and child. Governor Stuyvesant, to whom drunkenness 
 and love-making on Sunday were an especial horror, tried 
 to oppose the excessive use of alcoholic drinks, but at the 
 same time kept the interest of the treasury always in 
 mind. The tavern keepers were forbidden to sell wine, 
 beer, or other "strong waters" to any but travelers or 
 
32 The Beer-Breiving Industry in the American Colonial Period. 
 
 boarders. Any transgression of the law was punished 
 by revocation of the license and every customer who got a 
 drink unlawfully had to pay a fine of six Karolus guilders 
 ($29). Tavern keepers and grocers were compelled to 
 get licenses in order to sell drink, the payment for which 
 went into the coffers of the colony. The tax on beer was 
 constantly increased, but Stuyvesant did not permit the 
 brewers to raise the price of beer. He evidently feared 
 that the consumption of beer would fall off and that the 
 revenue would suffer. The high taxation, however, led 
 to the making of bad beer and the drinking public com- 
 plained loudly that with each increase of the tax the 
 brewers made the beer thinner and worse. This induced 
 Stuyvesant finally to permit the price of beer to be raised 
 in proportion to the increase of the tax. At the same time 
 he issued exact regulations for the preparation of the 
 beverage. According to these regulations, beer in New 
 Amsterdam at that time was made of barley, wheat, or 
 oats. When there was a dearth of any one of these grains, 
 its use in malting was forbidden. The law recognized 
 three different grades of beer. For the best, six bushels 
 of malt per hogshead were prescribed, for the second 
 grade four bushels, and for the third grade two. Com- 
 plaints in regard to bad beer were considered by a court 
 composed of the burgomaster and schoeppen. 
 
 In the end Stuyvesant was worsted in his battle with 
 the brewers. The popular representation, upon which the 
 brewers had great influence, finally voted to have the tax 
 law repealed. 
 
 Although New Amsterdam, which was raised to the 
 rank of a city in 1653, had but a small population (in 1677 
 it had only three or four thousand inhabitants), still the 
 number of its independent brewers was very large, and 
 these played an important part in the public life of the city. 
 William Beekman, who for forty years held public offices 
 
New Amsterdam. 33 
 
 in New Amsterdam, was a brewer. He ran a brewery 
 which had been built in 1654 and which was situated at 
 the corner of WilHam and Beekman streets, both of 
 which are supposed to have been named after him. In 
 the year 1653 there existed a brewery which belonged to 
 Petrus Rutgers. In 1683 two brothers Bayard operated 
 a brewery in the city. Leonard Lispenard and Van Court- 
 landt were brewers in New Amsterdam and their names 
 are perpetuated in the names of New York streets. An 
 influential member of the burgomasters' council of the 
 city was a brewer named Martin Krieger. The town 
 house was originally the "Stadt Harberg," the beer of 
 which has been mentioned in the documents of that time as 
 being "as good as what can be had in the old Fatherland." 
 
 Another tavern of that time was located at the present 
 9-11 Broadway. At No. 1 Broadway, Peter Kohrs had a 
 tavern. The present Stone street was called Brouwer 
 straat, because a number of rich brewers had their 
 homes there. 
 
 In September, 1664, the Dutch turned over New 
 Amsterdam to the English. The first English governor 
 of the colony also fixed his attention upon the brewing 
 industry. In a bill introduced by him it was provided 
 that no one should brew beer for sale who had not 
 acquired a sufficient skill and knowledge in the "art and 
 mystery of beer-brewing." He also extended the license 
 system. 
 
 In the meantime numerous breweries had grown up in 
 the environs of New Amsterdam. In 1655 we find one 
 on the East River, in the neighborhood of the present 
 Thirty-fifth street. The present Albany, then called 
 Beaver-wyck, was founded in 1630, and but three years 
 later a brewery was started there, which in the year 1649 
 produced 330 barrels of beer. The Albany beer became 
 quite famous for its good quality. Aert Teunison estab- 
 
34 The Beer-Brewmg Industry in the American Colonial Period. 
 
 lished the first brewery in Hoboken, which he conducted 
 until 1648, when he was killed by the Indians. In Pavonia 
 a brewery already existed in 1654. 
 
 The Dutch as well as the English settlers of that time, 
 as can be seen, were not Prohibitionists. In New Amster- 
 dam as well as in New England brewing grew with the 
 growth of the colonies, and it would seem that the con- 
 sumption per capita of the population was greater 
 than today. 
 
 3. THE MIDDLE AND SOUTHERN COLONIES. 
 
 As has already been said, not only in antiquity, but 
 also in our own times, the barbarous peoples of Asia and 
 Africa have had intoxicating drinks, mostly produced by 
 the malting of some kind of grain. The Nubians have 
 from the earliest times used a beverage made from a 
 certain kind of barley, which resembles the Berlin "Weiss- 
 bier" and has a sourish taste. African explorers tell also 
 of Negro tribes who use malted grain for brewing. Maize 
 and other grains are still used by many uncivilized tribes 
 for the preparation of beer. A common method of setting 
 up fermentation is for the women to sit around a vat and 
 chew the grain and then spit it back into the vat. 
 
 It is not unHkely that the first colonists in America, 
 especially in the Southern colonies, learned the use of 
 maize for beer-brewing fromi the Indians. In Roanoke 
 Island, a part of the present North Carolina, for instance, 
 where an unsuccessful efifort was made from 1584 to 
 1586 to found an English colony, an attempt was made 
 to prepare malt from maize. 
 
 Beer-brewing was introduced into Pennsylvania by 
 William Penn himself, who preferred malt beverages to 
 "fire water" and who erected a brewery near his residence 
 in Pennsbury in 1683. It was he who made the "Quaker 
 beer" famous. Before the end of that century the first 
 
The Middle and Southern Colonies. 35 
 
 brewery was established in Philadelphia, the owner being 
 one William Framton, whom William Penn describes as 
 "a very able man who had erected a large brewhouse in 
 order to provide good drink for the people up-river and 
 down-river." Another brewery of the time in Philadelphia 
 was the Morris brewery, which was erected in 1687. In 
 1682 the first Assembly of Pennsylvania fixed the price 
 of malt beer at twopence a quart and that of molasses 
 beer at one penny a quart. 
 
 In the neighboring colony of West New Jersey beer- 
 brewing flourished at this period. A malthouse was set up 
 in Perth Amboy in 1683, but they lacked an experienced 
 brewer and wrote to England to get one. 
 
 By the beginning of the eighteenth century the pro- 
 duction of beer in Pennsylvania had reached such pro- 
 portions that in 1704 the general government of the 
 province took steps to encourage the cultivation of 
 domestic hops. To this end a duty was imposed on im- 
 ported hops. In 1718 a price regulation was introduced. 
 The judges of the province were ordered to fix the price 
 of beer four times a year, and to cause the oflficer of the 
 court to go into the streets and cry out the price which 
 they had decided upon and also to see that it was placarded 
 on the courthouse door. Violations of the price regula- 
 tions were severely punished. For the first offense a fine 
 of twenty shillings was imposed, but for further violations 
 the fine was five pounds ($25), which was not a small sum 
 in those days. At the same time the seller forfeited the 
 right to sell alcoholic drinks for the space of three years. 
 
 ■Beer commanded much attention in the legislation of 
 Pennsylvania at this time. In 1721, in order to promote 
 the production and use of beer, the Assembly forbade 
 the sale of any other alcoholic drinks, a measure which 
 contributed not a little to the growth of the brewing in- 
 dustry in Philadelphia. 
 
36 The Beer-Brewing Industry in the American Colonial Period. 
 
 Delaware and West New Jersey were first colonized 
 by the Swedes ; they brought the art of brewing from their 
 mother country, and their women brewed beer for house- 
 hold use. Other beverages were also used, especially 
 cider, rum, and home-made brandy. In the year 1654 
 it is reported that the Swedish colonists prepared "a 
 strong and remarkably clear beer out of maize," which 
 was a favorite drink not only among the whites, but also 
 among the Indians, although the latter on the whole pre- 
 ferred "fire water." As early as 1660 there were independ- 
 ent brewers in Delaware, and in Burlington, N. J., there 
 was already in 1698 a brewery which prepared beer for sale. 
 
 An historical writer of that time gives a list of the 
 beverages which were then drunk in America. Among 
 others he mentions "manatham," which was made from 
 small beer, rum, and sugar; "tifif" or "flip," prepared in 
 the same manner, with the addition of a piece of toast and 
 butter; "hotch-pot," a beverage made of warmed beer 
 with the addition of rum ; and "sillibub," which was a 
 mixture of warm milk and beer. 
 
 Then there was small beer, which was made from 
 syrup by heating some water and adding a quantity of 
 molasses and a little malt. The brew was then thoroughly 
 shaken and afterwards a small quantity of hops and yeast 
 was added and the whole was put in a barrel and allowed 
 to ferment. The following day the beverage was cleared 
 and was ready for use. 
 
 In the Southern provinces the climate was unfavorable 
 to beer-brewing. Barley did not grow well, or became 
 too hard for malting on account of the heat. Most of the 
 early attempts at beer production failed, partly for lack 
 of good material and partly for lack of good brewers. The 
 cheapness of various kinds of distilled liquors also hindered 
 the development of brewing. In Virginia as early as 1652 
 a certain George Fletcher obtained the exclusive right to 
 
The Middle and Southern Colonies. 37 
 
 prepare a certain kind of beer, which was not very popular. 
 But before this, in the forties, a number of government 
 breweries had been established, though with little success. 
 Later beer was imported, but it did not keep well, on 
 account of the climate. Cider, which was imported from 
 New Jersey, took the place of beer in Virginia ; but much 
 rum and wine was also consumed, as well as fruit brandy, 
 which was prepared at home. Beer-brewing in Virginia 
 never developed beyond the stage of household brewing, 
 and even that took place only in the houses of the rich. 
 
 General Oglethorpe tried to establish a brewery in 
 Georgia in 1740 in order to provide beer for his soldiers ; 
 to promote this enterprise he forbade the sale of rum and 
 other spirituous liquors. His brewery was located in 
 Jekyl and his beer is said to have been fairly good. In the 
 end, however, the undertaking failed, on account of the 
 obstacles presented by the climate and by the cheap- 
 ness of rum. 
 
 It is related that when Oglethorpe made an expedition 
 with his soldiers down the river he used a peculiar method 
 to keep his men together. The soldiers were embarked 
 in a number of small boats, and on one of these the General 
 placed the entire supply of beer. The men in the other 
 boats had to row pretty vigorously in order to keep near 
 the one carrying the beer. If they did not reach it in time 
 they had to quench their thirst with river water. 
 
 In the first blossoming of the brewing industry in 
 America, which we observe during the first century of 
 the settlements in New England, New Amsterdam', Phila- 
 delphia, etc., the South had no part. In Baltimore the first 
 brewery was established in 1744 and the second did not 
 follow until 1761; these also had no particular success. 
 
38 The Beer-Brewing Industry in the American Colonial Period. 
 
 4. THE DECLINE OF BEER-BREWING IN THE 
 COLONIES. 
 
 We have seen that in the first century of the history 
 of the American colonies beer-brewing had flourished in 
 certain parts. About the beginning of the eighteenth 
 century the development of the industry met with a check, 
 and beer-brewing rapidly declined until finally it lost 
 all significance. 
 
 In Pennsylvania beer-brewing held its importance 
 longer than in the other colonies, on account of the 
 numerous German population and the good quality of 
 the product. New York and Massachusetts also still 
 exported beer, especially to the West Indies, as late as 
 1730 ; but after that the export declined rapidly. 
 
 In Philadelphia brewing continued a little longer 
 because the product manufactured there, especially the 
 ale and porter (the latter was manufactured for the first 
 time in 1774), had gained a remarkable reputation. But 
 even there this industry could not escape the general 
 decline. At the beginning of the Revolutionary War the 
 exportation of beer from Philadelphia did not exceed a 
 thousand barrels a year. 
 
 The cause of this sudden decline of such a flourishing 
 industry must be sought in economic changes and was 
 connected with the increase of negro slavery in the South- 
 ern part of America and especially in the West Indies. 
 
 There were, however, additional causes for the decline, 
 especially the increase in the cost of beer by reason of 
 taxes and licenses, which were intended to fill the colonial 
 treasuries. In order to avoid increasing the selling price, 
 under these exactions, the brewers turned out an inferior 
 product. In the year 1736 complaints camie from Boston 
 that "There is no good beer to be had here." Other bever- 
 ages took the place of beer in daily use. As early as 1700 
 it is reported from New England that cider was being 
 
The Decline of Beer-Brewing in the Colonies. 89 
 
 manufactured in great quantities and that it was gradually 
 displacing beer. About 1730 cider was the common drink 
 of the people in New England, and it could be obtained 
 almost everywhere at a price of three shillings a barrel. 
 In addition to this, about 1745, tea became a household 
 beverage in America. 
 
 ■But all this was only of minor significance in connec- 
 tion with the downfall of the brewing industry. The main 
 cause, which led to the entire extinction of the beer 
 industry in America, was the driving out of beer by a 
 stronger drink — West India rum, which was produced 
 from sugar-cane raised by the labor of negro slaves. 
 
 The New England shipowners and merchants dis- 
 covered about this time that the negro slavery of the South 
 might also become a beneficial institution for them. They 
 found that the juice of the West Indian sugar-cane could 
 be transformed into rum much easier in the cool climate 
 of New England than in the tropical heat of the West 
 Indies. Consequently they sent their ships to the islands 
 and had them laden with molasses and brought back to 
 the home port. Here the molasses was turned into rum, 
 and rum became cheap. Pious and God-fearing men 
 though they were, they took care that this cheap rum 
 should come into general use and crowd out the drinks 
 formerly in vogue. But rum served especially a higher 
 — let us say a Christian purpose. For the cultivation of 
 sugar-cane in the tropics negro slaves were employed, for 
 whom the plantation owners paid good prices ; they were 
 imported from the West Coast of Africa, and the chief 
 means of payment was Christian rum, for which the 
 savage chiefs of tribes traded their black living chattels. 
 This brought about the following favorable situation for 
 the shipowners and merchants of New England : They got 
 molasses from the West Indies and took it home. Here 
 it was made into rum of a better or worse quality — 
 
40 The Beer-Brewing Industry in the American Colonial Period. 
 
 principally worse. Ships were then loaded with this 
 product and sent to the African Coast, where the cargo 
 of rum was exchanged for a cargo of negro slaves; 
 occasionally these Christian New Englanders did not 
 hesitate to seize negroes by force or to tempt them to 
 drink and carry them away to the ships while they were 
 under the influence of rum. With this shipload of living 
 freight they again went to the West Indian islands, and 
 here the planters again exchanged their slaves' product, 
 molasses, for more slaves. Laden with the juice of the 
 sugar-cane, the ship then returned to New England, and 
 then the same round began again — new rum was made, 
 new human flesh was bought with it, which again was 
 exchanged for miolasses, naturally at a great profit. And 
 this trade laid the foundation of the capital of many 
 honored families in the New England seaport towns. 
 
 Massachusetts and Connecticut took a large part in 
 this trade, but both were surpassed by Rhode Island, 
 which was most heavily interested in this traffic. The 
 wealth of Newport grew rapidly in consequence of this 
 rum and slave trade. Rum became so cheap for home 
 consumption that beer practically vanished before it. For 
 the lumbermen in the forests of New England and for the 
 fishermen who had to remain for weeks at sea, and whose' 
 fare consisted of indigestible salt pork and maize, the 
 warming rum was anyhow a better drink than the thin 
 beer of that time. In the hard-working strata of the 
 population, rum drove out beer entirely. Distilleries 
 appeared everywhere, and not only the juice of the sugar- 
 cane, but also other materials, especially the sugar-maple 
 and maize, were used for the production of spirituous 
 drinks. In 1738, according to a report of that time from 
 Boston, the quantity of rum produced there was sur- 
 prisingly large, and the price remarkably low. For less 
 than two shillings one could buy a gallon of rum. In all 
 
The Decline of Beer-Brewing in the Colonies. 41 
 
 the rural districts of New England there were distilleries, 
 whose products flooded the land. Occasionally the fact 
 was realized that the intellect of the people was being 
 clouded by the excessive use of alcohol. In 1727 distilling 
 was prohibited in Connecticut, because "it made molasses 
 dear and spirituous drinks are usually unwholesome." But 
 this did not last long. Six months later the measure was 
 repealed because "it drove business to the other colonies." 
 
 The flood of cheap spirits which spread over America 
 at this time was not confined to New England. New York 
 and other colonies did not let this good business escape 
 them, and house distilling developed tremendously. Beer 
 and the breweries could not stand against this flood, and 
 even the production of wine, which had just begun to 
 develop in some places, was sacrificed to it. 
 
 The decline of brewing continued up to the outbreak 
 of the Revolutionary War. So little remained of this 
 industry that its flourishing condition in the preceding 
 century was hardly remembered. The quantity of fer- 
 mented drinks was negligible in comparison with the 
 measureless amount of spirits which was being drunk by 
 all classes of the population. 
 
 In the laws of the colonies various attempts were 
 made to check the decline of brewing and to revive the 
 industry. Taxes were removed from beer, for they had 
 made easy the triumphal march of rum. Premiums were 
 offered to promote the domestic cultivation of hops, and 
 attempts were made through appropriate measures to 
 promote the production of malt and to stimulate beer- 
 brewing. But the cheapness of rum and the advantages 
 its manufacture brought to the possessing class counted 
 for more than all the legislative regulations. Finally brew- 
 ing in America again became a house industry, for 
 domestic consumption. Only a few independent breweries 
 survived this period of decline. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 The Modem Beer-Brewing Industry. 
 
 1. THE BEGINNINGS. 
 
 THE American Revolution had put an end to com- 
 mercial intercourse between England and her former 
 colonies. The sea traffic with other countries was also 
 interrupted by the English war ships, and the importation 
 of goods from overseas was very small. 
 
 The very small quantity of beer which had heretofore 
 been imported from England by the colonies was also cut 
 off, and consequently the beer-breweries in this country 
 began to revive somewhat, especially in Pennsylvania 
 and in the state of New York a few small breweries 
 started up again. 
 
 However, there was still but little demand for brewed 
 beverages. Spirits was still the common drink, and the 
 consumption of rum and similar liquors was still great 
 in 1809, when it amounted annually to 18.08 quarts per 
 capita of the population. Of fermented drinks — ^beer, 
 ale and porter — there was consumed at that time 4.98 
 quarts per capita. 
 
 The enormous consumption of spirits aroused opposi- 
 tion among the people, and in the legislatures numerous 
 propositions began to be advanced to stem the evil. More 
 considerately than our present temperance advocates, they 
 did not demand the complete prohibition of all alcoholic 
 drinks, but sought to combat the harmful excessive 
 consumtion of spirits by promoting the production and 
 use of beer. 
 
 This movement started in Philadelphia, and it was 
 here that beer-brewing first began to. revive, so that the 
 breweries soon increased in number and the quantity of 
 
The Beginnings. 43 
 
 beer produced in Philadelphia surpassed that of all other 
 ports in the United States. James Madison and Thomas 
 Jefferson were decidedly in favor of the promotion of 
 beer-brewing in order to diminish the consumption of 
 spirits. In each session of Congress in the two decades 
 after the adoption of the Constitution, measures were 
 considered and adopted which were intended to promote 
 beer-brewing and restrict the consumption of spirits. The 
 legislatures of the various states also took this mjatter 
 into consideration. In 1789 Massachusetts passed a law 
 "for the promotion of the manufacture of beer," according 
 to which breweries which produced yearly more than 100 
 barrels of beer or ale for a period of five years were 
 freed of all taxes. One of the reasons given for this law 
 was that beer-brewing not only promoted agriculture, but 
 that beer was the most suitable means for combating the 
 injurious effects of spirituous liquors. 
 
 In New Hampshire also a similar law was enacted in 
 1792, which freed breweries from all taxes for ten years. 
 In the preamble of this law it was expressly stated that 
 the purpose was to discourage the use of distilled liquors 
 in order to elevate the morals and health of the people 
 through the consumption of beer. 
 
 Hand in hand with the enactment of laws intended to 
 promote beer-brewing came others which made more 
 difficult the distilling of spirituous drinks. This was 
 especially effected through heavy taxation of distilleries. 
 Distilling, however, was still conducted with great profit 
 and was so wide-spread that in certain parts of Penn- 
 sylvania each farmer was at the sarnie time a distiller. 
 The laws which were directed against distilling caused 
 bitter opposition and their enactment resulted in open 
 resistance in Western Pennsylvania, which is well known 
 as the "Whiskey Rebellion." Any farmer who expressed 
 himself as willing to pay the whiskey tax was terrorized. 
 
44 The Modern Beer-Brewing Industry. 
 
 The movement against the payment of the tax in some 
 parts assumed the character of an open insurrection 
 against the government. The tax collectors were pre- 
 vented from performing their duty by threats and violence. 
 The tarring and feathering of such ofiScials became a daily 
 occurrence. Acts of violence were committed in which 
 lives were lost and property ruined on a large scale. The 
 movement took on such proportions that tlie government 
 sent troops which were directed by George Washington 
 hinKself. The leaders of the insurrection had gathered 
 seven thousand armed men, but they all dispersed when 
 the troops prepared for an onslaught. 
 
 The tax law which provoked the Whiskey Rebellion 
 remained in force for several years, and it accomplished 
 its purpose, for while it existed the number of whiskey 
 distilleries was greatly decreased. When the law was 
 repealed the distilleries again revived, and in the first 
 decade of the nineteenth century the farmers in all the 
 grain-raising states again took up distilling. 
 
 Nevertheless, the legislative measures had encouraged 
 the revival of beer-brewing. In 1774 an ale-brewery was 
 founded by Joseph Potts in Philadelphia, which developed 
 vigorously during the Revolutionary War. In 1787 the 
 breweries of Philadelphia consumed yearly 40,000 bushels 
 of malt, and as a result of the general revival of business 
 in the following year Philadelphia doubled its production 
 of beer and porter. The price of Philadelphia beer at that 
 time was thirty shillings per barrel. The porter of 
 Philadelphia, especially, stood in very good repute. It 
 was considered better than the famous London porter and 
 was exported to China and the East Indies. A sample of 
 Philadelphia beer was shipped to China and returned to 
 Philadelphia, and it was found that it had not been affected 
 in the slightest degree by the voyage. 
 
 Outside of Philadelphia also beer-brewing developed 
 
The Beginnings. 45 
 
 during the last decade of the eighteenth century, especially 
 among the German population. Lancaster had a brewery 
 as early as 1786. In Reading a brewery was erected by 
 Joseph Hoch, in 1798. And even in the then distant 
 Pittsburg we find traces of the manufacture of beer in 1795. 
 
 In the state of New York, also, there developed about 
 this time the beginnings of beer-brewing, especially at 
 Hudson, while the city of New York made little or no 
 progress. In Hudson the first brewery of New York was 
 re-established in 1786. Its owner was Benjamin Faulkins. 
 In New York City Coulter's brewery, also called the Old 
 Brewery, was erected in 1792, at the place later called 
 Five Points. In Troy brewing began in 1793. In Albany, 
 which in formler times had a very good reputation for 
 its beer, the first brewery of modern times was established 
 in 1796 by James Boyd. This first brewery in Albany 
 was able to turn out 4,000 barrels a year. In Pough- 
 keepsie, also, a brewery was started about this time. 
 James Vassar, who had learned the art of brewing in 
 England, came to Poughkeepsie in 1793 and began his 
 brewing activities in 1797. At first the quantities pro- 
 duced were not large. He brewed about fifteen gallons 
 a day, which was sold on the streets to neighbors and 
 farmers. This was the beginning of a brewery which in 
 1848 produced on the average 20,000 barrels of ale, beer, 
 and porter yearly. 
 
 The first brewery in New Jersey was established at 
 Newark in 1805. The founder was John N. Cunning. 
 This is the establishment which later passed into the 
 hands of the Ballantine family. 
 
 The progress of the industry was slow, but neverthe- 
 less there was progress. In 1810, we find in the United 
 States one hundred and twenty-nine breweries, distributed 
 through ten states. The farthest west of these states 
 was Ohio. The total product of these breweries in beer. 
 
46 The Modern Beer-Brewing Industry. 
 
 ale, and porter amounted to 182,690 barrels, representing a 
 money value of $955,761. Pennsylvania stood at the head, 
 with forty-eight breweries, with a production of 71,263 
 barrels. Then followed New York, with forty-two 
 breweries, producing 66,896 barrels. Massachusetts also 
 deserves mention, producing 22,400 barrels. All the other 
 states produced less than 10,000 barrels a year. New 
 Jersey had at that time six breweries, Ohio thirteen, 
 Maryland and Virginia each seven, Delaware two, 
 Georgia one, and the District of Columbia three.* 
 
 After the first decade of the nineteenth century the 
 brewing industry began to develop more rapidly, especially 
 in New York and Pennsylvania, where the immigration 
 of beer-drinking people increased the beer consumption. 
 In 1823 there were fourteen breweries in Philadelphia. 
 In 1814 a German named Georg Michel Brobst erected a 
 brewery in Reading, Pa. In Pittsburg, Joseph Wain- 
 wright started brewing on a larger scale in 1818. In 1831 
 another brewery was established in the same place by 
 John N. Straub, who delivered beer to his customers with 
 a pushcart. In the state of New York the brewing in- 
 dustry revived, especially in Albany. In 1820 there 
 existed there already four breweries, among which was 
 the one established by Fiddler & Taylor in 1822, which 
 was the largest in the United States at that time. The 
 capacity of this brewery was 250 barrels a day. Another 
 of the Albany breweries was the one erected by Uri Burt 
 in 1819. In 1851 the Burt brewery produced 50,000 barrels 
 a year. In Oneida County, N. Y., we also find a brewery 
 in operation as early as 1810. 
 
 In the city of New York the progress of brewing was 
 slower than in other parts of the state. Here we do not 
 find a new brewery until 1823, when the Croton brewery 
 
 * G. Ehret, "Twenty-five Years of Brewing ;" p. 35. 
 
The Beginnings. 47 
 
 was established, owned by Miles & Bacon. In 1825 
 Abraham Nash established a small brewery in Troy, out of 
 which later developed, in 1845, the brewery of Nash, 
 Beadleston & Co., of New York City. 
 
 In Buffalo the first brewery was started in 1830, the 
 owner of which was Jacob Roos. This was the beginning 
 of the present Iroquois Brewing Company. In Utica, 
 N. Y., also a brewery was established at about this time, 
 which later became the Oneida Brewing Company. That 
 was in 1832. Somewhat later another brewery was set 
 up in the same place by Michael McQuade. 
 
 In the New England states the development of the 
 brewing industry was slower than in Pennsylvania and 
 Western New York, probably because of the fact that the 
 immigration of beer-drinking peoples, especially Germans, 
 was at that time not directed toward New England. 
 Nevertheless, we find breweries in Massachusetts in the 
 twenties of the nineteenth century. In Charlestown in 
 the year 1821 the first brewery was established by John 
 Cooper and Thomas Gould. This later developed into 
 the Bunker Hill brewery. In South Boston the Boston 
 Beer Company was founded in 1828, The first brewery 
 in Providence, R. I., was erected by Otis Holmes in 1835. 
 
 In the meantime the white population pressed west- 
 ward, and fertile farms and small villages blossomed in 
 places heretofore trodden only by the red man. The 
 political movements of the thirties drove a mass of people 
 across the sea, especially of South Germans, and these 
 helped to settle the northwestern part of the United States. 
 This element remained true to its old habits of life, and as 
 a result of this immigration, which in 1848 became a 
 veritable stream,, we find breweries started up all over the 
 West. The farther west the German immigration went 
 the farther west extended the beer-brewing industry, 
 which was a regular accompaniment of this immigration. 
 
48 The Modern Beer-Brewing Industry. 
 
 The names of the first breweries in the West show that 
 foundations of this industry in that region were laid 
 by Germans. 
 
 In Ohio German settlers had begun beer-brewing in 
 1817. These were rehgious communists, who had founded 
 the colony of Zoar. This colony had a brewery in its 
 settlement. It is said that in Cincinnati small breweries 
 existed in 1809 and 1811, but historically this fact cannot be 
 verified. In 1828 another brewery is said to have been 
 established in this city, which later developed into the 
 Walker Brewing Company. In 1836 the City Brewery 
 was established there, which was owned by G. M. Heran- 
 court. This brewery in its first year had a capacity of 
 fourteen barrels a day, which was increased in the second 
 year to forty-five barrels. A few years earlier, in 1832, 
 two breweries had been established in Cincinnati, the 
 Jackson Brewing Company and the brewery of Peter 
 Jonte. With the arrival of German immigrants in Cin- 
 cinnati the consumption of beer and the beer-brewing 
 industry rose. In 1840 more than a quarter of the popula- 
 tion consisted of Germans, and the number of breweries 
 therefore was increased in that year to eight. 
 
 In the other parts of Ohio brewing was developed 
 early. In 1830 we find a brewery in Canton which was 
 owned by T. C. Nighman. In the middle of the thirties 
 L. Hoster and I. Silbernagel had already established brew- 
 eries in Columbus. In 1837 Kroener & Rice established a 
 brewery in Evansville. In 1838 John Vogelsang started a 
 brewery in Toledo and in 1844 the first brewery was 
 established in Baltimore, by Jacob Medtart. 
 
 In Indiana Jacob Salmon founded the first brewery in 
 Madison in 1823. In 1841 this met with competition 
 from the Scheik brewery. In Terre Haute the first 
 brewery was founded in 1835 by George Hager. In Erie, 
 Pa., the Diez brewery in 1830 was the first. It is said 
 
CORrJELL UNIVERSITY 
 that in West Virginia there was a brewery in Wheeling 
 as early as 1822, but it is certain that in 1845 George W. 
 Smith erected a brewery in that city. 
 
 In the city of New York the year 1840 was of import- 
 ance for the brewing industry, because it was then that 
 the water of the Croton River was brought into the city, 
 and with this one of the principal obstacles of the 
 development of brewing was removed. In this year the 
 brewery of George Gillig, a Bavarian, was started, at 
 Fifth avenue and Fifty-third street. In 1842 two brothers 
 started the Schaefer Brewery. In the same year the 
 Johnson Brewery was started in Brooklyn. In 1846 Joseph 
 Doelger erected his brewery in New York, and in 1848 
 another one was built by John Noller. 
 
 In the state of New York also, especially in the 
 northern part, brewing began to develop about this time. 
 In Rochester the first brewery was built in 1845 by 
 Hathaway & Gordon. In Buffalo the second brewery was 
 established in 1840 by J. F. Schanzlin & Hoffmann. Soon 
 after this, in the same city, the breweries of J. Friedman 
 and Gerhard Lang were started. On the whole, brewing 
 developed in the state of New York to such a degree that 
 in 1845 there existed 102 breweries. 
 
 Further west we find in the forties the foundation for 
 the great brewing establishments which existed there later. 
 In Chicago there was a small brewery in 1833, which was 
 owned by William Lill, and in 1840 another brewery was 
 established. But it was not until the middle of the forties 
 that the Chicago breweries got a good start. In 1847 the 
 brewery of A. Huck & John Schneider was started, which 
 developed into a great enterprise. In Northern Illinois, in 
 Galena, there existed two breweries in 1843. In Quincy, 
 in the same state, Anton Delabar founded a brewery in 
 1840. In 1842 Alton already had a brewery which had 
 been built by George Yackel. 
 
50 The Modern Beer-Brewing Industry. 
 
 The brewing industry of Milwaukee started in 1840, 
 when Hermann Reidelshofer erected the first brewery. 
 This later passed into the hands of Philip Best & Co. In 
 the same year R. G. Owens started a second brewery, 
 and a third was established in 1842 by Conrad Muntzen- 
 berger. In 1844 Jacob Best founded a small brewery, 
 which later developed into the large Pabst establishment. 
 
 At the same time the foundations of the beer-brewing 
 industry were laid in St. Louis. DistilHng had been carried 
 on in that city since 1811, and to such a degree that no 
 less than 18,000 barrels of whiskey were produced in 1840. 
 Up to this time beer-brewing was not practiced very much, 
 but in 1840 there existed a brewery which belonged to 
 one McHose. At the beginning of the forties Stiefel & 
 Winkelmeyer founded the Union Brewery. Somewhat 
 later the Washington Brewery was founded, and in 1845 
 there were already six breweries in St. Louis, of which the 
 largest had a capacity of twenty-five barrels a day. 
 
 In Iowa beer-brewing was started in 1845, in which 
 year Tschirgi put up the first brewing kettle in Dubuque. 
 In St. Paul, Minn., the erection of the A. Yoerz's estab- 
 lishment started the brewing industry in 1848, and two 
 years later, in 1850, the first brewery was built in St. Paul's 
 sister city, Minneapolis, by John Orth. 
 
 In the four decades, from 1810 to 1850, the number of 
 breweries in the United States had increased from 129 to 
 431, and the product from 5,754,737 gallons to 23,267,730 
 gallons. Still, the brewing industry, in the main, was 
 concentrated in two states, Pennsylvania and New York. 
 The breweries of these two states in the year 1850 pro- 
 duced 18,825,096 gallons; the breweries of all the other 
 states, 4,442,634 gallons. Up to that time brewing as an 
 industry had developed only in these two states. 
 
Lager Beer. 51 
 
 2. LAGER BEER. 
 
 Until the early forties of the nineteenth century, all the 
 beer brewed in America aside from the diiiferent kinds of 
 small beer, was the sort known today as ale and porter. 
 Lager beer, which had been brewed in Germany since the 
 thirteenth century, was not known in America. 
 
 Lager beer requires slower fermentation, because it 
 has to be brewed stronger in order to keep better. It also 
 requires a lower temperature for its production than porter 
 and ale. At a time, therefore, when artificial ice and 
 cooling machines were not known and cooling places had 
 to be provided by making cellars in the rock, the prepara- 
 tion of lager beer was more expensive than the other kind. 
 In addition to this, yeast, which is necessary for the 
 fermentation of lager beer, was not known in America; 
 and as ships took such a long time in crossing the ocean, 
 it was not practicable to import yeast, as it was thought 
 that it would not keep so long. These are probably the 
 reasons why lager beer was not introduced into America 
 at an earlier date, although even at that time there were 
 large numbers of German immigrants who had made their 
 homes in America and who were acquainted with lager 
 beer and would surely have preferred it to that brewed 
 according to the English method. 
 
 The exact time when lager beer, brewed according to 
 the German method, was introduced into America is not 
 known, nor is it certain who was the first person to brew 
 lager beer in this country. 
 
 In Reading, Pa., there existed since 1826, a small 
 brewery owned by a certain George Lauer, a Rhenish 
 Bavarian, from whom it passed to his son Friedrich in 
 1835. This Friedrich Lauer began in 1844 or 1845 the 
 brewing of lager beer; he explained, however, that he 
 was not the first who introduced lager beer into America. 
 He asserted that a certain Wagner, who had come to 
 
52 The Modern Beer-Brewing Industry. 
 
 America in 1842, had shortly after his arrival started the 
 brewing of lager beer in a small brewery in a suburb of 
 Philadelphia. In the main this is substantiated by a 
 member of the brewing firm of Engel & Wolf in Phila- 
 delphia. This gentleman says that in 1840 John Wagner 
 brewed the first lager beer in America. This Wagner had a 
 small brewery in John street, near Poplar, in Philadelphia. 
 It was a very primitive establishment in which the first 
 lager beer of America is said to have been produced. The 
 brewing kettle was suspended from a beam over an open 
 fire, and this kettle contained barely eight barrels. The 
 yeast which it is said Wagner used for this lager beer, he 
 had sent from a brewery in Bavaria where he had formerly 
 been brewmaster. 
 
 The great value which was placed on this lager-beer 
 yeast can be judged from the fact that a brother-in-law 
 of Wagner's is said to have stolen a pint of it. He 
 was prosecuted for it and was sentenced to two years' 
 imprisonment. 
 
 At any rate, the brewing of lager beer was developed in 
 Philadelphia, which had in some way come into the 
 possession of lager-beer yeast. Among the breweries 
 which took this up was that of Engel & Wolf, in Dillwin 
 street, Philadelphia, which had for many years been a 
 favorite resort of the Germans of that city who wanted to 
 enjoy a cool drink. "More than once," it is recorded, "they 
 drank the brewery dry," and a placard had to be put up 
 announcing the next date when lager beer could be had.* 
 
 The brewing of lager beer now progressed rapidly, 
 although in the first decade it had attained but little 
 importance. In St. Louis a small lager-beer brewery was 
 started as early as 1842 by Tobias Spenglar. In the city 
 
 * One Hundred Years of Brewing: A Supplement to the 
 Western Brewer. H. S. Rich & Co., Chicago and New York, 
 1903; page 207. 
 
Lager Beer. 53 
 
 of New York the first lager beer was brewed in 1844 
 by George Gillig.* 
 
 George Frey, who brewed the first lager beer in Erie, 
 Pa., ii^ 1847, had helped in the first brewing of "lager" in 
 Bufifalo in 1843. In 1848 a brewer in Pittsburg, John 
 N. Straub, heard that lager beer was being brewed in 
 Philadelphia. With great difficulty he got a quantity of 
 lager-beer yeast from Philadelphia, which had to be 
 brought by canal to Pittsburg, and which was used for 
 the brewing of the first lager beer in Pittsburg. 
 
 In 1847 John A. Huck and John Schneider started the 
 brewing of lager beer in Chicago. In 1849 the German 
 beverage was first produced in Cincinnati, and in 1846 in 
 Boston, by John Roessle, of Roxbury. 
 
 In Milwaukee the first lager beer was brewed in 1851 
 in the brewery of Jacob Best, out of which the Pabst 
 establishment was later developed. Another Milwaukee 
 brewer, a certain Wagner, it is said, had some yeast sent 
 by his brother from Bavaria. He did not have much 
 confidence, however, and was afraid the yeast might not 
 be good any more. He therefore went to Best and offered 
 him the yeast for what the transportation had cost him. 
 Best accepted the offer. The yeast proved good, and so 
 it came about that Jacob Best had the honor of brewing 
 the first lager beer in Milwaukee. It is not unlikely that 
 there is some connection between the Wagner of this 
 story and the one who is reported to have started lager- 
 beer brewing in Philadelphia. 
 
 In the first decade after its introduction the brewing of 
 lager beer made but slow progress in America. After this, 
 however, with the general development of the industry. 
 
 * A German tavern-keeper by the name of Schwalbe, who 
 kept a tavern in Chatham street, is said to have been the first 
 to sell lager beer in New York. He had it sent from Phila- 
 delphia, and sold it at four cents a glass. 
 
64 The Modern Beer-Brewing Industry. 
 
 the production and consumption of the new beverage 
 grew, and it began to replace the heavy English beers. 
 There were economic reasons for the slowness of its 
 development at first. Heretofore, surface-fermented beers 
 had been used, which could be kept on tap for weeks 
 without getting stale and unusable. Such beers were 
 more suited for the thinly settled regions, where beer was 
 not consumed in large quantities, but sold in glasses here 
 and there. With lager beer the situation was different, 
 especially at a time when modern beer-drawing apparatus 
 were not to be had, such as will prevent the entrance of 
 air to the contents of the tapped barrel and thus partly 
 prevent the carbonic acid of the beer from escaping. Lager 
 beer is good only when freshly tapped. If it is open long 
 it becomes stale and unusable, and therefore requires rapid 
 consumption. A rapid consumption of the beverage, how- 
 ever, can take place only where many people congregate. 
 This was not generally the case in the first decades of 
 lager-beer brewing in America. Only on Sundays and 
 holidays, when Germans got together to spend their free 
 hours, was this the case. But later, with the industrial 
 development, larger cities grew up, which attracted great 
 masses of people and made a rapid consumption of lager 
 beer possible; and even in smaller places the factories 
 brought together large numbers of workingmen, where 
 before there had been only small shops, and thus even in 
 small places the use of lager beer became practicable. In 
 short, the economic development prepared the ground for 
 the increase of the lager-beer industry. In the second 
 decade after its appearance, the growth of the lager-beer 
 industry began which has lasted to our own time. 
 
 As early as 1860 far more than a quarter of the entire 
 quantity of beer brewed in the United States was lager 
 beer. That is, out of 3,235,545 barrels of beer, 855,803, 
 
Lager Beer. 56 
 
 which is far more than a quarter, were lager beer. The 
 general economic development increased the demand for 
 lager beer, and this increased demand naturally had an 
 effect upon the growth and multiplication of lager-beer 
 breweries. But the production of lager beer was limited 
 to the winter season, because a particular temperature was 
 necessary for manufacturing and storing it, and it was 
 difficult to obtain this temperature without artificial means. 
 Artificial ice and artificial or mechanical cooling apparatus 
 did not exist. But now, as always happens when a certain 
 need calls for a new invention, the increased demand for 
 lager beer led to the invention of all kinds of cooling 
 machines. The production of artificial ice, and in con- 
 nection with it the building of complicated machines for 
 manufacturing ice and producing a low temperature was 
 greatly stimulated by the demand for lager beer. The ice 
 industry really owes its existence to the lager-beer 
 breweries. But the invention of cooling machines and 
 the manufacture of artificial ice again had their effect upon 
 the spread of the lager-beer breweries. The brewer who, 
 up to that time, could manufacture his product only during 
 certain times of the year, overcame this limitation through 
 the use of artificial means. The natural ice, which had 
 formerly been taken from lakes and ponds and stored in 
 cellars, did not have to be stored underground any more, 
 but could be kept on the ground floor or even higher, so 
 that it had its effect from above instead of below. Natural 
 ice was even at the beginning of the nineteenth century 
 an article of trade between New England and New York. 
 The natural product was shipped in great quantities from 
 Boston to New York, where it was used for brewing pur- 
 poses. The building of ice-houses began in the sixties. Im- 
 proved ice-houses, where, through the addition of various 
 salts the effect of the ice was increased, began to be built 
 
56 The Modern Beer-Brewing Industry. 
 
 in 1880, the first one in Detroit. At the same time 
 artificial ice began to come into general use. The first 
 ice machine in a brewery was placed in the establishment 
 of Glasgow & Thunder, in Bendigo, Victoria, Australia, in 
 1860. The first cooling machine which was used in 
 America was introduced by the brewer, Georg Merz, in 
 New Orleans, in 1869. He had imported it from France. 
 In the spring of 1870, the S. Liebmann's Sons' Brewing 
 Company in Brooklyn introduced the first cooling machine 
 in New York or the vicinity, which was of an improved 
 kind, but still did not meet all the requirements. The 
 demand, however, stimulated the technicians to overcome 
 all difficulties and to produce the perfect refrigeration 
 machine with which today all the large breweries are 
 equipped. 
 
 Only the development of the ice and cooling-machine 
 industry enabled the lager-beer brewer to do away with 
 the limits which nature had until now drawn. He did 
 not have to brew his lager beer only at certain times of the 
 year, but at any time when it suited him best. Human 
 knowledge and technique had won a victory over nature. 
 
 3. FROM SMALL PRODUCTION TO GREAT 
 INDUSTRY. 
 
 In the decade before the outbreak of the Civil War, 
 the beer-brewing industry began to develop from the 
 stage of small production to that of great industry, 
 especially in the Eastern states, where alone anything of 
 the nature of great industry could be said to exist. With 
 the great increase of Germlan population between 1850 to 
 1860 beer-brewing grew rapidly. While the population of 
 the United States in this decade increased only from 
 23,000,000 to 31,000,000, the number of breweries grew 
 from 431 to 1,269. While the manufactured product of 
 
From Small Production to Great Industry. 57 
 
 the breweries in the year 1850 had a value of $5,728,568, 
 it rose in 1860 to $21,310,933. 
 
 However, the main seats of the brewing industry still 
 continued to be confined to two states. New York and 
 Pennsylvania. Almost half of all the beer brewed in the 
 Union in 1860 was produced in these two states. Of the 
 total 1,269 breweries, 347 were in Pennsylvania and New 
 York, and in capacity these were far ahead of the breweries 
 in the other states. Of the 175 breweries in the state of 
 New York, 46 were in New York City. And of the 172 
 breweries in Pennsylvania, 68 were in Philadelphia. In 
 Baltimore there were then 12 breweries, and in Boston 6. 
 
 The value of the product of the New York breweries 
 in 1860 was $6,320,724; that of the breweries in Penn- 
 sylvania, $3,151,069. According to this, out of the total 
 value of the product manufactured in 1860, $21,310,933, 
 these two states had $9,471,793. Of the other states, only 
 Ohio, Illinois, New Jersey, Missouri, and California had a 
 beer production exceeding in value $1,000,000 a year. In 
 the same decade the settlement of the Western states 
 brought the beer industry into that part of the country. 
 About 1850, Mathias Frehm set up the first brewery in 
 Davenport, Iowa. In 1849, the gold fever and the number 
 of people drawn to California by it called forth the first 
 brewery there, which was erected in San Francisco by a 
 German, A. Schuppert. This was followed in 1852 by 
 another, erected by the firm, Gundlach & Frauenholz. In 
 the preceding year John Joseph Hartmann had established 
 a "steam-beer" brewery in San Jose. In 1860 California 
 already had 83 breweries. 
 
 The other Pacific states soon followed. In Walla 
 Walla, in the later state of Washington, we find a brewery 
 in 1855. In 1860 Oregon had eight breweries. In 1859 
 Fred Krug erected the first brewery in Omaha, Neb., which 
 
58 The Modern Beer-Brewing Industry. 
 
 had a capacity of one and a half barrels a day. In 1860 
 beer-brewing had become firmly established in Kansas. 
 In Colorado the first brewery was erected in 1859, in 
 Denver, and the first brewer of that city was Ph. Zang. 
 
 In the South, also, about this time, the brewing industry 
 had got a firm foothold. In Texas, in the city of San An- 
 tonio, the first brewery was established in 1855 by Wilhelm 
 Menger. Five years later we find thirteen breweries in 
 this state. In Georgia a brewery existed in 1860, while 
 Kentucky then already had twenty-five. In Louisiana, to 
 which state a number of Germans had come in 1848, there 
 were five breweries, in Maryland twenty-two, in Tennessee 
 two, and in Virginia six. During the Civil War many 
 soldiers of German descent were stationed for years in 
 the Southern states, and so breweries sprung up there 
 which sold their product to the army. 
 
 Naturally by this time the real hand work had almost 
 completely disappeared. The beer-brewing industry was 
 among the first in America in which steam played an im- 
 portant part. As early as 1817 steam was used as a motive- 
 power in most of the breweries of New England, and New 
 York and Pennsylvania soon followed the example. In 
 1819 a stationary steam engine was set up in a brewery 
 owned by Francis Perot, in Vine street, Philadelphia, 
 which had been built by a certain Thomas Holloway, and 
 which continued in use down to 1872. This engine was 
 described as the first one in America ; but this is an error, 
 for, as said before, steam engines were generally introduced 
 into the breweries in New England in 1817. 
 
 The concentration of the industry also progressed. 
 The average capacity of the breweries of the United States 
 from 1850 to 1860 increased only from $13,291 to $16,792 ; 
 but this small average increase was due to the fact that in 
 that decade the industry had only begun to develop in 
 
From Small Production to Great Industry. 59 
 
 the West and in the South, and naturally the many new 
 breweries which sprang up there had only small capacities. 
 But in the older brewing centers, New York, Pennsylvania, 
 and the neighboring states, a certain concentration of the 
 industry was noticeable. In New York in 1860 the average 
 product per brewery was $36,000. 
 
 The system of great industry now began to conquer 
 the brewing industry. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Brewing as a Great Industry. 
 
 1. THE DEVELOPMENT OF CAPITALISM DURING 
 THE CIVIL WAR. 
 
 p\URING the first half of the sixties, at the time of the 
 '-^ Civil War between North and South, the foundations 
 of American capitalism were laid. The government had 
 to raise millions upon millions to maintain the army and 
 navy. This treasure flowed in the main into the pockets 
 of contractors who furnished supplies to the soldiers in 
 the field. Under the fructifying influence of the millions 
 which the nation had to pay for its army and navy con- 
 tracts, industry developed and concentrated astonishingly. 
 The workshops were not able to meet the enormous 
 demand for goods. Hand labor was not sufficient to pro- 
 duce all the wares needed. Everywhere machinery began 
 to be used in manufacture, and the workshop developed 
 into the factory. The production of commodities on a 
 large scale took the place of small trade ; where heretofore 
 five or ten men had worked together, now hundreds were 
 employed in large production. Out of the small employer 
 developed the great industrial capitalist; where previously 
 the small business man had a few men working for him, 
 now hundreds or thousands of workingmen were employed 
 by one capitalist, and from the labor of all these working- 
 men a stream of surplus-value flowed into the pockets of 
 the capitalists. There followed such an accumulation of 
 wealth in individual hands as had never before been 
 known. The "honest" exploitation of labor was accom- 
 panied by fraudulent methods which largely promoted the 
 concentration of wealth. Army contractors cheated the 
 nation in supplying goods. The soldiers were clad in 
 shoddy suits and wore shoes yvith paper soles, while' mil- 
 
The Development of Capitalism During the Civil War. 61 
 
 lions were being piled up in the hands of the contractors. 
 Legislation at that time when the country was in danger 
 was placed in the hands of the capitalists and legislative 
 measures of all sorts were introduced calculated still 
 further to increase the stream of wealth which flowed into 
 the coffers of the possessing class. The wealth so acquired 
 was used for the acquisition of yet more wealth. At that 
 time the foundation was laid for the enormous possessions 
 of the railroad companies. How the wealth of the country 
 increased and its ownership was concentrated can be seen 
 from the fact that in spite of the enormous destruction of 
 values in the South in consequence of the war the national 
 wealth of the United States grew from $514 per capita in 
 1850 to $780 per capita in 1870. The South did not take 
 part in this increase. In the main, wealth was con- 
 centrated in New York, New England, and the neighboring 
 states of the Northeast, where the concentration of in- 
 dustry had already begun. In the North Atlantic part of 
 the country the average wealth in 1860 — that is, just before 
 the war — ^was $528 per capita, only $14 above the average 
 for the whole country. In 1870 — after the war — in the 
 same district, the per capita wealth of the population had 
 increased to $1,243, or $463 above the average for the 
 whole country. 
 
 The national wealth, however, as is well known, is not 
 the wealth of the nation, but the wealth of the possessing 
 class. The bulk of the population has no part in it. And 
 therefore the above figures do not refer to the possessions 
 of the mass of the population after the war, but to the 
 concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. 
 
 This concentration of wealth was a tremehdous incen- 
 tive to the development of all branches of industry. New 
 enterprises sprang up everywhere, and small trades were 
 transformed into great industries. The whole process of 
 economic development which we always observe when 
 
52 Brewing as a Great Industry. 
 
 :apitalism first begins to operate and which frequently 
 requires many decades in order to transform the character 
 Df society in any given country from a small-bourgeois 
 social order into a great-bourgeois or capitalistic order — 
 this whole process unfolded in the Northeastern portion of 
 the United States during the Civil War in a little less than 
 five years. It was at this time that the foundations were 
 laid for the reign of money in the United States. 
 
 2. CAPITALISM IN THE BEER-BREWING 
 INDUSTRY. 
 
 The same development which we have observed as 
 taking place in industry as a whole during the Civil War 
 took place also in the beer-brewing industry. Various 
 kinds of machinery were introduced into the breweries 
 and improved scientific methods were brought into use 
 for the production of beer. Technical improvements 
 gradually lessened the importance of particular skilled 
 brewing experts. The product of the breweries became 
 more uniform and did not depend so much upon chance as 
 in the former production by hand labor. The brewing 
 establishments grew constantly larger and turned out ever 
 greater quantities of the product. The capitalistic organi- 
 zation of industry gained the upper hand in the brew- 
 ing business. 
 
 In the main, there are three processes in the production 
 of beer — the malting of the barley and other grains ; the 
 mashing process ; and the fermentation process. The first 
 named, malting, tended to become separated from brewing 
 proper. Malting became a distinct industry. Even in 
 colonial tirhes there seem to have been independent malt- 
 ing plants. In Oneida County, New York, we find a 
 malting plant not connected with any brewery in the year 
 1810. In Albany, the first one was established in 1823. 
 In the sixties there was everywhere noticeable, in addition 
 
Capitalism in the Beer-Brewing Industry. 63 
 
 to the expansion of the brewing industry, a general separa- 
 tion of the malting from the brewing business. This was 
 especially the case in New York City and in the no/thern 
 part of the state, where numerous malting plants were 
 established. In the Middle West, also, especially in 
 Illinois and Missouri, we observe at this time the rise of 
 independent malting places. 
 
 In the year 1905 we find 141 independent malteries in 
 the United States, engaged in turning grain into malt for 
 breweries and distilleries. But even now many large 
 breweries have their own malthouses, in which they 
 prepare the malt needed for their own use. 
 
 Coopering also was separated from the brewing in- 
 dustry, and became an independent business and a highly 
 concentrated industry. 
 
 The mashing process, by which the wort is extracted 
 from the malt and the starch contained in the grain is 
 transformed into sugar and dextrine, as well as the process 
 of fermentation, by which the sugar is turned into alcohol 
 — these two processes, naturally, are inseparably bound to 
 the breweries. But what a difiference between the mash- 
 vats and the brewing kettles of the first American 
 breweries and the magnificent equipment of the breweries 
 of the present day, with their huge kettles, their giant 
 machines, and their system of steam and water pipes which 
 wind for miles through the whole establishment. 
 
 In a few decades the industrial development turned the 
 log-houses and the insignificant equipment in which 
 American brewing at first had its home, into gigantic 
 establishments with masses of buildings, factory works, 
 stables, and warehouses constituting a veritable city within 
 a city. The great stables, which often accommodate 
 hundreds of horses, the enormous barns to shelter the 
 wagons and automobiles, the railway tracks which fre- 
 quently convey whole trains of cars into the brewery 
 
64 Brewing as a Great Industry. 
 
 establishment — all these things, replacing the pushcart 
 with which the brewer at first delivered his product, give 
 us a conception of the enormous quantities which the 
 brewing plant sends out in every direction over land and 
 sea. The small mash-vat of former times, in which the 
 hand-working brewers prepared the mash, has given place 
 to very large receptacles in which a whole machinery of 
 levers and wheels has replaced the labor of human hands 
 with a hundred-fold greater power. The small brewing 
 kettle in which, at the beginning of the industry, one or 
 a few barrels of beer could be brewed, has been trans- 
 formed into a whole system of giant kettles in which every 
 phase of the brewing process is continually under scientific 
 observation. The fermentation and cooling rooms, with 
 dozens of large receptacles full of foaming and steaming 
 liquid ; the cooling apparatus, the machinery of which 
 occupies whole large rooms; the lager cellars in which 
 are placed giant barrels and tanks holding, instead of the 
 forty barrels of former times, six hundred, a thousand, or 
 even more barrels of beer; the boiler rooms where 
 thousands of tons of coal are consumed, heating whole 
 rows of boilers in which water is turned into steam, whose 
 heat and power is led into all the rooms of the establish- 
 ment, making it possible for all the processes of the 
 industry to be performed in the proper manner — all this 
 admits of no comparison with the primitive establishments 
 in which, half a century ago, American beer was fre- 
 quently brewed. 
 
 And the store-rooms where bags of hops are piled up 
 which contain the product of entire fields and represent 
 the harvest of whole villages; the malthousesj with 
 thousands and thousands of bushels of grain constituting a 
 whole granary ; the pumping stations which send a veri- 
 table sea of water into the establishment ; the large rooms 
 in which barrels are cleaned and where, by means of 
 
Capitalism in the Beer-Brewing Industry. 66 
 
 machinery, the product when ready for shipment is filled 
 into barrels and bottles ; the cooper-shops and store-rooms 
 containing many thousands of barrels — all this forms a 
 picture which gives us an insight into a modern industry 
 in which the hand-labor of man plays no important part 
 in comparison with the powers of nature which man has 
 taken into his service and which faithfully perform the 
 work for which the strength of thousands of men would 
 not be sufficient. The levers and wheels and iron fingers 
 of the machine have replaced human hands and perform 
 with equal or even greater skill the work which was 
 formerly done by hand; and they have made it possible 
 for a greater change to take place in our society within a 
 century than that which took place in a thousand years in 
 earlier historical periods. 
 
 ■Beer-brewing has, along with other industries, become 
 a great industry, and the small brewery with its hand 
 labor has gone forever. It has become a gigantic industry, 
 one of the most important of the industries of America, as 
 it supplies the demand of whole countries and is in a 
 thousand ways connected with the agricultural population 
 which produces the raw materials consumed in this gigantic 
 production of beer. 
 
 The transformation and development of the industry 
 has not remained without effect upon the persons who 
 are connected with it. With the change in the character 
 of the industry has come a change in the character of the 
 people who control it. 
 
 With the rapid development of the brewing industry 
 in the sixties, capital accumulated in the hands of the 
 brewers to an unprecedented extent. Every increase of 
 a thousand barrels in the amount of the product meant 
 an increase in the stream of gold that was flowing into 
 the pockets of the capitalists. In 1850, the value of the 
 product in the United States amounted to $5,700,000 ; ten 
 
66 Brewing as a Great Industry. 
 
 years later, in 1860, the value had risen to $21,000,000; 
 and in the following twenty years, up to 1880, it grew 
 five-fold — the value of the beer produced had risen in that 
 year to more than $100,000,000. Since then the value has 
 increased again three-fold. The products of the American 
 breweries have now a yearly value of more than 
 $300,000,000, and in spite of all opposition and notwith- 
 standing some temporary checks, it is still on the increase. 
 
 And with the increase in production, naturally the 
 capital in the hands of the brewers increased correspond- 
 ingly. The total capital employed in the brewing industry 
 of America in 1850 amounted to something over 
 $4,000,000. It has increased in fifty years a hundred-fold. 
 In 1900 the capital employed in the brewing industry of 
 America amounted to $413,000,000; and by 1905, only five 
 years later, it had risen another hundred million dollars ; in 
 1905 this capital amounted to no less than $515,636,792. 
 
 The development of the brewing industry from a small 
 trade to a great industry naturally also changed the owner 
 of the brewery from a craftsman and small capitalist into a 
 great capitalist. As a rule, these proprietors were South 
 Germans, partly from the peasant class, who had started 
 their career in the forties and fifties by setting up a 
 brewing kettle and founding small brewing establishments. 
 The rapid increase, especially in the lager-beer industry, 
 which took place after the large German immigration 
 which followed the revolutionary movements of 1848 and 
 1849, and the enormous profits which in the beginning of 
 the industry accrued to the brewers, soon changed these 
 brewers from craftsmen who sometimes employed other 
 workingmen, but who always did some of the work them- 
 selves, into capitalists who left all the work to paid 
 "hands" and were content to gather in the profits 
 derived from the labor of others. 
 
 The rapid accumulation of capital in the hands of the 
 
Capitalism in the Beer-Brewing Industry. 67 
 
 lager-beer brewers brought with it a corresponding change 
 in their social position. Possession gives influence and 
 power, and as these brewers were in the main of German 
 origin, and it was to their interest to remain in touch with 
 the beer-drinking. Germans, the brewing element soon 
 played an important role in the German- American world, a 
 role which increased in importance as the Capital in the 
 hands of the brewers grew by ministering to the thirst 
 of the Germans. 
 
 The change of the brewer from a craftsman to a great 
 capitalist brought with it a change in his private and 
 social life. With the growth of the brewing establishments 
 and the accumulation of wealth in proportion to its growth, 
 luxury and pomp entered the houses of these brewers. In 
 these dwellings everything seemed to "fit" with one 
 exception — it very often happened that the master and 
 mistress were the only ones who seemed out of place in 
 this life. They both generally came from a class in society 
 in which a somewhat coarse and "gemuthlich" tone was 
 permissible. The brewing craftsmen had generally chosen 
 their life-companions from their own class, ?(aA with the 
 change in their possessions there had come to both of 
 them a change in the point of view and behavior which 
 distinguished the rich from the poor. The change in her 
 was much greater than in him, because his business 
 required that he remain among his associates the same 
 jolly fellow who "lived and let live." But she entirely 
 forgot her origin and declined to continue her associations 
 with the grocer's wife and the tavern keeper's wife who 
 had formerly been her friends, but who had not climbed 
 the ladder of success so rapidly as she. 
 
 Delightful stories illustrating the change produced in 
 these brewers by their accumulation of wealth are still told 
 on the East Side of New York, where the remnants of the 
 good old "spiessbiirgerliche Deutschthum" still exist. At 
 
68 Brewing as a Great Industry. 
 
 that time there existed there grocery stores and taverns 
 where in the back room the servant girls got their glass 
 of small beer for two cents and now and then also enjoyed 
 a jolly dance. It is related that the hostess of an Avenue A 
 tavern once took it into her head to visit her old friend 
 "Lieschen," who as a maid had drank many a glass of 
 small beer in her place and had often taken part in the 
 dance. But "Lieschen" had become a brewer's wife and 
 lived with her husband in a palatial residence on Fifth 
 Avenue. When the old friend from! the East Side came 
 to her house, an impressive man-servant confronted her 
 and demanded her card. This had never happened to our 
 good hostess before. She insisted that the servant go to 
 his mistress and tell "Lieschen" that a good friend of 
 hers was there, whom she would know even without a 
 card, that she had many times danced in her place and 
 enjoyed her glass of small beer there. But "Lieschen" did 
 not make her appearance. She had forgotten the small 
 beer at two cents a glass and the jolly dance in the back 
 room. Our good hostess, however, returned sadly to the 
 East Side, and told her guests how inconstant is friend- 
 ship, and had many a bitter word to say about people 
 "who once had no more than L" 
 
 The sons of those Germans who had "risen in life" 
 wanted to forget the origin of their fathers and did not 
 even wish to be reminded of the fact that they were 
 descendants of "Dutchmen." They soon got rid of their 
 German language and German customs. This was not the 
 case with the sons of the first German brewers. Their 
 interest demanded that they remain in the closest touch 
 with the new German immigrant elements who formed 
 the chief customers for their lager beer, and in whose 
 organizations lectures and discussions were frequently held 
 in which the "culture value of German lager beer" as com- 
 pared with that of other beverages, especially of the 
 
Capitalism in the Beer-Brewing Industry. 69 
 
 English beers, was highly praised. Their interests natur- 
 ally forced the German brewers and their descendants to 
 play a part in these German societies. Their wealth placed 
 them in the foreground. When it came to the point of 
 doing something for the spread of "German art and 
 German science," or what goes under that name, then the 
 German brewers on account of their wealth and their 
 interest in maintaining the German life and spirit, as it is 
 from their ranks that they got their best customers, were 
 always coming to the front. Whether this was always to 
 the advantage of German art and science remains in doubt. 
 However, it must be mentioned that in many cases 
 brewery owners distinguished themselves by real bour- 
 geois beneficence. 
 
 3. THE CONCENTRATION OF THE INDUSTRY. 
 
 One of the principal features of the capitalistic develop- 
 ment of industry, aside from the displacement of hand 
 labor by machinery, is the concentration of the several 
 branches of industry. The small concerns are replaced by 
 large ones, the product of the individual enterprise is 
 increased. The greater these enterprises, the harder it 
 becomes for a new concern to meet the competition of the 
 large ones already in the field. Each particular branch of 
 industry becomes more and more monopolized by a few 
 families, who have the necessary large equipment. 
 
 This is clearly illustrated in the development of the 
 brewing industry in the United States. 
 
 The time is long gone by when the brewer himself, in 
 sparsely settled regions, could brew his one or two barrels 
 a day, load them on a pushcart, and sell his product to 
 neighbors and passers-by. In brewing circles of today, 
 they look with scorn upon those times when, as at Albany 
 in 1822, the largest brewery in the United States brewed 
 at most only 250 barrels a day. The largest brewery of 
 
70 Brewing as a Great Industry. 
 
 today produces more than twenty times as much as that, 
 more than 5,000 barrels a day. 
 
 The concentration of the brewing industry shows itself 
 in the fact that the number of breweries in the United 
 States has diminished in the last forty years, in spite of 
 the fact that the population has more than doubled. In 
 1870 the number of breweries in our country was 1,972, 
 which rose in 1880 to 2,272. From that time on, with the 
 increased development of capitalism, the breweries began 
 to diminish in number. The small ones were swallowed 
 by the large ones. In 1890 the number of breweries was 
 only 1,928; in 1900 it had fallen to 1,758, and in 1908 
 to 1,720. 
 
 The concentration of the brewing industry is even 
 more noticeable when one compares the number of brew- 
 eries with the population. 
 
 In 1870 in our country there was a brewery to every 
 20,000 inhabitants ; in 1880, one to every 22,000. By 1890, 
 the development had made great progress, and in that 
 year there were 32,000 inhabitants to every brewery ; and 
 by 1900 there were 43,000 inhabitants, and in 1908 about 
 50,000 to every brewery. 
 
 The extent of the concentration of the brewing in- 
 dustry is best shown in the tremendously increased 
 production, in spite of the fact that the number of breweries 
 has diminished. The capital employed in the year 1850 
 in American breweries amounted, according to the reports 
 of the Census Bureau, to $4,072,380, while the product 
 had a value of $5,728,568. In 1900, the capital employed 
 in breweries was $415,284,468, and the value of the annual 
 product was $237,269,719. A comparison of these figures 
 will also give an idea of the enormous profits which the 
 brewers got out of their capital in the beginning of the 
 industry. 
 
 In the year 1800, the whole brewing industry of the 
 
The Concentration of the Industry. 71 
 
 Union produced 60,000 barrels. By 1863, the annual 
 product had risen to 2,596,803 barrels. On account of the 
 Civil War — war times are good times for brewers and 
 distillers — the consumption of beer increased greatly. In 
 1870 the annual product already amounted to 6,081,517 
 barrels, which amount was doubled in the following decade 
 on account of the rapid settling of the country, especially 
 by beer-drinking Germans. In 1880, the annual product 
 was 12,800,900 barrels. By 1890, this had again more than 
 doubled. The beer production of our country in that year 
 amounted to 26,820,953 barrels. And by 1900 it had 
 risen to 39,471,593 barrels. In 1908 the production of the 
 American breweries was 59,000,000 barrels. During a 
 little over four decades, the production of beer has in- 
 creased twenty-fold, while the population has not even 
 increased three-fold. 
 
 As the number of breweries diminished in spite of the 
 enormous increase in production, naturally a much larger 
 part of the production falls to each individual brewery. A 
 hundred years ago, in 1810, on the average, the product 
 was 1,500 barrels for each brewery yearly. By 1870 this 
 average increased to 3,084 barrels, by 1880 it had risen to 
 5,634 barrels, and by 1890 it had reached the height of 
 13,911 barrels. Ten years later, 1900, the average pro- 
 duct per brewery was 22,458 barrels, and in 1908 it had 
 grown to 34,300. 
 
 It is of interest to observe how the individual states 
 took part in the development of the industry, especially 
 with regard to the number of breweries. In 1870, the 
 state of New York had 281 breweries, and reached its 
 maximum in 1880 with 334; from that time on, from 
 decade to decade, the number of breweries diminished, 
 until in 1908 there were only 214 breweries in the state 
 of New York. In Pennsylvania in 1870 there were 246 
 breweries, and in 1880 it had reached its highest number, 
 
72 Brewing as a Great Industry. 
 
 with 302; this had decreased by 1908 to 248 breweries. 
 In the state of Illinois the breweries decreased from 148 
 in 1870 to 120 in 1908; in Ohio, from 199 to 143; in 
 Wisconsin, from 176 in 1870 and 205 in 1880 it came down 
 to 156 in 1908. The same was the case in Missouri; from 
 87 in 1870 it came down to 55 in the same space of time. 
 California, which had 185 breweries in 1880, reduced the 
 number to 109 by 1908. 
 
 Everywhere, then, we see a large decrease in the num- 
 ber of breweries, with a simultaneous growth in the 
 production. Great capitalism had taken entire possession 
 of the brewing industry. 
 
 This development of the brewing industry is paralleled 
 by that in the development of the malteries. In 1890 the 
 number of independent malteries in the country was 202, 
 with a capitalization of $24,000,000, and employing 3,328 
 workingmen. In 1905 there existed but 141 independent 
 malteries, with a capitalization of $48,000,000 ; the number 
 of workingmen employed had fallen to 2,054. While, then, 
 the number of establishments had been decreased by 61 and 
 the number of workingmen had fallen 40 per cent, the 
 capital employed in the industry had doubled. This is an 
 example of how strong had been the development of cap- 
 italism in the malting industry during these fifteen years. 
 
 It may be mentioned in passing that the Brewers' Asso- 
 ciation systematically discriminated in favor of the larger 
 saloons, to the detriment of the smaller ones. By this 
 means they promoted the concentration process in the 
 saloon business, which facilitated the operation of their 
 business and promoted their own concentration. 
 
 Let us glance at the states in which during the last half 
 century the brewing industry has had its special seats. 
 
 We have seen that at the beginning of the industry, 
 only the states of New York and Pennsylvania came into 
 consideration in beer-brewing. These two states stand even 
 
The Concentration of the Industry. 
 
 today at the head of the list in the production of beer, 
 although several states in the Middle West are trying 
 very hard to come near to Pennsylvania. In 1863, the 
 state of New York had already a beer production of 
 968,094 barrels, and Pennsylvania 348,862 barrels, while 
 Ohio as the third greatest beer state of the Union produced 
 240,781 barrels. None of the other states had a yearly 
 beer production of more than 200,000 barrels. After the 
 war, in 1870, New York had increased its beer production 
 to 1,992,956 barrels. Pennsylvania had come up to 788,034 
 barrels, and Ohio to 570,922. All the other states counted 
 for less, none of them having a production of 500,000 
 barrels. Ten years later, in 1880, New York had again 
 more than doubled its beer production ; it now produced 
 4,445,149 barrels. Pennsylvania now had 1,284,887 bar- 
 rels. And Ohio also had passed the million limit, 
 producing 1,194,382 barrels. In 1890, New York jumped 
 to 8,435,111 barrels; Pennsylvania produced in this year 
 2,658,195 barrels and Ohio 2,301,413. Now Illinois had 
 risen to considerable importance in the production of beer ; 
 in this same year this state produced 2,182,678 barrels, 
 showing an enormous progress in the last two decades, 
 for in 1873 its production was only 520,393 barrels, and 
 in 1880 only 766,730. 
 
 In 1900, the beer production of New York rose to 
 9,946,968 barrels; that of Pennsylvania to 4,917,413 bar- 
 rels. Ohio, with 3,050,930 barrels, was overtaken by 
 Illinois, which produced 3,680,232, and Wisconsin, with 
 3,205,265 barrels. The last named state had only produced 
 62,000 barrels in 1863 ; in 1870 only 190,000 ; it rose by 
 1880 to 791,783, and by 1890 to 1,981,201 barrels, and in 
 1900 it reached the fourth place in the list of beer producing 
 states of the Union. Of the other states, none reached 
 in that year a beer production of 3,000,000 barrels. By the 
 year 1907 the order of the five most important beer states 
 
74 Brewing as a Great Industry. 
 
 in America had not changed: New York led with 
 13,016,904 barrels; then followed Pennsylvania with 
 7,541,796; Illinois, with 5,423,280; Wisconsin, with 
 4,985,139 ; and Ohio, with 4,323,141. Then came Missouri, 
 with 3,848,693, and New Jersey, with 3,138,398 barrels, 
 while none of the other states reached this amount. 
 
 Hand in hand with the increased production goes an 
 increase in the average consumption of beer per capita 
 of the population. 
 
 In 1850 there was an average consumption of about 
 one gallon per capita per year. By 1863 the consumption 
 had risen to 1.87 gallons, and under the influence of the 
 Civil War it had jumped to 5.31 gallons per head in 1870. 
 Since then the average consumption of beer in the United 
 States has risen constantly. In 1880 it was 8.26 gallons; 
 ten years later, 13.67; by 1900 it had grown to 16.01 
 gallons, and in 1908 to a little over 20 gallons. 
 
 It is of interest to note that, while the average beer 
 consumption per capita has increased more than ten-fold, 
 the consumption of spirituous liquors has remained pretty 
 stable. 
 
 In 1863 the consumption of spirituous liquors in the 
 United States was 0.52 gallons per capita. Under the 
 influence of the Civil War and the heavy consumption in 
 the field in the next year the consumption was increased 
 five-fold and amounted to 2.55 gallons per capita, and 
 after 1870 it was 2.7 gallons. By 1880 the consumption 
 had fallen to 1.27 gallons, and since that time has remained 
 about stationary, the average consumption in the year 
 1900 still being 1.27 gallons per capita. 
 
 It is easy to understand that with the development of 
 brewing,- the production of raw materials necessary for 
 the making of malt beverages has also been increased as 
 much as the beer production itself. While in 1850 the 
 barley harvest in the United States amounted to 5,167,015 
 
The Concentration of the Industry. 75 
 
 bushels, by 1906 it had reached the figure of 178,916,484 
 bushels, the value of which for the farmer was $75,000,000. 
 The production of barley is largest in the Northwestern 
 states, especially Wisconsin, Minnesota, and the Dakotas, 
 particularly, however, in California, which in 1906 had a 
 barley harvest of 38,760,000 bushels. 
 
 The planting of hops also increased with the develop- 
 ment of the brewing industry. In 1840 only 6,000 bales of 
 hops, weighing 200 pounds each, were produced in the 
 United States. Twenty years later, 1860, the hop harvest 
 of our country amounted already to 55,000 bales, and by 
 1900 to 226,500. Until then the state of New York still 
 produced a good part of the hops, but it now has to give 
 precedence to the Pacific states. During the past year, out 
 of a total hop harvest of 250,000 bales. New York produced 
 only 30,000, and all the rest was grown in Oregon, 
 California and Washington. 
 
 The brewing industry in the United States is largely 
 concentrated in the great cities in which the population is 
 largely of a North European origin. The city of New 
 York, with a yearly production of 10,000,000 barrels, stands 
 at the head. Then follow Chicago, with 4,500,000 and 
 Milwaukee, with 4,000,000 barrels. St. Louis, Philadelphia 
 and Newark and the vicinity follow in order, with an aver- 
 age yearly production of about 3,000,000 barrels. 
 
 The largest beer breweries are to be found in these 
 central places of the American brewing industry. In St. 
 Louis, Milwaukee, and New York we find single breweries 
 which have a yearly production of from 1,000,000 to 
 1,500,000 barrels, and which belong among the largest 
 beer establishments of the world. 
 
76 Brewing as a Great Industry. 
 
 4. THE ORGANIZATION OF THE BREWERY 
 CAPITALISTS. 
 
 The brewery capitalists, earlier than those of other 
 industries, recognized the value of organization and acted 
 accordingly. It lay in the nature of the brewing business 
 that those connected with it should unite to protect their 
 business interests much sooner than the capitalists in 
 other branches of production. While the capitalists in 
 the textile, iron and other industries, in general, organized 
 only after their workingmen had sought to improve their 
 own condition by organization and struggle and had 
 demanded for themselves a share in the benefits flowing 
 from: the development of industry, the brewing capitalists, 
 on the other hand, began to organize long before their 
 workingmen had thought of united action. As we have 
 said, this lay in the nature of the industry, and was due 
 to the special enemies which threatened to hinder or 
 destroy this industry. 
 
 In the main, it was the state and the temperance 
 agitation in America which were the enemies of the brew- 
 ing industry in the beginning — the state, because it sought 
 to fill its coffers at the expense of the brewing industry, 
 and the temperance agitation, because it attempted by 
 legislation and by social pressure to restrict the consump- 
 tion of alcoholic drinks. 
 
 Scarcely had the hostilities of the Civil War broken 
 out and the necessity arisen for putting a large army in 
 the field, when the Congress at Washington decreed, July 
 1, 1862, that in order to help meet the expenses of the 
 war each barrel of beer was to pay a war tax of one 
 dollar. The brewery owners became uneasy. They made 
 loud professions of patriotic sentiment, and declared that 
 that they would gladly pay the war tax of $1 a barrel — 
 especially as they would get it back by raising the price 
 or reducing the quality of their beer. But in reality they 
 
The Organization of the Brewery Capitalists. 77 
 
 were not satisfied, because they feared that an increase of 
 the price or a deterioration of the quality of beer would 
 diminish the consumption, just at the moment when beer 
 was at the point of establishing its domination throughout 
 the country. Besides, no one could tell how the war would 
 develop, and they were afraid that beer might again be 
 resorted to in order to meet increased war expenses — that 
 is, that it might be made to "bleed" still further as a 
 subject for taxation. They therefore came to the con- 
 clusion that an organized opposition by the brewing 
 interests was in order. 
 
 It was John R. Katzenmayer, an 1848 refugee from 
 Baden, who was now in the employ of the brewing firm 
 of A. Schmid & Co., of New York, who issued a call to 
 the brewers of New York and the vicinity, soon after the 
 tax had been imposed. In this call he urged the organi- 
 zation of all brewers and allied industries for the purpose 
 of protecting their common interests. 
 
 In response to this call, a meeting was held in 
 Pythagoras Hall, New York City, on August 21, 1862, at 
 which a local organization of brewing capitalists was 
 formed. This meeting decided to call a national conven- 
 tion of brewery capitalists, which met on November 12, 
 1862, also in Pythagoras Hall. 
 
 It was as this convention that the National Brewers' 
 Association was founded. 
 
 In the beginning, only the brewers of lager beer 
 belonged to this organization, but the ale and porter 
 brewers also joined the Association soon afterward. The 
 influence which the Germans exercised in this organiza- 
 tion is shown by the fact that the proceedings of the 
 conventions were for many years conducted in the German 
 language, and all the early publications of the Association 
 were exclusively in that language. Even in the convention 
 of 1868, it was decided that the proceedings should be 
 
78 arewtng as a Great Industry. 
 
 conducted in German, but that important questions and 
 addresses should be translated into English. This quali- 
 fication was made out of consideration for the ale and 
 porter brewers, most of whom spoke only English. Not 
 until 1872 was it decided that the official language of the 
 brewers' conventions should be alternately German and 
 English — English in one year and German in the next. 
 Gradually, in the following years, the English language 
 supplanted the German in the proceedings of the brewers. 
 The helplessness which at first prevailed in all the parlia- 
 mentary proceedings of the brewers' convention made them 
 for many years the butt for all kinds of sneering remarks. 
 
 The second convention of the National Brewers' Asso- 
 ciation was held in February, 1863, at Philadelphia. It 
 was attended by the Western brewers, who had not been 
 present at the first convention. Naturally the greater part 
 of the proceedings were devoted to the question of the 
 taxation of beer, and it was resolved to make an attempt 
 to get the war tax reduced to fifty cents a barrel. In fact, 
 the committee which had been sent to Washington to 
 influence the action of Congress had so far succeeded as 
 to procure the reduction of the tax on beer to sixty cents a 
 barrel for the period from' March, 1863, to April, 1864, but 
 with the understanding that after the last named date a full 
 dollar a barrel would again be imposed. 
 
 The brewers' conventions and their committees under- 
 took also to make their influence felt with regard to the 
 duties imposed upon the importation of raw materials 
 which were used in the beer-brewing industry. At the 
 convention which was held in Chicago, in 1867, an agita- 
 tion was started to procure the reduction of the tariff on 
 imported barley, which was said to be desirable because 
 the barley of America was gradually degenerating in 
 quality. In this matter, however, the interests of the 
 farmers prevailed over those of the brewery capitalists. 
 
The Organization of the Brewery Capitalists. 79 
 
 Congress not only did not reduce the tariff on barley, but 
 it actually increased it. On the whole, however, 'the legis- 
 lative committees of the brewers' organization — which had 
 in the mean time changed its name to the United States 
 ■Brewers' Association — succeeded in defeating many of 
 the plans of their opponents in Congress. An example of 
 this was the defeat of a bill offered in 1870, which, if 
 enacted, would have put the entire industry under the 
 control of the United States revenue authorities. It is of 
 interest to note that when discussion of the means of 
 preventing this change in the collection of the internal 
 revenue took place at the convention held in 1870 at 
 Davenport, and among other methods political action in 
 the interest of the brewing capitalists was threatened, a 
 New York brewer named Clausen declared that if the 
 proposed law should go into effect the brewers would 
 form an organization which would not only control 
 $200,000,000 of capital, but which would have thousands 
 of political votes at its disposal, and then the law-givers 
 of the nation would be compelled to recognize the power 
 of the brewers. 
 
 It has already been remarked that the brewing industry 
 did not only have the taxation by the national government 
 as its opponent, but that the agitation of the temperance 
 advocates and the Prohibitionists also helped to drive the 
 young industry to organization in defense of its interests. 
 
 During the Civil War, naturally, the Prohibitionist 
 movement could not make itself felt. As long as the war 
 continued, the great struggle for the maintenance of the 
 Union and the question of negro slavery and its abolition, 
 which was so closely connected with this struggle, put all 
 other questions into the background. But almost as soon 
 as the war had ceased and negro slavery had been abol- 
 ished, the Prohibitionist movement started up again and 
 concentrated its energies especially against the beer- 
 
80 Brewing as a Great Industry. 
 
 brewing industry, which, had expanded so rapidly during 
 the war. 
 
 The question of prohibition and all that was connected 
 with it first arose in the Brewers' Association at the 
 convention which was held in St. Louis in 1866. This 
 convention warned the members of the organization not 
 to rest in fancied security, as fanatics were at work who, 
 under the pretext that they wanted the Sunday and tem- 
 perance laws enforced, "were in reality seeking to under- 
 mine the self-respect and independence of humanity and to 
 destroy business and freedom of conscience." 
 
 In the convention of 1873, also, which was held in 
 Cleveland, the question of the temperance agitation came 
 up for consideration, and it was resolved that the con- 
 stitutionality of certain prohibitory laws enacted in several 
 states should be tested by appeal to the United States 
 Supreme Court. 
 
 The national organization of the brewing capitalists 
 was at first under the leadership of its secretary, John 
 R. Katzenmayer, who died in 1866. His son, Richard 
 Katzenmayer, succeeded him in the following year, and 
 was at the head of the organization as secretary until the 
 year 1898. He was succeeded by Callus Thomann, who 
 was elected secretary of the organization of the brewery 
 capitalists at the convention held in Atlantic City. The 
 convention of 1902 fixed the salary of the secretary at 
 $6,000 a year, with the provision that Callus Thomann was 
 to receive a lifelong pension of $2,000 a year when he should 
 resign his post. It will be seen from this that the brewing 
 capitalists are pretty liberal in rewarding the men who 
 work for the protection of their interests. 
 
 Besides the government, which taxed the brewing 
 industry in order to fill its treasury, and the temperance 
 advocates, who saw in the consumption of beer a source 
 of peril to the people, another antagonist of the brewing 
 
The Organisation of the Brewery Capitalists. 81 
 
 capitalists now came into the foreground, and this new 
 danger was pretty thoroughly discussed in the meetings 
 of the Brewers' Association. The brewery workmen 
 knocked loudly at the doors of the employers and an- 
 nounced that they wanted their share of the immense 
 wealth which they had produced for the employing 
 brewers. They demanded the benefits which the working- 
 men of other trades had obtained through their struggles. 
 They demanded human treatment, an adequate wage, and 
 tolerable working hours. They demanded the abolition of 
 the condition of virtual slavery under which the working- 
 men of the breweries especially had existed, notwithstand- 
 ing the wealth which the brewery owners had accumulated. 
 
 Before the eighties we find in the recorded proceedings 
 of the conventions of the brewing capitalists hardly any 
 mention of their employees. But from this time on, the 
 workingmen made themselves felt and in almost every one 
 of the later conventions of the employers the question of 
 opposing the demands of their workingmen occupied the 
 bulk of the proceedings. 
 
 Aside from the national organization of the brewing 
 capitalists, there had also, in the mean time, been formed 
 state and local organizations. There was scarcely a legis- 
 lative enactment in any state of the Union which was not 
 watched and acted upon by the organization of the brew- 
 ers. There was scarcely a legislature in which there were 
 not well paid agents of the brewing capitalists who made 
 it their business to guard their interests. 
 
 Other trades connected with the brewing industry had 
 also by this time formed organizations. The malting 
 capitalists, for instance, held a convention at Niagara in 
 1874, at which they formed a national organization. The 
 brewmasters, the technically trained employees of the 
 breweries, also organized on March 21, 1887, forming a 
 national association whose purposes were stated to be the 
 
82 Brewing as a Great Industry. 
 
 promotion of mutual acquaintance, the furthering of the 
 brewing industry, the discussion of scientific questions 
 connected with the brewing industry, and the advancement 
 of the education of the brewery workmen. The regulation 
 of the apprentice system in the breweries was to receive 
 special attention. This organization holds yearly meetings 
 in order to promote these purposes. It has not, however, 
 acquired any considerable importance in the industry. 
 
 5. COMPARATIVE REVIEW. 
 
 While the consumption of wine and spirits per capita 
 of the population has during the recent decades remained 
 practically stationary, the consumption of beer has steadily 
 increased in all industrial countries. There appears to be a 
 connection between industrial development and the con- 
 sumption of beer. This is explained by the fact that the 
 development of industry concentrates the population in 
 large cities and brings large numbers of people together at 
 their work in great factories and industrial villages. 
 
 Not only in the United States, but also in the various 
 countries of Europe, the production of beer has undergone 
 a steady expansion. This increase was especially notice- 
 able in the later sixties of the nineteenth century and until 
 the economic crisis of 1873, when a reaction set in which 
 was not overcome until the eighties. 
 
 Down to 1885, Great Britain stood at the head of all 
 beer-producing countries. Then it was overtaken by 
 Germany, and during the last few years the United States 
 has increased its production of beer to such an extent that 
 it also is ahead of Great Britain. It is very likely that in 
 the near future the United States will surpass even 
 Germany and will head the list of the beer-producing 
 countries of the world. 
 
 The annual production of beer in Great Britain in- 
 creased from 650,000,000 gallons in 1840 to 1,020,000,000 
 
Comparative Review. 83 
 
 gallons in 1880. In the same space of time Germany 
 increased its output of beer from 500,000,000 to 850,000,000 
 gallons. While in 1885 the German Empire produced 
 about 36,000,000 barrels of beer, and in 1908 about 
 62,000,000 barrels, during the same period Great Britain 
 showed an increase from 38,000,000 to 48,000,000 bar- 
 rels. The United States, however, increased its beer 
 production during the same years from 19,000,000 barrels 
 to 59,000,000 barrels. 
 
 The consumption of beer per capita of the population 
 rises constantly. In Germany in 1885, it amounted on 
 the average to 23.76 gallons. per year, and by 1900 this 
 had increased to 35.47 gallons. In Great Britain the 
 average in 1885 was 32.52 gallons and increased to 38.04 
 gallons in 1900. In the United States, during the same 
 period, the average consumption increased from 10.62 
 gallons to 16.01 gallons per capita ; and this rose by 1908 
 to something over 20 gallons. In the German Empire, of 
 course, the average consumption of beer varies greatly in 
 different regions. Bavaria stands at the head, with 62 
 gallons per capita. It is followed by Wiirttemberg, with 
 46.5 gallons, and by Baden, with 40.9 gallons. After 
 Bavaria, Salzburg shows the highest beer consumption 
 in the world, with an average of 59.6 gallons per capita. 
 Belgium, with 44.8 gallons, and Bohemia, with 39.6 gallons 
 per capita, also consume large quantities. 
 
 The largest number of breweries is still to be found in 
 Germany; in that country, in spite of the high develop- 
 ment of the brewing industry, there still exist a great 
 number of small breweries, which yet retain the methods 
 of production by hand labor characteristic of a peasant 
 society. In the year 1897 German had in operation 21,236 
 breweries, while Great Britain had only 8,196, which, how- 
 ever, produced almost the same quantity of beer as the 
 21,236 breweries of Germany. This fact shows that the 
 
84 Brewing as a Great Industry. 
 
 great capitalistic character of the British brewing industry 
 is much more pronounced than that of the German. 
 
 Aside from the United States, Germany and Great 
 Britain, which countries, as we have seen, produce yearly 
 from 48,000,000 to 62,000,000 barrels, the chief beer- 
 producing countries of the world are Austria-Hungary, 
 with an annual production of 19,000,000 barrels ; Belgium, 
 with 14,000,000, and France, with 12,000,000 barrels. 
 Russia produces 5,000,000 barrels a year, and no other 
 country comes up to that mark. The entire beer pro- 
 duction of the world for the year 1908 is stated at 
 233,000,000 barrels. 
 
 Hand in hand with the increase in the beer production 
 of the world, goes an increase in the production of the raw 
 materials which are necessary for the preparation of beer. 
 The barley harvest of the world amounted in 1900 to nearly 
 1,000,000,000 bushels, of which three-fourths were pro- 
 duced in Europe, where Russia, Germany and Austria are 
 the principal barley-growing countries. About half of this 
 barley was used for malting purposes. The hop harvest 
 of the world amounts to about 2,000,000 hundredweight, 
 of which two-thirds are produced in Europe. Aside from 
 the United States, Germany, England, and Austria are 
 the countries which call for especial mention as pro- 
 ducers of hops. 
 
 In conclusion, a comparison between the consumption 
 of beer and the consumption of other alcoholic beverages 
 may be of interest. 
 
 Whereas, as we have seen, the average consumption 
 of beer has on the whole shown a steady increase, the 
 average consumption of wine and spirits has remained 
 stationary. In the United States in 1885 the average 
 consumption of wine per capita was 0.39 gallons per year, 
 and in 1900 it was 0.40 gallons. In England the corre- 
 sponding figures are 0.45 and 0.46. In Germany the 
 
Comparative Review. 85 
 
 consumption of wine decreased during this period, but it 
 increased in France. In the German Empire, in 1885, 
 there was an average consumption of 2.32 gallons of wine 
 per capita; in the wine country, France, it was 25.56 
 gallons. By 1900, the average wine consumption in the 
 German Empire had fallen to 1.74 gallons, while in France 
 it had risen to 30.90 gallons per capita. 
 
 The consumption of spirits has been even more nearly 
 stationary than that of wine. In 1885 in the United States 
 it amounted to an average of 1.26 gallons per capita, and 
 by 1900 it had increased only to 1.27 gallons. For France 
 the corresponding figures are 2.02 for 1885 and 2.42 for 
 1900. In England, too, the consumption of spirits has 
 remained almost stationary. In 1885 it amounted to 1.15 
 gallons per capita, and fifteen years later it was 1.34 gallons. 
 
 Only Germany seems to have progressed in the con- 
 sumption of spirits also. In 1888, for every German 
 subject there was a consumption of 2.83 gallons of spirits 
 per year; in 1900, it was 3.45 gallons — an advance of 
 which the Germans have no reason to be proud. 
 
PART II. 
 
 The Brewery Workers' Movement. 
 
T 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 Prior to Organization. 
 
 He transformation which the capitalistic development 
 produced in the brewing industry could not remain 
 without its effect upon the workingmen who were em- 
 ployed in the industry. 
 
 As long as the production of fermented beverages was 
 carried on by hand labor, the relation of the brewer to 
 his workmen corresponded to the relation between the 
 craftsman and the apprentice or, better still, to the rela- 
 tion between the small peasant and his serf. With the 
 increasing importance of the industry and the growing 
 magnitude of the establishments, with the increasing use 
 of machinery and the growing wealth of the brewery 
 owners, the distance between them and their working- 
 men became greater and greater. The personal relation- 
 ship between the two parties came to an end. Social dis- 
 tinctions began to make themselves felt and class differ- 
 ences became recognized in every way. The workingman 
 was farther and farther removed from the purchaser of 
 his labor power. 
 
 The condition of the brewery workmen in America 
 before their organization was as bad as can be imagined. 
 It was not only that the wages paid were the smallest 
 possible and that the working time was confined only 
 by the natural limits of human endurance, but besides 
 this the treatment of the workmen was of such a kind 
 that it seems impossible today to understand how they 
 could submit to it. Cuffs and blows were everyday oc- 
 currences. When the brewery owner developed into a 
 great capitalist, he transferred to his foremen the privilege 
 of beating the men which he had formerly exercised in 
 
90 Prior to Organization. 
 
 person, and the foremen continued to use it until the 
 brewery workmen through their organization freed them- 
 selves from this remnant of the barbarism of the Middle 
 Ages. 
 
 There are few trustworthy sources of detailed informa- 
 tion as to the conditions then prevailing. In the main, 
 we are confined to information gained by word of mouth. 
 The Census Bureau of the United States has published 
 some statistics concerning the brewery workers since 
 1850 ; but, as we shall see, these figures are of little value. 
 
 In the middle of the forties of the nineteenth century, 
 the brewery workers received wages of from $4 to $6 a 
 week. There were some who got $9 a week, but they were 
 exceptional. Five dollars a week may be taken as the 
 average at that time. This is for the week-workers; but 
 most of the brewery laborers were employed by the month. 
 They received at that time from $4 to $12 a month, to- 
 gether with board and lodging and washing. In some 
 cases the brewery owners themselves boarded their 
 hands; in others they employed for this purpose confi- 
 dential persons whom they could trust to look out for their 
 interests. 
 
 A report of the Census Bureau at Washington, which 
 was published in June, 1902, and deals especially with 
 the production of alcoholic beverages, gives some infor- 
 mation about the number of brewery workmen in the 
 years from 1850 to 1880. According to this report there 
 were in 1850 in the United States 2,347 workmen em- 
 ployed in breweries. By 1860 this number had increased 
 to 6,433, and by 1870 to 12,443. For the year 1880 the 
 number of brewery workmen is given as 26,220, and 
 workingmen in the malteries as 2,332. Women and chil- 
 dren also were employed in the brewing industry, but 
 comparatively few. The number of women thus employed 
 was 11 in 1850 and 29 in 1880. Child labor first appears 
 
Prior to Organization. 91 
 
 in 1870. The Census Bureau gives the number of children 
 employed at that time as 94, and ten years later this had 
 increased to 190. 
 
 In the figures given by the Census, office workers and 
 foremen are included, so that it is impossible to ascertain 
 the exact number of actual brewery workmen. The num- 
 ber of office workers, superintendents, and officials, etc., 
 must even at that time have been a considerable one. 
 In 1870 the Census reported that the entire body of work- 
 ers in the breweries of the United States amounted to 
 12,443, but as said before, this included the other auxiliaiy 
 forces. Four years later, when the growth of the industry 
 should have brought the number of workingmen together 
 with office employees up to at least 16,000, the brewing 
 capitalists reported at the convention held in Boston, that 
 they employed in the beer breweries 11,138 workingmen. 
 It seems then that of the figures given by the Census 
 about one-third represented the office staff, etc., and two- 
 thirds represented the real brewery workmen. 
 
 The same uncertainty which prevails with regard to 
 the number of workingmen employed prevails also with 
 regard to the rate of wages paid. The wages of the 
 brewery workmen and the salaries of the foremen and the 
 office employees are all lumped together, so that the figures 
 given are practically without value, especially as in col- 
 lecting these figures no account was taken whether the 
 workmen received board and lodging or not. The average 
 wage, according to the Census, in the year 1850, amounted 
 to $278 a year— that is, about $5.30 a week. By 1860 this 
 average had risen to $358 a year, and for 1870 the average 
 yearly wage is even given as high as $543. In 1880, how- 
 ever, after the terrible crisis of 1873-76, the average had 
 fallen to $465. For the 2,332 workingmen employed in 
 the malteries of the United States, an average yearly 
 earning of $430 is given. 
 
92 Prior to Organization. 
 
 However, as has already been said, these figures of 
 the census have only a relative value, as the wages of the 
 best paid officials and office employees are reckoned in, 
 so that in reality the wages of the brewery workmen in 
 those years were far lower than indicated by the census 
 figures. In addition to this, it must be taken into con- 
 sideration that the census statistics presume that the 
 workers are employed through the entire year, which, of 
 course, was true only in a few cases. 
 
 In regard to the distribution of workingmen to the 
 individual establishments, there was in 1850 an average of 
 five workingmen to each brewery. The same ratio still 
 prevailed in 1860. By 1870 the average had risen to six 
 workingmen per brewery, and by 1880, with the develop- 
 ment of the methods of great industry, this number had 
 doubled. In the year 1900 there was an average of 26 
 workingmen for each brewery in the United States, and 
 by 1905 the number had reached 31. ' These figures, too, 
 show the concentration of industry. 
 
 The working hours for men employed in breweries and 
 malteries were absolutely unregulated before the organi- 
 zation of the men. It might be said that they were always 
 working except when they were asleep. A foreman malter 
 from Buffalo reports as follows concerning the hours 
 of labor in malteries in the year 1863: "Work began at 
 five o'clock in the morning, and, with the exception of an 
 hour for breakfast and for dinner, it lasted until six in 
 the evening. At eight the men went to work again, in 
 order to finish their floor and kiln work, which lasted until 
 half-past nine or ten o'clock." 
 
 In reality, conditions were even worse than this report 
 would lead one to believe. 
 
 Down to 1880 a working day of from fourteen to 
 eighteen hours was a normal thing in the breweries of the 
 United States. In addition to this, the men worked 
 
, Prior to Organisation. 93 
 
 six or eight hours on Sunday. In many cases they worked 
 until ten o'clock, and were awakened at one to start work 
 again. In some places they worked even longer than 
 eighteen hours. 
 
 In the sixties the wages of brewery workmen amounted 
 to from $20 to $25 a month. They were boarded and 
 lodged by the employer. The workingmen were, so to 
 speak, counted in with the employer's family. Their sleep- 
 ing places were as a rule not of the best. In the begin- 
 ning of the seventies, as the consumption of beer increased, 
 it became customary for the brewer to turn over his 
 workmen to boarding houses which bought beer from 
 him. The wages without board now rose to $40 or $45 
 a month. V.ery often the foreman of the brewery boarded 
 the men who worked under him. During the latter half 
 of the seventies, the wages paid in New York rose from 
 $40 to $50 a month, and some specially "trusty" workmen 
 received as much as $52 to $55. The brewmaster fixed 
 the rate of wages for the individual workman, which, of 
 course, introduced a great deal of favoritism, destroyed 
 the independence of the workmen, and gave rise to para- 
 sitism and sycophancy. 
 
 From the wages of $40 to $55 a month which the 
 brewery workmen in New York were receiving shortly 
 before 1880 (elsewhere it was only $35 or $40), the brew- 
 ery boss deducted $5 a week for board and the remaining 
 $20 or $25 was paid over to the workman. The working- 
 men were generally compelled to live wherever the boss 
 required. Frequently they had to sleep together in one 
 large room, but very often they were so exhausted with 
 their heavy work that they simply threw themselves down 
 on the hop-sacks in the brewery to sleep a few hours till 
 work began again. 
 
 The inhumanly long hours of labor and the consequent 
 exhaustion of the men led to an excessive use of beer. 
 
94 Prior to Organization. 
 
 which was always at their disposal, but which was fre- 
 quently taken into consideration in fixing the wages. In 
 the year 1868 the Internal Revenue Office at Washing- 
 ton made a ruling to the effect that the beer which was 
 given to the brewery workmen as a part of their wages 
 or as an inducement to them to work for lower wages 
 should pay the internal revenue the same as beer which 
 was sold. The "Sternewirth" was always at the unlim- 
 ited disposal of the workmen. The fatigue and exhaus- 
 tion resulting from their hard and long continued work 
 compelled the men to drink. They had to drink in order 
 to keep themselves going. They needed the stimulant 
 in order to be able to perform their difficult tasks. The 
 employers knew this, and therefore they provided un- 
 limited quantities of beer for their workmen. They were 
 well aware that sober workmen would not submit to the 
 hard treatment, the inhuman hours of labor, and the low 
 wages that prevailed. They promoted drunkenness among 
 their men and sought to degrade them in order that they 
 might exploit them and use them up the more freely. 
 
w 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Beginnings of Organization. 
 
 1. THE FIRST ATTEMPTS. 
 
 HILE the development of industry in the United 
 States had given birth to a number of small trade- 
 unions as early as the middle of the last century, it was 
 not until the end of the seventies that the brewery work- 
 men began to grasp the idea that in union there is strength 
 and that if they were united they would then be in a posi- 
 tion to improve their horrible lot. This was in part due 
 to the inhuman conditions under which the brewery work- 
 men labored, and partly to the special character of the 
 brewing industry. 
 
 In all industries in which the greater part of the capital 
 invested is constant capital — that is, capital which takes 
 the form of factories, machinery, raw materials, etc., or, 
 in brief, the means of production — the labor movement 
 develops later than in those industries in which the greater 
 part of the capital is variable capital — that is, capital 
 which is used in the purchase of labor-power, in the pay- 
 ment of wages. The reason for this is obvious. In in- 
 dustries employing large numbers of workingmen, just 
 on account of their large number the social distinc- 
 tion between the capitalists and the working class is more 
 quickly perceived by the workingmen. Therefore, in those 
 cases where large numbers of workingmen are employed, 
 regular organizations of workingmen will be formed sooner 
 than in industries employing but few wage-workers. 
 
 The brewing industry is one of those in which the 
 capital used for the purchase of labor-power plays but a 
 comparatively small part. In comparison with the total 
 capital in use in the brewing industry only a few work- 
 
96 Beginnings of Organization. 
 
 ingmen are employed. These men, owing to their hard 
 labor and the inhuman conditions under which they 
 worked, did not have much opportunity for organization. 
 About 1870 there were on the average only six workmen 
 for each brewery in the United States, and by 1880 this 
 number had grown only to twelve. There were but a few 
 breweries which employed more than this average number. 
 This fact explains why, in spite of the great development 
 of this industry after the Civil War, the workingmen 
 employed in it were so late in organizing their trade. 
 
 Before their organization into trade-unions, however, 
 there were formed here and there some mutual aid socie- 
 ties, which were the fruit of the first realization by the 
 men that they needed union among themselves in order 
 to withstand the storms of life. In Cincinnati, where the 
 brewing industry had acquired some importance in the 
 fifties, such a brewers' mutual aid society was founded 
 in 1852. 
 
 Even earlier than this steps had been taken in St. 
 Louis to gather the German brewers of that city into a 
 kind of union. It is reported from that city, under the 
 date of May 10, 1850, that a mass meeting of German 
 workingmen was held for the purpose of discussing the 
 means to call into being "associations," a kind of trade 
 organizations according to the ideas of Weitling. A com- 
 mittee was appointed consisting of three members of each 
 of the trades represented in the meeting. Those elected 
 to this committee from the beer brewers were H. Fritz, 
 H. Wagner, and H. Busch. It is not known what came 
 of this first attempt to found a union of brewery workmen 
 on American soil. 
 
 In New York about 1860 there arose a brewers' mili- 
 tary company known as "The Original Brewers' and 
 Coopers' Guard." This developed out of the custom of 
 holding an annual picnic accompanied by a parade, which 
 
The First Attempts. 97 
 
 was attended hy both brewery owners and brewery work- 
 men, and whiv took place mostly in Jones' Woods. Out 
 of this Brewers' Guard, whose chief personage at this 
 time was J. C. Glaser-Htipfel, there developed the "Orig- 
 inal Brewers' and Coopers' Sick Benefit and Mutual Aid 
 Association of New York," which was founded on October 
 26, 1867, and which still exists. The brewery owner 
 Hiipfel, already mentioned, who is even now an honorary 
 member of the organization, was elected its first president. 
 The other officers were Henry Fritz, Fred Gotz, Georg 
 Ringler, Oscar Rocke, and others. Fifty-one members 
 joined the newly-formed society at its first meeting, and 
 twenty-eight more followed at the second meeting. 
 
 This brewers' mutual aid society included employers 
 as well as workingmen in its membership. The exclusive 
 purpose of the organization, which was at first confined 
 to Manhattan Island, was assistance in case of sickness, 
 death, or accident, and it was emphasized that in a coun- 
 try, where those of foreign birth find themselves lonely and 
 friendless and in a clime where sickness brings misfortune 
 and misery into numberless families, it is the duty of 
 every father of a family to make provision for protecting 
 those dependent upon him when he himself is not in a 
 position to earn their daily bread. 
 
 No thought was yet given in brewery workmen's cir- 
 cles at that time to the improvement of the workingmen's 
 conditions within their trade by means of organization, 
 and the Brewers' Mutual Aid Association took no steps 
 in that direction, although especially at that time — im- 
 ihediately after the Civil War — the labor movement in 
 America, and more particularly in New York, showed 
 signs of rapid growth. 
 
 In August, 1866, a general convention of workingmen 
 was held in Baltimore. As a result of this convention the 
 shortening of the working day to eight hours became the 
 
98 Beginnings of Organization. 
 
 principal demand of the entire organized proletariat of 
 America. From California to Maine the demand for the 
 eight-hour day was so incessantly agitated in all labor 
 meetings that in 1868, just before the Presidential elec- 
 tion, the Congress of the United States felt itself com- 
 pelled to enact that famous Eight-hour Law, which pro- 
 vided that henceforth eight hours should constitute a day's 
 labor on all government work. 
 
 The courts soon put an end to this Eight-hour Law. 
 However, the struggle for the enactment of this law and 
 for its enforcement gave a mighty impetus to the labor 
 movement. When, after the Franco-Prussian War, the 
 German labor movement in New York showed signs of 
 renewed activity, the demand for the eight-hour day again 
 became the battle-cry of all organized workingmen. In 
 1872 the existing trade-unions formed "eight-hour leagues" 
 for the express purpose of carrying on a propaganda for 
 the shortening of the working day. The labor movement 
 became so lively that both the Republican and the Demo- 
 cratic parties embodied eight-hour planks in their respec- 
 tive platforms. In May, 1872, there broke out a general 
 strike of the workmen in the building trades in New York 
 City, which was the beginning of the greatest struggle 
 between capital and labor that has ever taken place in that 
 city. No less than one hundred thousand men left their work. 
 
 It was these struggles that for the first time aroused 
 the brewery workers of New York against the intolerable 
 oppression under which they suffered. 
 
 A meeting of brewery workmen was called. Shorter 
 working hours and higher wages were demanded, and 
 resolutions were passed to that effect. It was only a 
 handful of men in whom class consciousness thus stirred 
 for the first time and led them to resolve to struggle for 
 an improvement of their conditions. They decided to go 
 from one brewery to another, and on one of the following 
 
The First Attempts. 99 
 
 days they took up their march and presented their de- 
 mands at every brewery in turn. At the same time the 
 workingmen in the various breweries were approached and 
 urged to join in the movement, which most of them did. 
 Their demands, however, were refused by all the brewery 
 owners, whereupon the men laid down their work. This 
 was the first time that a strike of brewery workers was 
 undertaken on American soil. Demonstrations and pro- 
 cessions were held by the men. On Thirty-eighth street 
 it came to a fight between the police and the strikers when 
 the police tried to break up the brewery workers' proces- 
 sion by the most brutal use of their clubs. The strike 
 was lost. It could not well be otherwise, as the men had 
 no real organization. Many of the strikers, and especially 
 of their leaders, were kept out of the breweries for a long 
 time, the brewery owners everywhere refusing them em- 
 ployment. Thus was the first wave of the brewery work- 
 men's movement dashed to pieces against the power of the 
 brewery capitalists. 
 
 The condition of the workmen remained for the present 
 unchanged. To toil from earliest morn till late at night, 
 and to drink so as to keep up their strength — that was the 
 daily routine of the brewery workmen. And along with 
 this a scale of wages which contrasted with the wages of 
 other workingmen in the same way as the eighteen-hour 
 workday of the brewery workmen contrasted with the 
 legal eight-hour day. The crisis of 1873 and the wide- 
 - spread unemployment which resulted from it made con- 
 ditions worse than ever and excluded every thought of 
 resistance. When in 1877 the American working class 
 again began to grow uneasy, and when the great strike of 
 the railroad workers led to general struggles and disturb- 
 ances, the brewery owners, probably recalling to mind the 
 strike of their own slaves in the year 1872, decided to give 
 a few crumbs from their wealth to the men who produced 
 
100 Beginnings of Organization. 
 
 all their riches. The wages of the brewery workmen were 
 increased from $40 and $45 to $50 and $52 a month. In 
 this way the strike of 1872, though lost, yet did lead, after 
 half a decade, to an improvement in the condition of those 
 who were at first defeated. 
 
 In the labor movement even the lost battles bring 
 progress for the fighters. 
 
 2. THE FIRST BREWERY WORKMEN'S UNIONS. 
 
 The general growth of the labor movement after the 
 troubles of 1877 led, as we have seen, to a small increase 
 of wages in the brewing industry in New York. It did 
 not, however, have a strong enough effect to bring about 
 the organization of the workingmen in that industry. 
 
 Such was not the case in Cincinnati, and it was there that 
 the first brewery workmen's union was called into existence. 
 
 As a result of the railroad workers' strike in 1877, a 
 certain excitement took hold of the brewery workmen 
 of Cincinnati. They came to realize more and more fully 
 that the wretched condition of the brewery workmen 
 could be brought to an end only if they organized and by 
 a united struggle for their own interests won from the 
 brewery capitalists improved working conditions and 
 treatment fit for human beings. So great, however, was 
 their dependence upon the brewery owners and the diffi- 
 culties in their way, that it was not until 1879 that they 
 at last succeeded in forming an organization, after the 
 failure of efforts toward that end in 1877 and 1878. 
 
 The first brewery workmen's union was born in Cin- 
 cinnati on December 26, 1879. It was called the "Brauer 
 Gesellen Union," and its president was John Alexander. 
 The other officers were Ch. Schley, Julius Zorn, Fritz 
 Bayer, and Hugo Framann. 
 
 The young organization affiliated itself with the gen- 
 eral labor movement by electing delegates to what was 
 
The First Brewery Workmen's Unions. 101 
 
 then the central labor body of Cincinnati, the Central 
 Trades Assembly. Rapid progress was made, and within 
 a short time the greater part of the men employed in the 
 breweries of Cincinnati had joined the organization. 
 
 In the spring of 1881 it was decided that no brewery 
 in Cincinnati should be considered a union establishment 
 unless at least half of the men employed in it belonged 
 to the union. As a result of the strength which the union 
 gained through this procedure, it was decided in July of 
 the same year to approach the brewery owners for the 
 first time with general demands. 
 
 The demands presented were the following: 1. A re- 
 duction of the workday from thirteen hours to ten and a 
 half hours ; 2. A minimum wage of $60 a month ; 3. Per- 
 mission for the workmen to get board and lodging 
 wherever they pleased, so that they should not be com- 
 pelled to board with the confidential agents of the brewery 
 owners, the so-called "soul-sellers" ; and 4. A reduction 
 of Sunday work from eight to four hours. 
 
 Four of the breweries immediately granted these de- 
 mands. Work was suspended in the other nineteen brew- 
 eries, and at the same time a boycott was declared on all 
 non-union beer. A few of the smaller breweries gave in, 
 but the power of the larger brewery owners was at last 
 able to defeat the success already achieved. Notwith- 
 standing the support given by the organized workingmen, 
 the struggle was dragged out, and finally a compromise 
 settlement proposed to the brewery owners was rejected 
 by them. The strike was lost and the union lost a large 
 proportion of its membership. Nevertheless, the struggle 
 had its effect. Soon afterwards the brewery owners re- 
 duced the working hours, both for weekdays and for 
 Sundays. It took several years, of course, before the union 
 recovered from the consequences of its defeat in this battle. 
 
 At the same time, in July, 1881, a struggle began on 
 
102 Beginnings of Organisation. 
 
 the part of the unorganized brewery workmen in St. 
 Louis, but it was without result and did not lead to the 
 organization of the workers. It was otherwise in the 
 city of New York, where in that same year the first at- 
 tempts were made to unite the brewery workmen. Al- 
 though these efforts did not lead to a permanent organi- 
 zation, they were of value because of the experience which 
 the workingmen gained through them, and because they 
 were made in the chief seat of the brewing industry, where 
 it had already assumed a strongly capitalistic character. 
 The lessons gained during these first attempts of the New 
 York brewery workers proved valuable later when the 
 organization became permanent. 
 
 On January 7, 1881, an accident took place in Peter 
 Dodger's brewery in New York, in which four workmen 
 lost their lives. This was a iire which started during the 
 varnishing of a cask, in which the commonest precautions 
 for safety had not been observed. The workmen who 
 perished in it were A. Witscherock, J. Fanner, John 
 Beierle, and John Braun. The coroner's jury who inves- 
 tigated the matter censured the foreman of the Doelger 
 brewery, one Peter Buckel, and declared that the whole 
 management of the brewery had been lax. In the course 
 of the investigation it developed that the foreman was in 
 the habit of whipping the men under him. The foreman, 
 on the other hand, pointed out the condition of the work- 
 men owing to their excessive indulgence in beer. These 
 revelations attracted much attention, which was increased 
 by the fact that further accidents happened in different 
 breweries. In the New Yorker Volkszeitung, the organ of 
 the German workingmen of New York, numerous com- 
 munications appeared, pointing out the evils existing in 
 the breweries, while the entire bourgeois press system- 
 atically suppressed all that would throw light on these evils. 
 On February 23, in addition to the previous contribu- 
 
The First Brewery Workmen's Unions. 103 
 
 tions, "A Few Brewery Workmen" sent in an appeal in 
 which they advocated the union of all the workers in the 
 trade. The men employed in the Henry Elias Brewing 
 Company were especially active in the organization of 
 their trade. They distributed circulars in all the brew- 
 eries of the city, advocating the founding of an organiza- 
 tion. A brewers' meeting was called for Sunday, March 
 6, 1881, to take place in Wendel's Assembly Rooms. At 
 this meeting, which was presided over by Phil. Schottgen 
 and whose secretary was John Buhl, the first "Brewery 
 Workmen's Union of New York and Vicinity" was started. 
 George Block, who was then active on the Volkszeitung, 
 -F. Hartung, B. Kaufmann, and others presented the neces- 
 sity for organization. One hundred and twenty-one mem- 
 bers immediately joined, and an executive committee of seven 
 men was elected, who undertook the direction of the union. 
 
 This organization of the brewery workmen proposed, 
 according to its constitution, to improve the condition of 
 workers in the brewery trade and to enlighten them as 
 to the rights and duties of the labor movement. The 
 support of members when in need and in case of sickness 
 or accident and the support of widows and orphans of 
 deceased members was also among its purposes. Malt-; 
 sters could become members of the brewery workmen's 
 union only if they were at the same time brewers. 
 
 The new labor organization was for the present a great 
 success. Within two months after its foundation, the 
 union counted among its members all the brewers of New 
 York (Manhattan), Brooklyn, Morrisania, Union Hill, 
 Staten Island, and Newark, in as many distinct sections. 
 The brewery owners,, through their action, contributed not 
 a little toward this rapid spread of the organization of 
 their workmen. Immediately after the foundation of the 
 union, in the breweries of J. Ruppert, Ringler, and F. & M. 
 Schafer, several officials and members of the union were 
 
104 Beginnings of Organisation. 
 
 discharged on account of their connection with the organi- 
 zation. The Volksseitung naturally brought this matter to 
 the attention of the various labor organizations, whose 
 members constituted the best customers of the breweries 
 in question, and these organizations stood bravely on the 
 side of the brewery workers. The Piano Makers' Union, 
 an organization which at this time was particularly strong 
 and militant, and the Carpenters and Joiners, also the 
 German Cigar Makers, led the boycott against the beer of 
 those breweries in which the union workmen had been 
 thrown out. This was done in such an efifective way 
 that the owners of these breweries soon gave in. The 
 union was recognized and the discharged workers were 
 reinstated. The first victory of the organized brewery 
 workers had been gained. Unfortunately, however, it was 
 not far-reaching nor of long duration. The newly united 
 workers began to overestimate their strength and threw 
 themselves into further struggles for which they were not 
 yet strong enough, and this brought destruction to the 
 young organization. 
 
 3. THE STRIKE OF 1881. 
 
 The success which the Brewery Workers' Union had 
 achieved in resisting the disciplinary measures on the part 
 of the Ruppert, Ringler, and Schafer firms, led to the 
 opinion that the young organization was fit to enter fur- 
 ther and more difficult struggles, and the idea gained head- 
 way that the time had come when it would be possible 
 through a general struggle to improve the condition of 
 the brewery workmen at one stroke. 
 
 The experienced representatives of the German trades 
 in New York advised against rash action. They pointed 
 out the youth of the organization, the lack of experience 
 on the part of its members, and also their lack of knowl- 
 edge in regard to the labor movement; they further 
 
The Strike of 1881. 105 
 
 pointed out that not all branches of the brewing trade 
 had been organized, and that therefore danger threatened 
 from the unorganized branches. The warnings were in 
 vain. The brewers had recognized their disgraceful con- 
 dition ; they felt as they had never felt before the terrible 
 oppression which the brewery owners exercised over 
 them ; and they decided, with more courage than prudence, 
 to venture a general fight. The following demands were 
 submitted: A twelve-hour day on weekdays, inclusive of 
 two hours for meals, and a two-hour day on Sundays, for 
 which they were to be paid 50 cents an hour. In May 
 these demands were presented to the brewery capitalists. 
 Only a few small breweries which were dependent upon 
 the organized workingmen for custom, and therefore could 
 not risk a fight, acceded to the demands of their work- 
 men. The majority of the brewery owners, however, 
 and especially the large brewers^ rejected the demands 
 peremptorily. 
 
 The Brewery Workers' Union now decided, in spite 
 of renewed warnings on the part of its friends of the other 
 trades, to take up the fight and to declare a general stop- 
 page of work in the entire brewing industry of New York 
 and the vicinity. It was on Whit-Monday, June 6, 1881, 
 that the decision to declare the strike went into effect. 
 
 But the suspension of work was not general. In the 
 largest brewery of the city, George Ehret's, only a part 
 of the brewery workers had joined the strike; the others 
 had remained at work. In addition to this, the beer-wagon 
 drivers, who up to then had not been organized, every- 
 where took the places of striking brewery workmen, and 
 under the guidance of the brewmasters and foremen, they 
 performed the work of the brewers. Although the central 
 body of the workingmen of New York, the Central Labor 
 Union, declared a boycott against all beer which had not 
 been made by union workmen, and although the Central 
 
106 Beginnings of Organisation. 
 
 Committee of the Socialist Labor Party, which was then 
 located in New York, was on the side of the striking 
 workmen with a similar resolution — resolutions which the 
 members of the organization lived up to as far as pos- 
 sible — a long period of bad weather injured the strikers' 
 cause very much, because there was a small consumption 
 of beer and little demand for it. The strike dragged itself 
 out for five weeks, and then the Brewery Workers' Union 
 was compelled to allow its members to look for work 
 wherever they could find it. The strike was lost. The 
 masters had triumphed over the men. 
 
 The Brewery Workers' Union had lost the larger part 
 of its membership during this struggle, because the brew- 
 ery owners would not give work to anyone who had even 
 the remotest connection with the trade-union. Whoever 
 applied for work had to submit proof that he was no longer 
 a member of the organisation. The active members of the 
 union, and especially its officials, were put on the black- 
 list and could get work nowhere, or only where they were 
 not known. Many had to leave New York and its vicinity. 
 Under these circumstances, the continuance of the union 
 was out of the question. It went down, destroyed by the 
 superior power of the brewery capitalists and by the abuse 
 of the economic power which they possessed. 
 
 Nevertheless, this lost strike also brought the defeated 
 ones certain advantages. The brewery capitalists recog- 
 nized that it was not well to draw the bow to the breaking 
 point, and that they must especially take into consideration 
 the mass of organized workingmen, who constituted the 
 best customers for their product. In short, in the course 
 of the summer which followed the strike, several of the 
 larger breweries in New York introduced the twelve-hour 
 day and diminished Sunday work. By so doing they really 
 acceded to the demands of the striking workers. They 
 had not, in fact, cared enough about these demands to 
 
The Strike of i88z. 107 
 
 fight over them, but their purpose had been to destroy the 
 very troublesome organization of their workmen, the 
 trade-union. When they had succeeded in this, they were 
 willing to grant what had been demanded. The fact that 
 their workmen had organized in order to deal with the 
 brewery capitalists on an equal iooting and to force them 
 to improve their conditions was what had called out the 
 wrath of these gentlemen, and had induced them to use 
 all their might in order to bring this organization of their 
 men to an end. The brewery-owning gentlemen did not 
 know that the labor movement was a necessary conse- 
 quence of the development of industry, and especially of 
 their own industry ; that if it were once destroyed it must 
 yet again raise its head; that the conditions which the 
 capitalistic development of a trade brings with it for the 
 workingmen of that trade must drive the workers to re- 
 sistance — first to unorganized, then to organized resist- 
 ance; and that, when this cannot be done openly, when 
 the brutal power of the owners makes the striving of the 
 workers for the betterment of their condition impossible 
 in public, then secret organizations will be formed, and 
 underhandedly and without the knowledge of the employ- 
 ers a fight against capital will be undertaken. 
 
 This showed itself, as we shall see, in the brewery 
 industry of our country. 
 
 The brewery workers employed by one of the firms of 
 New York, the Kuntz Brewery, resolved after the defeat 
 and destruction of the Brewery Workers' Union, to form 
 a secret organization. They formed an assembly and 
 joined the Order of the Knights of Labor — without, how- 
 ever, being able to be active. The organization existed 
 only for about a year, and was then dissolved. 
 
 For the present, then, every organization of the brewery 
 workers of New York and the vicinity had been destroyed. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 Permanent Organization. 
 1. CONSEQUENCES OF THE DEFEAT. 
 
 ' I 'HUS, for the present, the attempt of the brewery 
 ■■■ workers of New York to form an organization, as 
 the brewery owners had done, was disastrously defeated. 
 Though the working conditions in the breweries had been 
 somewhat improved, the improvement did not by any 
 means come up to the demands which the workers felt 
 themselves justified in making, and the condition of the 
 brewers still stood in marked contrast to the condition 
 which the workers in most of the other branches of in- 
 dustry had gained for themselves. 
 
 For the moment, an open battle against the brewery 
 owners was out of the question. The disciplinary regula- 
 tions of the employers had especially struck down those 
 workmen who had been the most intelligent and most 
 earnest members of the destroyed union. A number of 
 them were literally exposed to starvation and were com- 
 pelled to go out into the country to small places where 
 they were not known and to work there at their trade in 
 order to earn their bread. 
 
 Several years elapsed before the brewery workers of 
 New York had recovered from the defeat of 1881, and 
 even then any open organization was not to be thought 
 of. It seemed as if that one blow had paralyzed all the 
 workers in the trade. Even the word "organization" 
 brought terror to the masses, and it seemed as if the violent 
 suppression of every free movement which the brewery 
 capitalists had efifected would have lasting results. 
 
 Nevertheless, the voices which exposed the shocking 
 treatment of the brewery workers and which enlightened 
 
Consequences of the Defeat. 109 
 
 the public as to the inhuman conditions of the proletarians 
 in the beer industry could not be silenced. In the New 
 Yorker Volksseitung especially, which at that time as well 
 as later warmly took the part of the brewery workmen, 
 and proved a blessing for them, the disgraceful conditions 
 which prevailed in the brewing industry were more and 
 more frequently pointed out. A few workmen in the in- 
 dustry who had belonged to the recently destroyed union 
 took preliminary steps toward the formation of a new 
 organization of the workers in their trade. 
 
 However, it seemed evident that under the existing 
 condition of things and with the pressure under which the 
 brewery workers stood, an open declaration of war against 
 the capitalists on the part of the terrorized workers could 
 not be thought of. The founding of an open trade-union 
 was then out of the question, because not only every 
 official, but every member would be exposed to the danger 
 of immediate discharge. The brewery capitalists were 
 determined forcefully to prevent every efifort at organiza- 
 tion with all the means in their economic power. They 
 did not understand that the labor movement was the neces- 
 sary accompaniment of modern industry, and had no idea 
 that with the development of their trade into a great in- 
 dustry the ground was naturally cleared for their work- 
 ingmen on which a uniting of the workers, a firm organi- 
 zation, and a battle for the betterment of their condition, 
 had to develop. They believed, in their ignorance of 
 social development, that it would be possible for them 
 to prevent the organization of the workers of their industry 
 for all eternity. They did not lack means, and they were 
 determined to use their means, in order, as they expressed 
 it, "to remain masters of their own breweries." 
 
 Iji the face of these conditions, it was, as has been 
 said, impossible to think of an open battle or of open 
 organization. The men were forced to meet in secret and 
 
110 Permanent Organisation. 
 
 to form a secret organization, in order to wage an anony- 
 mous war against the capitalists in their trade who were 
 thus abusing their power. The prevailing conditions of 
 the American labor movement at that time and the fact 
 that an important organization of American workingmen 
 had been formed which waged its class war in secret 
 and endeavored to improve their condition by secret 
 means, made it easier for the brewery workers of New 
 York to form a new organization, and made it possible 
 for them to lay the foundation for the strong organization 
 which later on they were able to make for themselves. 
 
 2. THE ORDER OF THE KNIGHTS OF LABOR. 
 
 The secret order of the Knights of Labor was founded 
 in Philadelphia -in December, 1869. 
 
 In the beginning of the sixties an open trade-union 
 of the garment cutters had been formed in that city, which 
 soon gained great influence in the trade. This influence, 
 however, proved not to be a lasting one. It was believed 
 that the waning of its influence was due to the fact that, 
 owing to the open meetings, the employers were kept in- 
 formed of all the steps taken by their workingmen; and 
 this opinion seems to be confirmed by the fact that 
 especially active members of the union who proposed cer- 
 tain measures were refused employment wherever they 
 applied for it. In November, 1869, a committee was 
 chosen to consider plans for reorganization. This com- 
 mittee reported on December 9, 1869. It proposed the 
 dissolution of the existing organization and at the same 
 time suggested the forming of a secret organization. This 
 proposition was approved by a part of the members. After 
 the resolution to dissolve the union had been adopted and 
 the meeting had adjourned, some of the members remained 
 for the purpose of discussing further steps toward the 
 establishment of a secret labor organization. A com- 
 
The Order of the Knights of Labor. Ill 
 
 mittee was instructed to do the preliminary work, and 
 this committee reported at a meeting held on December 
 23. In a subsequent meeting which took place on De- 
 cember 28, the organization was effected which, under 
 the name of the "Order of the Knights of Labor," played 
 so important a role in the American labor movement. 
 
 There were only seven persons who formed the first 
 "assembly" of the new order, among them being the man 
 who later became the first "Grand Master Workman" of 
 the order, Uriah S. Stephens. The growth of the new 
 organization was very slow. After three months of ex- 
 istence its membership had only reached 28, after half a 
 year only 43, and after nine months only 52, of whom 
 only 42 had met their obligations. After being in exist- 
 ence one full year the only assembly of the order had 
 but 69 members in good standing. 
 
 It was not until 1872 that a second assembly was 
 founded by the ship-carpenters of Delaware, and from 
 that time on the organization grew more rapidly. During 
 that same year the number of assemblies in Philadelphia 
 grew to twenty. The first assembly in New York was 
 formed by the gold workers. In December, 1873, the 
 first "district assembly" was formed. This was a body 
 consisting of delegates from the local organizations. The 
 first "general assembly" of the order was held in Reading, 
 Pa., in 1878, and it was there that Uriah S. Stephens was 
 elected Grand Master Workman. Delegates from six 
 states in the Union were present. 
 
 Until 1879 the name of the organization, as well as its 
 purposes and its entire plan, were kept secret. In 1879 
 the district assemblies were given permission to use the 
 title "Knights of Labor" in public, 
 
 At about this time the number of members in good 
 standing did not exceed 5,000, and they were distributed 
 in 700 local organizations. 
 
112 Permanent Organisation. 
 
 In the General Assembly of 1879 the Grand Master 
 Workman, Stephens, resigned his office, and Terence V. 
 Powderly was elected to succeed him. 
 
 Down to the middle of the eighties the progress of the 
 Order was slow, but steady. Towards the end of 1885 
 and the beginning of 1886, however, its membership as 
 well as its influence began to grow rapidly. Hundreds 
 of new assemblies were founded. Thousands of members 
 joined the ranks, and the organization of the Knights of 
 Labor became the most powerful association of working- 
 men which had existed on American soil up to that time. 
 
 Strikes and boycotts became especially frequent at this 
 time, in which the Knights of Labor took part, although 
 the members generally, and particularly the officers, did 
 not much believe in the strike method, and the organiza- 
 tion tried to avoid strikes. This is but another illustra- 
 tion of the fact that economic occurrences such as the 
 strike in the labor movement cannot be prevented by reso- 
 lutions and by-laws, any more than can revolutionary 
 phenomena and movements which grow out of the devel- 
 opment of society. 
 
 The Order of the Knights of Labor emphasized the 
 general demands of the working class. It took vigorous 
 action in favor of the eight-hour day, agitated against 
 child labor, and in general taught the solidarity of the 
 working class. EfiForts to establish the eight-hour day 
 were made not only by exercising pressure by means of 
 the labor organization, but by influencing the legislature. 
 The workers demanded that working hours be legally 
 fixed, and they used their votes toward that end. In a 
 vague way the abolition of wage-slavery was demanded 
 "through the power of the labor organizations" and the 
 substitution for it of "a system of co-operation which will 
 give the workingmen a fair share in the product of their 
 labor." The Knights of Labor recognized that a thorough- 
 
The Order of the Knights of Labor. 113 
 
 going improvement in the condition of the working people 
 was not possible under existing capitalist rule, and de- 
 clared: "So long as the present system prevails, so long 
 will the attempt to maintain peace between those who 
 sell labor and those who buy it be in vain." They were 
 by no means clear, however, as to the right way toward the 
 emancipation of labor, and they tried to conceal this lack 
 of clearness by all sorts of formulas, as is shown by the 
 ritual and ceremonies of the Order, which were nonsensical 
 to a high degree. Not only did this repel sober and in- 
 telligent elements of the working class, but the secret 
 methods which prevailed in the organization furnished an 
 excellent ground for all kinds of humbugs and intriguers, 
 who used the Order as an arena for their crooked schemes. 
 
 Notwithstanding all this, the Order of the Knights of 
 Labor did fulfill a historic mission for that time — that is, 
 for the beginning of the modern labor movement, when 
 the capitalists had not yet become accustomed to the idea 
 that the workingmen had a right to organize themselves. 
 More especially did it offer to the unskilled workingmen, 
 the laborers without special trades, and such workingmen 
 as for various reasons had not before been organized, an 
 opportunity to unite under its wings and brought them 
 into connection with the general labor movement. 
 
 In general, secret organization, such as that of the 
 Order of the Knights of Labor, is an obstacle to the 
 healthy development of the labor movement. Under cer- 
 tain circumstances, however, this form of organization 
 is unavoidable, especially at the beginning of organization 
 in any trade, and until it is strong enough to lead an inde- 
 pendent life in public. But a great part of the merit of the 
 Knights of Labor consists in the fact that they stimulated 
 organization in certain trades which without their aid 
 would have remained unorganized for an indefinite time. 
 It is also not to be disputed that they were the first to 
 
114 Permanent Organisation. 
 
 organize the unskilled workers of America and that they 
 were instrumental in bringing these in large masses into 
 the ranks of organized labor. 
 
 3. RENEWED ORGANIZATION OF THE BREWERY 
 WORKMEN. 
 
 We have seen that the brewery workers of New York 
 after the defeat of 1881 could not be organized again. 
 Although the workingmen in one brewery had taken the 
 only road open to them, and had secretly formed an as- 
 sembly of the Knights of Labor, anxiety for their daily 
 bread and the fear of discharge was so great, that work- 
 ingmen of the other breweries did not dare to follow their 
 example, if indeed they knew of the Order of the Knights 
 of Labor. And so the organization of this one assembly 
 had but little significance and it passed out of existence 
 after one year. 
 
 As an attempt had been made to form an open organi- 
 zation, and it had proved impossible to maintain such an 
 organization under the existing conditions, it followed 
 that the brewery workers would now attempt to get to- 
 gether in secret, and the Order of the Knights of Labor 
 gave them this opportunity. 
 
 A few of the brewery workers, who had belonged to 
 the union which was destroyed during the strike of 1881, 
 kept in mind the necessity for organization in their trade 
 and saw to it that in the labor press and in the existing 
 workingmen's organizations the bad conditions in the 
 breweries should be made known. Finally they appealed 
 to the central body of the workingmen of New York, the 
 Central Labor Union, and requested it to take in hand the 
 task of organizing the brewery workers in order to put 
 an end to the inhuman conditions under which these work- 
 ingmen were forced to labor. The Central Labor Union took 
 the matter up and representatives of the German organi- 
 
Renewed Organisation of the Brewery Workmen. 115 
 
 zations especially took the part of the brewery workers. 
 For some time a notice was published in the New Yorker 
 Volkszeitung, in which the brewery workers were urged to 
 send their names and addresses to the organizing com- 
 mittee of the Central Labor Union. This was done with 
 very little success. The fear of discharge was so great 
 that only after spending several weeks in attempts at agi- 
 tation by means of writing and word of mouth was the 
 organizing committee able to call a meeting, naturally 
 a secret one. This meeting was to take place in Fried- 
 rich's Hall, in Morrisania. When at last it assembled, 
 there were present seven whole brewery workers, who 
 had responded to the call for the organization of their 
 trade. It was decided that a further meeting be called, 
 which should take place in some downtown locality where 
 no one need be afraid of meeting an acquaintance. This 
 second meeting took place on August 10, 1884, at 213 
 Forsyth street. New York. This meeting was the birth- 
 place of the Brewers' Union No. 1, of New York, which 
 still exists today, and out of which developed the Inter- 
 national Union of United Brewery Workmen of America. 
 The union of brewery workers founded here was a 
 local assembly of the Order of the Knights of Labor, and 
 its official designation was Local Assembly 1,672, Knights 
 of Labor. The following twelve persons founded this 
 organization and became its first members : Jakob Huber, 
 Samuel Gruhl, Ernst Seringer, Ernst Jennie, Peter Dan- 
 necker, Albert Sauer, Henry Binder, Jakob Geibich, Louis 
 Steinbrenner, Charles Pommer, Louis Herbrand, and 
 Christian Gerlach. The organization progressed but very, 
 very slowly. They were compelled to carry on their 
 agitation in the most cautious manner, and could invite 
 only the most intimate friends to join. From August, 
 1884, until the beginning of 1885 the membership had 
 increased only from twelve to twenty-five. In the preced- 
 
116 Permanent Organization. 
 
 ing November the secretary of the union had been betrayed 
 by a fellow-workman and had been punished with dis- 
 charge by the brewery bosses. In the spring of 1885, the 
 discharge of several more members of the organization 
 was effected by the brewery owner Peter Doelger. The 
 matter was presented to the central body of the work- 
 ingmen, the Central Labor Union, and this body ordered 
 a boycott on all beer from the above-named firm. 
 
 The labor movement was increasing in strength and 
 there prevailed in all sections of the working class a strong 
 excitement. The declaration of a boycott against the 
 Doelger beer found a response in all circles of laboring 
 men, even outside of New York. The labor organiza- 
 tions waged war on behalf of the brewery workers in the 
 most effective manner, and the young organization of 
 brewers, of course, did all in its power to win the fight. 
 But the other side offered a desperate resistance, for the 
 brewery capitalists felt the importance of the struggle 
 which was to decide whether or not they were to remain 
 as heretofore absolute rulers over the workingmen who 
 sold them their labor-power. The Brewers' Association 
 lent every conceivable assistance to Peter Doelger and 
 supported him with all their economic power. The strug- 
 gle was waged by both sides in the most energetic manner 
 and lasted for seven months. Then the solidarity of the 
 masses was victorious over the solidarity of the few. Labor 
 triumphed over Capital. Peter Doelger accepted the con- 
 ditions which the Central Labor Union imposed as a con- 
 dition of discontinuing the boycott. He recognized the 
 union of brewery workers, paid the cost of the struggle 
 to the amount of $1,000, and conceded to the brewers 
 employed by him some further demands. 
 
 Under the pressume of the constantly growing labor 
 movement and the fighting courage of the workingmen, 
 the other brewery owners were compelled to recognize the 
 
Renewed Organisation of the Brewery Workmen. 117 
 
 union and to deal with its workingmen. In the winter of 
 1885-'86 all the breweries of New York and the vicinity 
 were again organized. Brewers', Beer Drivers', and Malt- 
 sters' Unions were formed. It was attempted to per- 
 petuate the advantages that had already been gained by 
 an agreement with the brewery capitalists. The men 
 negotiated with their opponents as power against power 
 and brought it to the point that the organization of brew- 
 ery owners, the Brewers' Association, closed a contract 
 with the labor union, good for one year, on April 16, 1886. 
 
 According to this contract, the brewery workers of 
 New York and vicinity were promised an increase of wages 
 to the amount of 50 per cent and a shortening of the 
 working hours averaging three hours a day. Under this 
 agreement the wage of the workers amounted to from 
 $15 to $18 per week, the daily working hours were re- 
 duced to ten, and Sunday labor was entirely eliminated. 
 The extent of this success can be fully realized when one 
 considers that before the making of this contract the wage 
 of the brewers was from $40 to $60 per month, with 12 
 to 18 hours' work per day, and Sunday labor of from two 
 to five hours, not to mention further objectionable condi- 
 tions in the breweries which were greatly modified by 
 this contract. 
 
 It can be seen that this was an extraordinary victory 
 which the brewery workers had gained through the soli- 
 darity of the working class and through the valiant as- 
 sistance of the labor press. The workingmen of the 
 brewery trades had suddenly emerged from conditions 
 which were almost intolerable and now their conditions 
 were at least nearly as good as those of their fellow- 
 workers in other trades. From being serfs, they had be- 
 come men. The boycott of 1885 and 1886 against the 
 Doelger beer and the success with which it was carried 
 out marked an important step in social progress and civili- 
 
118 Permanent Organization. 
 
 zation, not only for the 1,800 members of Union No. 1, 
 but for all the brewery workers of America. 
 
 Under the influence of the powerfully expanding labor 
 movement of 1886, the brewery capitalists lived up to 
 the conditions of the contract and raised no difficulties 
 when, after its expiration, the unions asked for its renewal 
 for another year. Differences between the workingmen 
 and the brewery owners, when they did occur, were 
 brought before a joint board of arbitration, and the rela- 
 tion between workingmen and employers during these 
 two years was a comparatively peaceful one. 
 
 As has been mentioned, the labor movement rose to 
 great heights at this period. The brewery owners had 
 recognized that the solidarity of the working class, when 
 once awakened, was no empty phrase, and they had be- 
 come acquainted with the effects of this solidarity. 
 
 In the meantime the Brewers' Union of New York 
 had left the Order of the Knights of Labor, partly be- 
 cause they now felt strong enough to have an open organi- 
 zation without any secret work, and partly because all 
 kinds of intrigues against them were carried on in the 
 district organization to which the brewery workers be- 
 longed, for which they would not stand. 
 
 Thus, for instance. District Assembly No. 49 wanted 
 to order a strike of Brewery Workers' Union No. 1 on 
 behalf of the striking coal shovelers. The union, which 
 owed its existence to the solidarity of other labor organi- 
 zations, would undoubtedly have responded to this call 
 for a sympathetic strike had not the District Assembly 
 refused to order the strike for the engineers and firemen, 
 who had to work together with the coal shovelers. 
 
 Brewers' Union No. 1 answered this action of the 
 District Assembly by leaving the Order of the Knights 
 of Labor, a step which was the foundation of the con- 
 troversies which took place frequently between this organi- 
 
Renewed Organisation of the Brewery Workmen. 119 
 
 zation and Local Assembly 8390, which was composed 
 of workers in the ale and porter breweries and which had 
 remained in the Order. This Local Assembly, however, 
 later followed the example of Union No. 1, and it now 
 belongs as Union No. 59 to the International Union of 
 United Brewery Workmen. 
 
 4. THE LABOR MOVEMENT OF 1886. 
 
 As in the lives of nations, so there are in the life of 
 the labor movement certain periods in which there is 
 shown an exceptional activity, a general excitement, an 
 increase and progress all along the line. As in the political 
 life of peoples there come revolutionary days, so there 
 come times in the labor movement when everything goes 
 forward at the double-quick, when a general joy of battle 
 prevails, when circles are drawn into the movement which 
 at other times could not be reached, and when masses 
 begin to move which at other times lie inert under op- 
 pression. The most recent history of the labor move- 
 ment in America can show several such periods. Such 
 was the spring of 1872, when the city of New York be- 
 came the center of struggles and movements of the work- 
 ing people such as have never since taken place on so 
 large a scale. Then in the summer of 1877, the great 
 strike of the railway workmen stirred all the workingmen 
 of the entire country, and the bourgeoisie in certain places 
 became frantic with alarm. Yet again, in the year 1886, 
 what was almost an uprising of the whole working class 
 of the United States took place. 
 
 We have already pointed out that hardly ever before 
 did the waves of the labor movement rise so high as in 
 the spring of 1886. In all the large centers of population 
 throughout the Union, workingmen of the most diverse 
 occupations and callings came into the labor movement, 
 and new organizations sprang up by the hundreds. Al- 
 
120 Permanent Organization. 
 
 ready in the preceding fall a great increase in the mem- 
 bership of the Knights of Labor had taken place. In the 
 spring of 1886 workingmen by the tens of thousands joined 
 the Order weekly. The open trade-unions already in ex- 
 istence enlarged their membership in the same manner. 
 In trades and occupations which had never before been 
 organized strong unions now made their appearance. A 
 breath of hope and militant ardor passed through the labor 
 world. Bodies of workingmen who up to that time had 
 led a veritable slave existence now united for common 
 defense and endeavored to gain for themselves conditions 
 worthy of human beings. Strikes and boycotts were 
 everywhere daily occurrences. The spirit of solidarity 
 became evident in all sections of the working class. The 
 reduction of working hours, which at all times of active 
 agitation in the labor world has been recognized as one 
 of its chief aims, was generally urged and the demand 
 for the eight-hour day became the watchword of the hour. 
 In Chicago it came to deeds of violence and blood. Strik- 
 ing workingmen were shot down, and in answer to thi = 
 murder of workingmen came the memorable bomb ex- 
 plosion in the Haymarket, for which several innocent men 
 were afterward hanged. In New York the boycott was 
 freely used by the labor organizations, and as a result of 
 this the capitalistic judges punished the accused boy- 
 cotters with inhumanly heavy terms of imprisonment. 
 The working class answered with a call for independent 
 political action — a call which found so great a response 
 that in the fall of that year Henry George, the labor 
 candidate for Mayor of the city of New York, received 
 more than 60,000 votes. 
 
 Times of such economic upheaval and struggle bring 
 the labor movement more forward than do years of quiet 
 development. Although some of the proletarian organi- 
 zations which make their appearance in such days may 
 
The Labor Movement of iS86. 121 
 
 prove to be like marsh plants which bloorn for a single 
 day and then die down, yet at these times thousands of 
 seeds are also scattered which later grow up more vigor- 
 ously and bear rich fruit. 
 
 The year 1886 was such a time. Not only did it 
 strengthen a great number of labor organizations, but it 
 called some into being which have remained permanent. 
 
 5. FOUNDATION OF BREWERS' UNIONS 
 THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY. 
 
 We have already seen what the year 1886 with its 
 lively labor movement brought the brewers of New York. 
 They owed to this movement not only their organization, 
 but also the improved conditions which they had gained 
 for themselves, and which were in sharp contrast to the 
 almost inhuman conditions under which they were com- 
 pelled to work up to that time. 
 
 Not only the brewery workers of New York, however, 
 but also those outside of the city benefited by the agita- 
 tions and movements of the year 1886. 
 
 With the exception of Cincinnati, the brewery workers 
 of which city had formed a union some time before this, 
 there was prior to 1886 no standing organization of brewers 
 anywhere in the country. There had, of course, been 
 struggles in various cities between the brewery owners and 
 the brewery workmen, but these did not lead to the 
 formation of any regular unions. Not until the general 
 excitement of the year 1886 with its flood of labor move- 
 ments stimulated everyone to agitation and organization, 
 did the brewers of the inland states get together, and the 
 victory which their New York comrades had won acted as 
 a great stimulus. 
 
 The brewery workers of Baltimore were the first ones 
 to follow Cincinnati and New York in the way of organiza- 
 tion. In January, 1886, a union was called into being in 
 
122 Permanent Organization. 
 
 that city, which immediately succeeded, through the 
 assistance of the general labor movement, in bringing the 
 twenty-four breweries of that city and the vicinity under 
 its control. In founding this union under these circum- 
 stances they even went so far as to require all the 
 employees of the breweries, including the office staff, to 
 join the union. This proved a mistaken policy, as to a 
 very great extent these office employees had different 
 interests from those of the brewery workers proper. After 
 the organizing of the union the wages in the wash-house 
 amounted to $13 per week and in the other departments to 
 $15 per week. On May 6, 1887, the union proposed a 
 contract to the employers in which they asked, in addition 
 to the above wages, a ten-hour day, but the employers 
 refused to sign this contract. A strike was declared, but 
 only about one-third of the members took part in it. In 
 spite of this the battle was won, and the union emerged 
 from the conflict stronger than when it went in. 
 
 On March 14, 1886, the brewery workers of Chicago 
 followed the example set by their comrades in the Eastern 
 part of the country. For this date a mass-meeting of the 
 brewery workers of Chicago was called for the purpose 
 of organization. It was decided to organize the "Beer 
 Brewers' and Maltsters' Union No. 1." On the first day 
 180 members signed their names to the lists. A second 
 meeting raised the membership to 336. 
 
 Presently a contract was worked out which contained 
 the demands of the workers and this was presented to the 
 employers. It was demanded that wages be increased from 
 $35 per month to $50 and $60, and that the working time 
 be reduced from sixteen to ten hours per day. The contract 
 was signed by the brewery owners. However, the negotia- 
 tions with the commission malt houses proved more diffi- 
 cult. A contract was submitted to the owners of these 
 establishments also, but they refused to sign it, and their 
 
Foundation of Brewers' Unions Throughout the Country. 123 
 
 workers declared a strike on October 11, without, how- 
 ever, succeeding in gaining their demands. 
 
 Only eight days later than in Chicago a brewery work- 
 ers' organization was formed in Newark. The condition 
 of the brewery workers here was a particularly bad one. 
 On weekdays the daily work often amounted to from fifteen 
 to eighteen hours, and to this was added frequently Sunday 
 labor of about ten hours, so that the brewers hardly ever 
 had an hour to themselves. Besides this, the monthly 
 wage of the skilled brewers was only $40 per month and 
 that of the unskilled hands correspondingly less. 
 
 In Newark as in New York the organization of the 
 brewery workers was taken in hand by the Knights of 
 Labor. First they organized the employees of the Geier 
 Brewery, which is now known as the Home Brewery, into 
 the "Enterprise Assembly" of the Order, and on March 
 21, 1886, a general meeting of the brewery workers of 
 Newark was called and Brewers' Union No. 2 was formed, 
 which is still in existence. 
 
 The young organization soon began to spread, and 
 within a short time it took in all the workers in its branch 
 from Newark, Elizabeth, Paterson, and New Brunswick, 
 representing a total membership of 350 men. The result 
 of this organization was that it reduced the working time 
 in the breweries to ten hours a day, did away entirely 
 with Sunday labor, and increased wages from 30 to 50 
 per cent. 
 
 In this same month of March, in the year 1886, a 
 Brewery Workers' Union was formed in St. Louis. About 
 the condition of the brewers there, it is reported as follows : 
 
 'The working hours varied from twelve to sixteen hours and 
 even more daily, from two or three o'clock in the morning until 
 seven or eight o'clock at night, and sometimes even longer. On 
 Sundays in some cases the work was even harder than on week- 
 days, for in order to get a few free hours, one had to work very 
 hard, and there was no question of extra remuneration." 
 
124 Permanent Organisation. 
 
 On March 26, 1886, the Central Labor Union of St. 
 Louis called a mass-meeting of the brewery workers of 
 that city, which was very well attended. It organized 
 itself into the "Gambrinus Assembly," No. 7503, of the 
 Knights of Labor, and within a week the greater part of 
 the brewery workers of the city belonged to the organi- 
 zation. The brewery owners did not even wait until the 
 workers made their demands, but at once introduced the 
 ten-hour day "voluntarily." In addition to this, the brew- 
 ery capitalists would only grant the freedom of the men 
 to seek lodging and board where they chose, and when 
 the union did not content itself with this the owners threat- 
 ened a lockout. This was responded to by the workers 
 with a strike declaration on September 2, 1886. The 
 number of striking workmen was 678. After a struggle 
 that lasted four and a half months, the workmen won 
 in so far that their organization was recognized, but the 
 success was not permanent, and several attempts to im- 
 prove conditions by means of a contract failed. 
 
 In the beginning of May, 1886, the brewery workers of 
 Philadelphia followed the example of the other large cities. 
 Here it was the United German Trades which took the 
 initiative for the organization of the brewers. They in- 
 duced the brewery owners to sign a contract which would 
 give the workers an increase of $3 to $6 per week and 
 promised several other improvements. However, in the 
 beginning of December the brewery capitalists declared 
 that they would no longer be bound by their contract, 
 which had by no means expired, and would pay no atten- 
 tion to its provisions. At the same time they announced 
 a wage reduction of $3 a week and demanded that the 
 workingmen leave the Knights of Labor. The working- 
 men responded to this challenge with a cessation of work, 
 which was declared at the end of December. The strike 
 was a failure, which was caused to a very large extent by 
 
Foundation of Brewers' Unions Throughout the Country. 125 
 
 -the intrigues in the Knights of Labor. The young organi- 
 zation was very much weakened and could not keep to- 
 gether. The unmarried brewers left the city and the 
 married ones had to look for work in other vocations. 
 The intrigues against the strikers in the Order of the 
 Knights of Labor caused 47 men to leave the Order. An 
 attempt was made to bring the men together again and 
 a short revival took place, but it did not last long. In 
 the last meeting of the union, which was attended by 
 seven whole members, the dissolution of the union was 
 decided upon. 
 
 It is of importance to note in regard to the value of the 
 union that most of the brewery owners of Philadelphia, 
 immediately after the dissolution of the union, tried to 
 reduce the wages of the workmen. 
 
 In Michigan also, at Detroit, the brewery workers' 
 organization took firm root at about this time. Here the 
 Brewers' and Maltsters' Union was organized in July, 1886. 
 Eighty members joined immediately, and when the brew- 
 ery owners refused to recognize the organization of their 
 workingmen the new trade-union was compelled to go 
 into a violent struggle, which ended after four months' 
 duration with a victory for the workingmen. In Novem- 
 ber of the same year the first contract between brewery 
 owners and brewery workmen was closed. The ten-hour 
 day put an end to the long working hours, and wages were 
 fixed at from $12 to $13 a week. 
 
 In Buffalo the first brewery workers' union was organ- 
 ized on September 25, 1886, but at the start only 21 mem- 
 bers joined. On May 1 of the following year, the young 
 organization submitted to the brewery owners a first con- 
 tract, which called for a shortening of working hours and 
 an increase of wages. This first contract, which was in 
 force until May 1 of the following year, was signed by the 
 brewery owners, and as all the brewery workers in Buffalo 
 
126 Permanent Organisation. 
 
 had in the meantime joined the union, it was in effect for 
 all the breweries of the city and its vicinity. 
 
 In Cincinnati, where, as we have seen, a union of 
 brewery workers was called into life as early as 1879, 
 without ever gaining greatly in strength, the growth of 
 the general labor movement brought almost the entire 
 brewery working population of the city into the ranks of 
 the union. The ten-hour day was almost completely in- 
 troduced. The union decided in May, 1886, to join the 
 Order of the Knights of Labor as Gambrinus Assembly 
 No. 7571, but left the Order again in the following year. 
 An entire agreement with the brewery owners was not 
 yet reached at that time in Cincinnati, and Sunday work 
 especially continued as heretofore. 
 
 In the spring of 1887, Albany joined the ranks of 
 organized brewery workers, and not only the actual 
 brewers, but also the beer-wagon drivers, were organized 
 into one union. However, these two organizations soon 
 split up. By the contract which was signed by the brew- 
 ery owners on May 31, 1887, the working time was fixed 
 at eleven hours for the summer and ten hours for the 
 winter, and the wages at $12, $14, arid $16 per week. 
 
 In San Francisco, Cal., it camd to a strike in May, 
 1887, on account of non-recognition of the union. With 
 the exception of one small establishment, all the breweries 
 of the city were involved in this fight. A very resolute 
 boycott, which was supported by the entire body of 
 organized workingmen of the Pacific Coast, and even 
 extended as far as Australia, finally forced the brewery 
 owners to give in, and this they did on July 22, 1887. 
 
 In the meantime, brewery workers' unions had been 
 founded in other places, most of which first saw the light 
 of the world amidst all kinds of struggles. Among the 
 larger places there are to be mentioned Cleveland, Mil- 
 waukee, New Haven, and Boston, in which cities the 
 
Foundation of Brewers' Unions Throughout the Country. 127 
 
 brewery workers waged an organized battle for the better- 
 ment of their condition. In Belleville, 111., also, as well 
 as in Grand Rapids, in Troy and Syracuse, and finally in 
 Bridgeport, Conn., and in Fargo, Dakota, brewery work- 
 ers' unions had been formed. 
 
 With the organizing of the Union in Columbus, Ohio, 
 in October, 1887, closes the list of brewery workers' or- 
 ganizations which were formed during these two years 
 of rapid advancement of the American labor movement. 
 At first it had success, because most of the brewery 
 workers of the city joined it. The brewery owners prom- 
 ised on March 1, 1888, that they would introduce the ten- 
 hour day, but it did not come to that. Already a threaten- 
 ing storm approached, which was soon to sweep over the 
 head of the yet young organization, and which was to 
 bring in its wake struggles and destruction and misery 
 and need for many years for hundreds of their members, 
 and which brought the organization almost to the verge 
 of destruction. 
 
 Before we begin with the description of these stormy 
 times, we shall have to consider the federation which had 
 been formed in the meantime and which kept the indi- 
 vidual brewery unions together; namely, the central or- 
 ganization which united all the brewery workers' unions 
 of the country into a national union. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 The Foundation of the United Brewery Workmen and 
 the First Victories. 
 
 1. THE FIRST CONVENTION. 
 
 A NATIONAL union of all the brewery workers of 
 *■ ^ the United States was agitated as early as 1880. 
 This agitation could not meet with any success, because at 
 that time hardly a beginning had been made in the forma- 
 tion of organizations of this category, and because, in 
 addition to this, the local resistance of the brewery owners 
 against the organization of their workmen had to be over- 
 come before the struggle could assume a national aspect 
 along the whole line. 
 
 This first proposal, originated in Cincinnati, came from 
 the brewery workers' union organized there in December, 
 3879. In a circular issued in June, 1880, the brewery 
 workers of the United States were called upon to organize 
 and to form a union which would extend over the whole 
 of the United States. Although, a few favorable answers 
 were received to this circular, no further steps were taken 
 toward carrying the plan into effect. The time was not 
 yet ripe for a general organization of the brewery workers 
 of the nation. 
 
 The rapid development of the general labor movement 
 in the middle of the eighties brought the favorable occasion 
 for the brewery workers. The appearance of a number 
 of local unions necessarily led to the idea of endeavoring 
 to form a closer connection among these unions in order 
 that they might support each other in the struggle . and 
 further their common interests. 
 
 The strongest union of the brewers in the country, 
 the New York Union, took this matter in hand in the 
 
The First Convention. 129 
 
 spring of 1886. They put themselves into communication 
 with the other brewery workers' unions of the country 
 and submitted the matter to them. It was agreed to hold 
 a convention of all brewery workers' organizations of the 
 country in Chicago, where shortly before a local brewery 
 workers' union had been formed. After several delays 
 and postponements, the day for the opening of the conven- 
 tion was finally fixed. One day before the delegates were 
 to leave for the convention, they received word that the 
 secretary of the Chicago union had again postponed the 
 convention. Then it was agreed to hold the convention 
 in Baltimore, and the body of delegates met there, in 
 Neidhart's Hall, on August 29, 1886, and here the national 
 union of the brewery workmen of the United States was 
 created. 
 
 Only five unions had sent delegates to this first con- 
 vention of the brewers; namely. New York, Newark, 
 Philadelphia, Detroit, and Baltimore. The union in St. 
 Louis, where a struggle was threatening, instructed the 
 New York delegates to represent them. The organiza- 
 tions of Chicago, Cincinnati, and Cleveland were not repre- 
 sented. The necessity for combined organization of the 
 workers of the trade for the entire country was not yet 
 recognized everywhere. This accounts for the lukewarm 
 reception of these endeavors which came from New York. 
 
 In a four days' session, which was presided over by 
 Adolf Biswanger, of Baltimore, the necessary work was 
 accomplished. It was decided to form an organization 
 which was to bear the name of "National Union of the 
 Brewers of the United States." They discussed the draft 
 of a constitution which had been worked out by the New 
 York union and submitted to the convention. The pur- 
 pose of the union was defined as follows in the constitu- 
 tion as adopted: "The Union proposes the advancement 
 of the material and intellectual welfare of the brewers of 
 
130 Foundation of United Brewery Workmen and First Victories. 
 
 the country: (1) Through organization; (2) Through 
 enlightenment by word and writing; (3) Through a re- 
 duction of the working hours and an increase of wages; 
 (4) Through the preferment of practical and experienced 
 brewers in the performance of the work." It was further 
 decided that the National Executive should consist of 
 seven members, who must be practical and experienced 
 brewers, elected from the local union of the place where 
 the National Union had its headquarters. The dues were 
 fixed at 10 cents per month per member. 
 
 The seat of the National Executive was placed in New 
 York, and it was decided that five New York and two 
 Newark members should belong to it. Louis Herbrand, 
 secretary of the New York union, who had deserved well 
 by the work he had done for the forming of this organiza- 
 tion, was elected National Secretary and a salary of $25 
 per week was voted to him. 
 
 Another point is of interest which was brought up at 
 this first convention of brewery workers, and which throws 
 some light upon the prevailing opinions in the local circles 
 of the organization. 
 
 The use of the boycott, which at the beginning of the 
 brewery workers' movement was its strongest weapon 
 against the brewery capitalists, often brought with it this 
 disadvantage, that in certain places where the boycott 
 was declared no union beer was to be had, so that boy- 
 cotting workingmen had to refrain entirely from drinking 
 beer if they wanted to aid the struggling brewery workers. 
 It stands to reason that it often happened that the boycott 
 duty was neglected. It was thought that this evil could 
 be remedied if co-operative breweries were at hand. From 
 these beer could be sent to the places in which the boycott 
 prevailed. This matter was brought before the conven- 
 tion at Baltimore, and it was decided that each delegate 
 should acquaint his union with this idea and that the 
 
The First Convention. 131 
 
 establishment of such co-operative breweries should be 
 taken into consideration. The secretaries of the local 
 unions were to report to the National Secretary how the 
 matter progressed. This matter was allowed to drop, as 
 was reported in the second convention of the organiza- 
 tion. They recognized, undoubtedly, that with so weak 
 an organization it was almost impossible to compete with 
 the rich brewery capitalists on their own field. 
 
 The association of brewery workmen which was thus 
 called into life had a membership of 2,700. Of this num- 
 ber, 1,700 belonged to New York, 380 to Philadelphia, 270 
 to Newark, 200 to Baltimore, and 175 to Detroit. In the 
 course of the next few months, in the year 1886, five addi- 
 tional unions joined the National Union — St. Louis, with 
 423 members, Buffalo with 90, Boston with 78, Milwaukee 
 with 807, and Grand Rapids with 55 members — so that, 
 by January, 1887, four months after its foundation, the 
 National Union counted over 4,000 members. 
 
 2. THE FOUNDING OF THE BREWERS' JOURNAL. 
 
 Although the New York brewers had in the New 
 Yorker Volkszeitung a local press organ which represented 
 their interests unswervingly, the opinion soon arose that 
 a craft organ of its own would be of great service to the 
 organization. It is even very likely that the service which 
 the Volkszeitung rendered to the organized brewery work- 
 ers drew their attention to the importance of a labor press 
 and confirmed their resolve to establish, simultaneously 
 with the founding of the National Union, a craft organ 
 for the brewery workmen which would serve to impress 
 the importance of organization upon the minds of those 
 of their fellow-Workmen who still stood aloof from the 
 union and would also be useful in bringing the members 
 into closer touch with each other. 
 
 At the convention in Baltimore the matter was brought 
 
132 Foundation of United Brewery Workmen and First Victories. 
 
 up by Charles Pommer, a delegate from the New York 
 union. He proposed the establishment of a national craft 
 paper of the brewery workers, and after discussion of this 
 proposition it was decided to found "a craft paper of the 
 National Union of Brewers in the United States." 
 
 The new paper was to be the property of the National 
 Union and was to be published in New York. It was 
 decided that it should be "conducted in an unpartisan 
 manner in the labor movement" — whatever that might 
 mean. In order to make possible the establishment of 
 this paper, the New York union lent $300 to the National 
 Union. The editorial work of the organ was entrusted 
 to the National Secretary of the Union, Louis Herbrand. 
 
 The first number of the proposed paper appeared on 
 October 2, 1886, under the title "Brauer-Zeitung, craft 
 paper of the Brewers of the United States." It contained 
 a statement from the National Executive of the Union 
 which outlined the following policy for the new organ: 
 
 "1. Our organ, through truthful reports of the existing evils 
 under which the workers have suffered so long, will furnish a 
 justification for our efforts at organization and show the necessity 
 of energetically continuing them. 
 
 "2. This organ will give every brewery worker in the country 
 an opportunity to inform himself in regard to our organization and 
 its aims. 
 
 "3. It will form a connecting link among all the fellow-work- 
 men of the trade. 
 
 "4. It will whenever possible prevent misunderstandings among 
 our large membership, and, in case such should occur, will explain 
 them and straighten them out. 
 
 "S. It will, of course, stand in a decent but determined manner 
 for its own and the general labor interests. 
 
 "6. It will further do its best to prevent unnecessary disputes 
 with employers, but if such should arise the organ of the Union 
 will publish our complaints before the employers and the public 
 in a simple and business-like manner, without entering into personal 
 animosities, and will defend our standpoint against all malicious 
 or ignorant misrepresentations. 
 
The Founding of the Brewers' Journal. 133 
 
 "7. The Brauer-Zeitung will under all circumstances stand 
 for an honest cleansing of our political life by supporting the 
 reformative endeavors of the labor party in city and country, and 
 will fight with all its energy against the corrupt old parties. 
 
 "This, on the whole, is the course which we shall fearlessly 
 follow in editing the Brauer-Zeitung and upon which we shall fear- 
 lessly persist. 
 
 "We expect thereby not only to strengthen our organization, 
 but to assure peace between workingmen and employers, and through 
 that to advance the prosperity of our entire trade." 
 
 The Brauer-Zeitung was from the start a strong weapon 
 in the hands of the workingmen whose interests it en- 
 deavored to represent, and it contributed greatly to the 
 rapid expansion of the newly-formed organization. At the 
 end of the first year the new organ already had a capital 
 of $4,000. At the second convention it was resolved that 
 every local union should see to it that at least half its 
 members subscribed for the paper ; if not, the local union 
 was to pay the difference out of its treasury. The sub- 
 scription price was fixed at $2 a year. 
 
 The hope which the brewery workmen entertained, 
 when they established the paper, of obtaining from it cer- 
 tain definite benefits for their organization, has been fully 
 realized. The Brauer-Zeitung has proved itself to be a 
 trusty weapon in the struggles of the brewery workers. 
 
 3. THE CONVENTION IN DETROIT. 
 
 The second convention of the National Union of 
 Brewers opened on September 11, 1887, at Detroit. The 
 number of delegates had increased from the ten who at- 
 tended the convention at Baltimore in the previous year 
 to thirty-three, and the number of organizations had risen 
 from six to eighteen. 
 
 The sessions lasted for five days, and were presided 
 over by Richard Schlagintweit. The National Secretary 
 reported that the number of local unions affiliated with 
 
134 Foundation of United Brewery Workmen and First Victories. 
 
 the organization had increased since the last convention 
 to 21, and that the membership now consisted of 6,000 
 men. In the spring of the year 1887 the brewery work- 
 men's organizations of Syracuse, Cincinnati, Troy, New 
 Haven, Albany, and San Francisco had joined the National 
 Union. In the summer of the same year there followed 
 Cleveland, Chicago, Fargo (in Dakota), Bridgeport, and 
 Belleville. But Union No. 1 of New York, with its 1,830 
 members, still remained the strongest. The next in 
 strength were Milwaukee with 811 members, Cincinnati 
 with 678, Chicago with 529, and St. Louis with 442. The 
 expenses of the organization during the first year amounted 
 to almost $5,000, leaving a balance in the treasury of 
 $1,800. This, however, represents but a small part of the 
 sums the brewers raised in the first year of their national 
 organization for agitation and struggles. Large sums 
 had been raised for the support of the strikers in Detroit, 
 St. Louis, Baltimore, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and 
 Boston. For the strike in Philadelphia alone there was 
 raised in New York and vicinity $16,700, of which over 
 $13,000 was contributed by Union No. 1. This was a 
 tremendous achievement when one considers the youth of 
 the organization and the inexperienced element of which 
 it was composed. 
 
 The reports of the individual unions which were sub- 
 mitted at the convention showed that the organization was 
 in good condition throughout, with the exception of a few 
 towns where the brewery capitalists had succeeded in 
 weakening the unions and in almost destroying them. 
 Such had been the case in Boston and Philadelphia, while 
 in the other places where brewery workers' unions existed 
 they were in favorable condition. 
 
 The National Secretary of the organization in his re- 
 port before the convention emphasized the craft spirit by 
 pointing out that the organization had among others the 
 
The Convention in Detroit. 136 
 
 task to guard "the noble trade of the brewer's craft" so 
 that "the man who had learned his trade" would not be 
 "reduced to a factory worker" by the "admission of ele- 
 ments who had never before seen a brewery." At the 
 same time, by pointing out the necessity of admitting 
 brewers who were not members of the "craft" to the 
 organization, he proved that the craft spirit could not stop 
 the development of the industry. 
 
 The National Secretary proposed namely a union of 
 all the trades employed in breweries, and pointed out that 
 the beer-drivers, the coopers, engineers, firemen, and 
 maltsters would have to be drawn into the organization if 
 it were to have the proper foundation. 
 
 The convention set aside a day for the discussion of 
 this question, and this session was to be attended by dele- 
 gates of these trade branches so far as these were present. 
 Several unions of beer-drivers, brewery engineers, firemen, 
 and maltsters were present at this council. They came to 
 an agreement and decided to extend the organization to 
 include the branches named above and to change the name 
 to "National Union of United Brewery Workmen of the 
 United States." In order to make possible a unified co- 
 operation, it was decided that in each city all these 
 branches were to unite into a local organization, and that 
 this organization was to elect a local executive in order 
 to settle the internal affairs of the organization on the spot. 
 
 In regard to the coopers, with whom negotiations had 
 been put on foot in regard to a union of forces, it was 
 decided that the National Coopers' Union was to form a 
 stronger organization, to which end the brewers would 
 assist them. The coopers were for the present to work 
 for an introduction of strict union shops and for a general 
 union label for their wares, and this label was to be recog- 
 nized by the National Union of Brewery Workmen. In 
 return for this the Coopers' Union was to bind itself to 
 
136 Foundation of United Brewery Workmen and First Victories. 
 
 support the brewers in the event of struggles. In regard 
 to the brewery coopers, it was decided that it would be 
 advisable for them to join the local unions of the brewery 
 workmen. 
 
 In the Order of the Knights of Labor, to which, as we 
 know, a part of the brewers' unions still belonged, there 
 had developed latterly an inclination towards the further- 
 ing of the Prohibitionist movement. The General Master 
 Workman of the Order, T. V. Powderly, in his addresses 
 had declared himself in favor of prohibition. 
 
 The convention adopted resolutions declaring itself 
 against these efforts for prohibition and against the Gen- 
 eral Executive and the Order itself. In these resolutions 
 it was pointed out that "the passing of temperance laws 
 would endanger the existence of thousands of brewery 
 workers and their famihes" ; that "it would cause the gov- 
 ernment to lose a revenue of millions of dollars annually"; 
 that "the Order of the Knights of Labor did not support 
 us in any way" ; that "in our struggle with capital we 
 cannot show a single victory which was due to the assist- 
 ance of the Knights of Labor." Therefore, T. V. Pow- 
 derly was reproved on behalf of the convention and it was 
 decided not to support any candidate, no matter of which 
 party, if he had spoken in public in favor of prohibition. 
 
 In spite of this resolution, several local unions declared 
 that they were not yet in a position to turn their backs 
 upon the Knights of Labor. 
 
 In a further resolution the convention declared itself 
 against the Prohibition party and its efforts to forbid by 
 law the sale of beer. Laws of this kind were declared 
 "unconstitutional and contrary to the rights and privileges 
 of free citizens of a free country." It was also decided 
 to see to it that the members of the organization should 
 take out their citizens' papers "in order to assist in the 
 social and political reform of our adopted fatherland." The 
 
The Convention in Detroit. 137 
 
 necessity of acquiring citizenship was emphasized in a 
 special motion which was to the effect that every member 
 of the organization had to be in possession of citizens' 
 papers. In the constitution the political attitude of the 
 Union was expressed in the statement that the United 
 Brewery Workmen proposed to promote the welfare of its 
 members also "through active participation in the political 
 movements of the country." 
 
 Among the resolutions passed at the convention in De- 
 troit, the one on behalf of the convicted Anarchists in 
 Chicago is to be noted. In this resolution it was pointed 
 out that these persons now in prison did only what they 
 were entitled to do under the Constitution, "to enlighten 
 the working population in regard to its condition and to 
 organize it." They bound themselves to assist the con- 
 victed men morally and financially, and looked to the 
 Supreme Court of the United States for an appeal in favor 
 of the accused. 
 
 Among the other conclusions reached at this second 
 convention of the brewery workers of America, the follow- 
 ing are noteworthy: That saloonkeepers were not to be 
 members of the organization, and that foremen in brew- 
 eries were not to be permitted to join. Another resolu- 
 tion was directed against the evil of "blacklists" on the 
 part of the employers, and a special case was taken up — 
 that of the Secretary of the Beer Drivers' Union in Phila- 
 delphia, John Rapp, who could not get work anywhere in 
 his home city. Owing to the change in the organization, 
 the composition of the National Executive was to be in 
 future: Five brewers, two drivers, two maltsters, one 
 engineer, and one fireman. 
 
 A proposition to introduce a label for union beer, which 
 was made by a delegate from the Philadelphia local, was 
 defeated, and a proposition to introduce life insurance in 
 
138 Foundation of United Brezvery Workmen and First Victories. 
 
 the union was considered "ahead of the times" and was 
 not discussed at all. 
 
 The time was to come soon when the question was 
 not one of life insurance for the individual members, but 
 of life and existence for the organization. Threatening 
 clouds arose on the firmament of the young organization. 
 
 4. ACHIEVEMENTS. 
 
 When one compares the condition of the brewery work- 
 men of America at the beginning of the year 1888 with 
 that under which they had worked but one or two years 
 before, one is compelled to say that hardly ever has such 
 a tremendous change taken place in the history of any 
 trade in so short a time. 
 
 In all the larger places throughout the United States 
 there now existed organizations of brewery workmen 
 which in many cases included all the workingmen in the 
 trade in their particular town. These unions had com- 
 manded the respect not only of the organized labor world, 
 but also of the capitalists of the trade, from whom they 
 had won recognition. The inhuman conditions under 
 which the brewery, workmen had lived prior to their or- 
 ganization had given place to conditions which compared 
 favorably with the general condition of the working class 
 as a whole. The excessively long working hours had 
 been reduced by a third or even more. The burden of 
 heavy work which had formerly bent the back of the 
 brewery workman in a few years and crippled his limbs 
 and made his body clumsy and awkward, had been con- 
 siderably lightened. He had come to be recognized as a 
 human being, and the unworthy treatment which had been 
 accorded to him before had given way to a more humane 
 relationship. His wages had been increased, and on ac- 
 count of the reduction of the working hours he had some 
 free time, which gave him an opportunity to develop his 
 
Achievements. 139 
 
 mind. The stagnation in which the brewery workman 
 had often been intentionally kept by the brewery capi- 
 talists and the dullness and exhaustion which his heavy 
 work had brought with it, had now been replaced by a 
 new intellectual life. In brewery circles, too, the questions 
 of the hour were beginning to be intelligently discussed. 
 Especially did they begin to pay attention to the general 
 aspirations of the working class. They began to feel that 
 they were a part of the working class and of its interna- 
 tional movement, which was carrying on the struggle for 
 a new and better world. 
 
 The separate organizations of the brewery workmen 
 had been brought together into one association, which 
 was growing rapidly. This organization for mutual sup- 
 port in the struggle now extended over the whole country, 
 from one ocean to the other. Its membership already 
 exceeded six thousand men, and they had just decided 
 to include not only the brewery workmen proper, but to 
 gather all the workers who were in any way connected 
 with the trade under one banner. In a large number of 
 places the workmen's organization had forced the proud 
 and rich and therefore powerful brewery lords to grant 
 them the conditions they asked for and to bind themselves 
 by contract for a considerable time. In the Brauer-Zeitung 
 the brewery workmen had an organ which represented 
 their interests before the public and enlightened public 
 opinion as to the evils of the trade and the extent of the 
 exploitation of the workingmen and the conditions in the 
 various breweries. The brewery workmen had benefited 
 from a vigorous labor movement which extended to all 
 parts of the country. Whenever a struggle broke out in 
 the brewery trade, organized labor immediately took the 
 part of the brewery workmen and saw to it that the beer 
 in question was boycotted. The brewery workmen had 
 achieved great advantages through their own organization 
 
140 Foundation of United Brewery Workmen and First Victories. 
 
 and through the solidarity of the working class, which was 
 at its height during the years 1886 and 1887. Their entire 
 condition was revolutionized. In every respect they had 
 risen from the level of slaves or serfs to that of men. 
 
 So far as this difference in the condition of the brewery 
 workmen can be expressed in figures, it is exhibited in a 
 table which was submitted to the convention at Detroit 
 by the National Secretary of the organization. This table 
 is a document in the history of civilization, giving infor- 
 mation which demonstrates the value of organization 
 among workingmen and shows more clearly than speeches 
 and writings the civilizing value of the labor movement 
 in general ; it may be used by future historians as a proof 
 of the significance of the labor movement in the progress 
 of humanity. 
 
 This table illustrates the wages and working condi- 
 tions of the brewery workmen of America before and after 
 organization. 
 
 These figures show the improvement of the material 
 condition of the brewery workmen which they had 
 achieved through organization within one or two years. 
 This improvement in the condition of the workingmen, 
 however, meant a decrease in the profits of the capitalists 
 in the brewing industry. Little wonder, then, that they 
 did not look with pleasure upon the process which made 
 men out of their serfs. 
 
Achievements. 
 
 141 
 
 
 i^ 
 
 5f ' 
 
 !5= = 
 
 
 2, 
 
 3 •: 
 
 . * . 
 
 5 3 5 5 5 
 
 ^ 
 
 «5 3 1 
 
 
 S^ 
 
 •3 
 
 M 
 
 
 i-iiO'*ii csiQ4cq^<«^eceqe4 eooi 
 
 
 f^w 
 
 S 
 
 1 1 1 
 
 
 
 II 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 ?■& 
 
 >. 
 
 M- - 
 
 -^ 
 
 
 «^ 
 
 n 
 
 CO -* ■* 
 
 CO(MeiU3 CflCO-AeO-WiH-^IONN^tCSI 
 
 2 
 O 
 
 
 J. 
 
 (M 
 
 J< 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 iItttttt tttt Itt 
 
 N 
 
 la 
 
 Kg 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 smoH 
 
 • t? 
 
 
 
 
 ja 
 
 o 
 
 ^Bpnns 
 
 
 
 
 (A 
 
 E-. = = ?. = = = = = - 
 
 j:3 
 
 
 N M rH 
 
 
 CO 
 
 M 
 
 eq(Mcow(N(N»3M^eqDJM 
 
 
 
 
 jCbct -isj 
 
 25555525; = 2s;;5sa5a;5 
 
 joqBl 
 
 
 < 
 
 JO sjnoH 
 
 
 •g= = = = = = = it' ip = = i'"- a 
 
 
 
 t4..N.«V... I-.IH* l^b-"^ l-<S» IhIh 
 
 
 
 
 
 bo 
 
 C2, o,o,acu 0.0,0. 
 
 
 ■S 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 TTTTTTTTIlTnTTTTlTTl 
 
 
 
 
 
 ,HT-lrHiHiHiHiHr-llOfHtH<DiHiHiHrHUa'*'M<»HUi 
 €6- 
 
 
 
 
 
 Uf JoqBl 
 
 h\iIL III hi. il 
 
 2 
 
 ABpnns 
 
 i/i 
 
 ABa -ISd 
 
 oooo'*cqsDioiaco-*cDio-*'*iON-*oo«eo<o-* 
 
 Hr4rHiHiHi-lr-lrHiHrHrHrHi-tr-li-irHFHiHT-(FHr-l 
 
 O 
 
 joqel 
 
 II II 
 
 g 
 
 JO sjnoH 
 
 HiH rHrHlHiHiH rHiHiH iH r-lrH IHr^ 
 
 
 
 N 
 
 
 o';ji: tJjJis gsJs-M: gsjjsS! 
 
 z 
 
 
 B s a S 6 S 6 
 
 
 
 <: 
 
 V 
 
 bo 
 
 §.' s." s." s." s,- " " s." s. 
 
 o 
 
 S 
 
 
 o 
 
 ^ 
 
 iininniinnnnn 
 
 
 
 «- 
 
 
 ' ^ • : • ' : i • -?, • 
 
 : : : : 
 
 
 * • ' 
 
 o 
 
 Cd 
 
 ■1 
 
 o 
 
 >; : : :« : : :.2!3k; 
 
 
 
 °m 
 
 
 
 
 S u d) 
 
 O 
 
 n 
 
 
 3 n 
 
 ScBt^c 
 
 JH^^tnC 
 
 L 
 
 p^ pq n 
 
 a s 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 The Struggle of 1888. 
 
 1. THE BREWERY CAPITALISTS AND THE LABOR 
 MOVEMENT. 
 
 IN his report to the convention at Baltimore, the Secre- 
 tary of the National Union of United Brewery Work- 
 men declared: "On the whole, I am convinced that an 
 overwhelming majority of our employers is neither blind 
 nor deaf to the proceedings of the labor movement of the 
 present time, and especially in our organization. They 
 know as well as we ourselves that the days of slavery are 
 past, that the conditions under which they might exploit 
 the last particle of strength from the marrow of a work- 
 ingmen are over, and they are clever enough to know 
 that in the face of our strong organization they have to 
 keep peace and abide by their contracts." 
 
 The opinion of the National Secretary was not a cor- 
 rect one. The advantages which the workingmen had 
 gained and the diminution of profits that the brewery 
 capitalists had thereby suffered was so great that it was 
 inevitable that the capitalists would try to turn the victory 
 that the men had gained into a defeat. They only bided 
 their time. 
 
 In one respect, however, the National Secretary of the 
 Brewery Workmen was right. The brewery owners were 
 "not blind nor deaf to the proceedings in the labor move- 
 ment." They had been too much impressed by the power 
 of united action on the part of the workingmen not to 
 observe that toward the end of 1887 and in 1888 a general 
 weakening in the labor movement took place. The high 
 waves of the movement of 1886 and 1887 began to subside. 
 The number of struggles and the fighting ardor of the 
 combatants decreased. A general reaction set in, which 
 filled the brewery capitalists with new hope. They knew 
 
The Brewery Capitalists and the Labor Movement. 143 
 
 only too well that a considerable part of the successes of 
 the workingmen was due to the solidarity of the mass of 
 organized labor. A weakening of the general labor move- 
 ment, such as became noticeable at the end of 1887 and 
 the beginning of 1888, meant also a weakening of the 
 brewery workers' organization, although up to then this 
 organization had continued to flourish. So the plan ripened 
 in the minds of the brewery capitalists to re-establish the 
 old conditions in the trade and to destroy the organization 
 of their workers. 
 
 Of course, this purpose was not publicly announced. 
 The bre>very owners especially had to take great considera- 
 tion in regard to public opinion. They could not possibly 
 declare openly their intention to bring back the inhuman 
 conditions in their trade which had prevailed prior to the 
 organization of the workingmen. These conditions were 
 in too great contrast to the millions in the possession of 
 these brewery princes, who a few decades ago had not 
 stood much higher in the social scale than the commonest 
 laborers in the trade. Therefore they had to act carefully, 
 had to attempt to convince public opinion that the work- 
 men were "a bad lot" ; had to cast suspicion upon them, 
 put their leaders and officials in a bad light, and make the 
 attempt to give the appearance that they, the brewery 
 princes, were the innocent victims of unreasonable ex- 
 tortion. 
 
 As we already know, an organization of brewery own- 
 ers was started at the beginning of the sixties, and its 
 connections extended over the whole country. When, in 
 the spring of 1886, the waves of the labor movement began 
 to rise, and when the brewery workmen of the United 
 States were aroused, the national organization of brewery 
 owners decided immediately upon the position they were 
 going to take. The matter was brought up at a meeting 
 of the trustees of the Brewers' Association which took 
 
144 The Struggle of 1888. 
 
 place in St. Louis in 1886. Originally, this meeting was 
 to have been held in San Francisco, but the rapid rise of 
 the labor movement drove the brev/ery capitalists to quick 
 action, and the meeting was called for the more centrally 
 located city of St. Louis. 
 
 At this meeting, trusted representatives of the brewery 
 bosses of the country deliberated over the situation. It 
 was pointed out that in order "to protect themselves 
 against the unjustified encroachments of organized labor 
 upon the rights of the employer" it was necessary to unite 
 for mutual protection ; that the competition of the brewers 
 among each other was a strong weapon against each 
 brewer; and they reached the decision that no member 
 of the Brewers' Association should sell beer, porter, or 
 ale to any of the customers of another member who was 
 involved in a strike, boycott, or other labor dispute. It 
 deserves to be pointed out that this decision was reached 
 and that they talked of "unjustified encroachment of or- 
 ganized labor upon the rights of the employer" at a time 
 when in most of the breweries of the country the eighteen- 
 hour day prevailed, with a wage of $10 a week. 
 
 In the fall of the same year the convention of the 
 Brewers' Association was held in Niagara, and here the 
 resolution drawn up by the trustees in St. Louis was 
 adopted. In his report, the President of the Association, 
 Miles of New York, went into details regarding the labor 
 movement in the trade. He drew attention to the fact 
 that a large part of the delegates present had formerly 
 also been workingmen, that it was not so long since they, 
 too, had stood at the mash-tub or the boiling kettle, when 
 they themselves were active in the work of brewing. They 
 were justly proud of the high position to which they had 
 risen as a result of their industry and thrift and perse- 
 verance. He wished he could drive the truth into the 
 heads of the brewery workmen that the same road was 
 
The Brewery Capitalists and the Labor Movement. 145 
 
 open to them, that the steps of the ladder which they had 
 to climb were industry, thrift, and perseverance. These 
 virtues, if intelligently applied, would in due time bring 
 them to the higher level of the employer. The hypocritical 
 cant of this declaration is all the more emphasized by the 
 assertion that the average wages of the brewery work- 
 men — remember, it was 1886 — ^were higher than in almost 
 any other industry, and that the majority of the brewery 
 owners took a personal interest in the welfare of their 
 workmen, "as was not always the case in the establish- 
 ments of other industries." 
 
 Nevertheless, Miles recommended — it was at the time 
 when the general labor movement was at its greatest 
 height — that the rights of the workingmen should be duly 
 considered, and "as far as the nature of the business per- 
 mitted" the working hours should be kept "within reason- 
 able limits" at a "corresponding remuneration." Apart 
 from this, every encroachment upon the rights of the 
 employer by the labor organizations must be resisted. No 
 interference with personal rights in a country "which 
 pretended to be the freest in the world" could be toler- 
 ated. The workingmen as well as the employers should 
 respect the rights of the employer to deal individually 
 with the laborers." When this right fails, the personal 
 liberty of both parties is lost." 
 
 For the present, the brewery princes preferred to do 
 without "personal liberty" and "individual rights" in a 
 country "which pretended to be the freest in the world," 
 rather than to risk a battle with the entire working class 
 of the country, which had at that time come into move- 
 ment. The convention of 1886 decided to appoint a com- 
 mittee which should investigate the labor question and 
 report at the next convention. 
 
 This next convention was held at Baltimore in May, 
 1887, and the report of this committee on labor was incor- 
 
146 The Struggle of 1888. 
 
 porated in the report of the trustees of the Association. 
 It was there stated that the labor question continued to 
 be a source of anxiety for the brewery owners. It was 
 natural that the workingmen should make use of the ad- 
 vantages of organization; perhaps it was natural even 
 "that insidious and conscienceless persons should try to 
 control the labor organizations and use them for the pro- 
 mulgation of socialistic doctrines and for their own selfish 
 ends, at the expense of the workingmen." In the long 
 run, however, said the report, the intelligent and thinking 
 workingmen would learn to distrust these leaders who 
 continually seek to stir up strife between workers and 
 employers and "squander the hard-earned savings of the 
 toilers in ill-advised and unnecessary strikes and boycotts." 
 
 On the whole, the tone of the brewery owners at this 
 convention in regard to the labor movement was more 
 decided and showed more animosity than was the case 
 the previous year at Niagara. They spoke of the "in- 
 sidious and selfish agitators," and of the "personal liberty 
 which is dearer than life itself and which must be saved 
 not only for themselves, but for their thousands of work- 
 ingmen from the tyranny of the labor unions." 
 
 The brewery kings began to see their way clear. They 
 observed sooner than did their workingmen the decline of 
 the general labor movement, and for the present they con- 
 sidered themselves prepared to strike a blow against their 
 own workingmen. They only waited for a favorable op- 
 portunity. They knew that the time would come. 
 
 2. THE OUTBREAK OF THE STRUGGLE IN 
 MILWAUKEE. 
 
 The opportunity for which the brewery owners longed, 
 the opportunity to take up with some show of reason the 
 fight against the organization of their workingmen, was 
 to show itself soon. 
 
The Outbreak of the Struggle in Milwaukee. 147 
 
 In September, 1887, the second convention of the 
 United Brewery Workmen took place, and at this conven- 
 tion, among others, the maltsters joined the National Union. 
 In Milwaukee those brewery owners who prepared their 
 own malt had granted the demands of the malt workers, 
 while the so-called commission malthouses, which pro- 
 duced malt for sale, refused to accede to the demands of 
 their workingmen. 
 
 The maltsters demanded a wage of $60 a month, while 
 their employers would give them only $55. The working- 
 men could not give in, because the malt workers employed 
 in the breweries which produced their own malt received 
 $75. If the workers in the malthouses accepted a contract 
 for $55 the brewers would certainly seize the opportunity 
 to reduce the wages of their maltsters, and the labor organi- 
 zation could not have done very much in this matter, as 
 the maltsters in the commission houses were actually work- 
 ing much cheaper than those in the breweries. Besides, 
 the brewery owners had already complained that they paid 
 higher wages to their maltsters than did the commission 
 maltsters. F. Pabst, especially, the president of the Philip 
 Best Brewing Company, had threatened that he would 
 reduce the wages of his maltsters if the commission malt- 
 houses did not raise the wages of their men, and several 
 brewers had expressed themselves openly that the wages 
 in the commission houses would have to be "screwed up." 
 
 The negotiations with the commission malthouses did 
 not lead to any result, and on November 8 the maltsters in 
 these establishments quit work. The striking malt work- 
 ers, who were connected with the Brewery Workmen's 
 Union, demanded that the brewery workers refuse to 
 handle malt from the commission malthouses. These 
 workingmen attempted to make the brewery owners re- 
 fuse to buy malt at the commission houses, but this was 
 refused, and the strike broke out in three small breweries. 
 
148 The Struggle of 1888. 
 
 In the meantime several labor organizations had declared 
 a boycott on Milwaukee beer. At a ball which the brewery 
 workers held in Milwaukee, the employers report, no Mil- 
 waukee beer was drunk, but the beverage was brought 
 from Chicago. The brewery owners of Milwaukee were 
 enraged over this. "Get out of the union or get out of 
 our breweries," was now their word to the men. Although 
 they had a contract with their workingmen which was not 
 to expire till the first of May of the next year, they de- 
 clared on November 25 that they would no longer recog- 
 nize the union and would deal individually with their 
 people. That is, they broke their contract. A general 
 boycott of Milwaukee beer throughout the United States 
 was the consequence, and this action was responded to 
 by the brewery owners of Milwaukee with a general lock- 
 out. The 400 brewery workmen of the ten breweries of 
 Milwaukee were thrown upon the streets. 
 
 The organized workingmen of Milwaukee, especially 
 the local Knights of Labor, energetically took up the fight 
 against Milwaukee beer. At a convention of the Federa- 
 tion of Labor, which was held at Baltimore in the middle 
 of December, 1887, the fight against Milwaukee beer was 
 emphatically declared, and all labor organizations of the 
 country were called upon to refrain from using it. 
 
 The Executive of the Brewery Workmen's Union, of 
 course, did all in its power to make known these declara- 
 tions of labor against Milwaukee beer, and the brewery 
 owners of that city felt the effect. Their sale decreased 
 enormously. 
 
 3. THE BREWERS' POOL IN NEW YORK. 
 
 The events in Milwaukee gave the United States Brew- 
 ers' Association the desired opportunity to begin the long- 
 sought fight against the organization of their workmen 
 throughout the country. 
 
The Brewer^ Pool in New York. 149 
 
 The trustees of the Brewers' Association called a con- 
 ference of all brewery owners' associations in the country 
 to be held in New York on December 14, 1887, whose pro- 
 ceedings and resolutions were to be held secret for the 
 present. Two months later, about the middle of February, 
 1888, a second conference was held at Arion Hall, New 
 York. At both conferences the occurrences in Milwaukee, 
 the boycott, and the whole labor question in so far as it 
 concerned the brewing industry were considered, and it 
 was decided that nothing of the proceedings should be 
 made public. 
 
 At these conferences the plan of campaign against the 
 brewery workmen was drawn up. For the city of New 
 York and its vicinity the brewery owners had already 
 prepared themselves for a struggle the year before. As 
 early as March, 1887, the so-called "pool" had been formed, 
 which included all the brewers who had united in order 
 to act together against their workingmen. In the name 
 of this pool, war was declared against the brewery work- 
 ers, and Richard Katzenmayer, the secretary of the United 
 States Brewers' Association, was the leading spirit. 
 
 At the above-mentioned conferences of the brewery 
 owners a committee was chosen with instructions to draw 
 up a manifesto which would make clear the standpoint 
 of the brewery kings. This committee set to work and 
 drew up an "Appeal," which was published on March 26, 
 1888, and read as follows : 
 
 "United States Brewers' Union, 
 
 New York, March 26, 1888. 
 No. 2 Irving Place. 
 "To the Brewery Workers and Public in General: 
 
 "In consequence of an utter lack of harmony, the brewery pro- 
 prietors in almost all the larger cities have been obliged to yield 
 to the demands of their workingmen, in the matter of wages and 
 hours of labor as well as the employment of help and its discharge. 
 The misunderstanding into which they have been placed in conse- 
 
150 The Struggle of 1888. 
 
 quence of this, and contrary to their better judgment and will, could 
 not avoid producing evil results, and after these methods had been 
 in vogue two years, conditions have become intolerable. We brewery 
 proprietors are, therefore, fully determined to put an end to this 
 misunderstanding and return to the independent control and man- 
 agement of our business affairs, the adjustment of which we con- 
 sider the right of the employer towards his employees, 
 
 "This resolution, however, does not interfere with our frank 
 recognition of the right of the workingman to organize — a right 
 which we, too, as proprietors, demand — or which tends to improve 
 the condition of the workingmen. We are honest about this, and 
 give our workingmen as well as the labor unions and the public 
 in general the assurance, that our present measure has not been 
 prompted by nor been instigated in the desire to effect any change 
 in the contracts entered into with the workingmen or to change the 
 stipulations of the agreement entered into regarding wages or work- 
 ing hours. The influence of the Union Brewery Workmen's Union 
 upon its local unions and individual members shall and will increase 
 in the future and extfend over the brewery workers of the entire 
 country for the purpose of raising differences and discord every- 
 where. Existing agreements shall, so far as they are not violated 
 by the employees, be conscientiously lived up to, however, after 
 their expiration, no new contracts will be entered into by the brewery 
 proprietors, excepting those which the latter enters into individually 
 and voluntarily with their employees. 
 
 "Our refusal to enter into new agreements is founded upon the 
 indisputable right of every human being to act according to his 
 own free will, provided that the exerting of this right does not con- 
 flict with the rights and privileges of others. The stipulations of 
 the said contract, however, do not permit the exercising of these 
 rights, as they do not permit the employee to dispose of his labors 
 to his best advantage, and in that they do not permit the employer 
 to make his own selection among the applicants according to the best 
 advantage as regards competency and willingness to accept his offers, 
 further preventing him from employing and discharging his em- 
 ployees according to his discretion, and to treat and compensate 
 them according to their individual value and capability. Aside from 
 these motives there are also other reasons and other considerations 
 which urge us to insist upon immediately conferring, that is, without 
 the interference of the Brewery Workers' Union, with our employees. 
 The unaccustomed power which is granted these labor unions has 
 
The Brewers' Pool in New York. 151 
 
 led in many instances to petty differences, created to annoy and 
 humble the employers. 
 
 "Provisions of agreements have many times been violated with- 
 out punishment being inflicted, incompetent workingmen who have 
 been discharged have been reinstated, and if in such and similar in- 
 stances justified opposition has been offered, the result was that 
 strike and boycott were resorted to. The responsibility for this mis- 
 use of power, also the blunders made when adjusting differences in 
 labor questions, falls upon only a small number of men, namely, 
 upon the leaders of the local unions of the National Organization 
 of Brewery Workers. 
 
 "A by far greater responsibility, however, have these people 
 undertaken by forcing the workingmen under their jurisdiction to 
 join the anarchistic movement, abhorred by every loyal citizen. 
 
 "In the face of these facts and reflections we adopted the fol- 
 lowing resolutions : 
 
 "Resolved, That after the expiration of the contracts now ex- 
 isting, no new agreements between the brewery proprietors and 
 brewery workmen's unions shall be entered into. 
 
 "Resolved, To give the workingmen and the public the assur- 
 ance that these measures are not to be adopted for the purpose of 
 decreasing the present scale of wages, or to increase the present 
 working hours, although we pay higher wages for work performed 
 than any other branch of industry. 
 
 "Resolved, That we further give our employees the assurance 
 that we acknowledge their right to secure all the benefits of their 
 union and co-operation, but must insist that the exercising of this 
 right be kept within the boundary where it does not interfere with 
 the rights of others. 
 
 "Resolved, That should the adoption of these resolutions cause 
 strikes, we will promise those workingmen who remain in our 
 employ during the trouble, or those who may take the positions of 
 the strikers, that we shall protect them in every possible manner 
 and assure them employment so long as they faithfully fulfill their 
 duty. This is to apply to all workingmen, without regard to their 
 nationality. 
 
 "Resolved, That we, as law-abiding citizens, herewith express 
 our disgust at the anarchistic tendencies of the brewery workers' 
 unions, and in the name of the various brewery proprietors of the 
 country and many thousand loyal brewery workers, express our 
 disdain of the injustice which has been done us by the attempt to 
 crtate public disrespect against our industry, as certain brewery 
 
152 The Struggle of j888. 
 
 labor unions have attempted to do through their anarchistic agitation. 
 
 "In order to make these resolutions effective, we bind ourselves 
 to mutual assistance and protection, and further emphasize this by 
 the following agreement: 
 
 "Realizing the great importance of mutual protection against 
 unlu<^tified meddling on the part of organized workingmen with our 
 rights as employers, and in consideration of the facts that the com- 
 petition among the brewery proprietors is a dangerous weapon 
 which might be used against us, we again sanction the resolutions 
 adopted by the executive officers on May 19, 1886, at their meetmg 
 which was held in St. Louis, and bind ourselves by our signatures 
 to conscientiously fulfill the stipulations thereof, setting forth that 
 we are not to take advantage of the misfortune of those of our 
 brother brewers, whose business, in consequence of the strikes, boy- 
 cotts, lockouts and other labor disturbances suffered, on the con- 
 trary that we should, upon the notification of the secretary of the 
 United States Brewers' Association, we comply with the demand 
 of the secretary and assist our colleagues in need, refusing to 
 furnish beer, ale or porter to their customers, and that our repre- 
 sentatives in the respective cities are to be instructed to act in 
 accordance with the resolutions adopted. 
 
 "Fully convinced that this step will be to the interest of the 
 employer as well as the employee, we confidently expect that both 
 the workingman and the public will give us their assistance. 
 
 "By order of the United States Brewers' Association, sanctioned 
 by the local branches of the entire country affiliated with same. 
 
 "Wm. a. Miles, President. 
 "Richard Katzenmayer, Secretary." 
 
 This circular was a declaration of war on all the or- 
 ganized brewery workmen of the country. With its pub- 
 lication a struggle set in which lasted for years, in some 
 places for a decade, and which finally ended with the vic- 
 tory of the workmen. 
 
 The united brewery owners had not taken into account 
 the fact that it is impossible through force to destroy the 
 labor movement and organization in any given trade, if 
 that trade has reached a certain degree of development. 
 Not only does capitalism produce an army of proletarians, 
 but it also develops in this army a spirit of resistance and 
 
The Brewers^ Pool in New York. 163 
 
 leads to its organization. If the brewery owners had had 
 so much insight, they would have saved themselves great 
 losses. Of course, they would have then also spared the 
 workingmen many sacrifices, long struggles, and untold 
 sufferings. 
 
 4. THE LOCKOUT IN NEW YORK. 
 
 The "Appeal" of the United States Brewers' Associa- 
 tion had scarcely appeared when the local New York 
 organization of brewery capitalists, the New York Brew- 
 ers' Pool, issued a circular to the breweries, in which the 
 order was given that each brewery was to close its doors 
 on April 16 at noon and all the workingmen were to be 
 discharged. Operations in all the breweries were to be 
 suspended until the following day, and then each brewer 
 could engage those workingmen who were agreeable to 
 him. A special agreement with the union then was not 
 to be permitted. Each brewery capitalist was to negotiate 
 with each individual workman, and the union as repre- 
 sentative of the workers was no longer recognized. 
 
 The brewers' unions of New York answered this circu- 
 lar of the Pool brewers by an exposition of the contradic- 
 tions which it contained. They pointed out that the brew- 
 ery owners declared that they recognized the right of the 
 workingmen to organize, but that in spite of this they 
 refused to sign a contract with this organization of work- 
 ingmen or to recognize it in any way. The bosses, it was 
 pointed out, complained that the workingmen "interfered 
 with personal liberty" because they made special stipula- 
 tion with the sale of their labor-power; but they them- 
 selves had formed a trust years ago which forbade any 
 members, under penalty of a heavy fine, to sell beer to 
 the customers of another member, and thereby took away 
 the right of business men to buy their goods wherever 
 they pleased. They further proved that the bosses' circular 
 
154 The Struggle of 1888. 
 
 was a tissue of falsehoods, in that it asserted that the 
 unions of the workingmen had used violence, that they 
 had broken contracts, and in spite of contracts had gone 
 on strike. No such case could be proved, but there were 
 numerous cases where the brewery bosses had not lived 
 up to the provisions of their contracts with their work- 
 ingmen. 
 
 The existing contract between the brewery owners and 
 their workers expired on the first of April. The bosses and 
 their officers, especially one A. E. Seifert, secretary of the 
 Brewers' Exchange, acted as though there were no dis- 
 putes whatever between them and their employees. In a 
 letter to a committee of the Central Labor Union which 
 had been appointed to settle the difficulties, Seifert coolly 
 declared: "I wish to say that I am not aware of any 
 controversies between our Association (the brewery 
 bosses) and the brewery workmen which would require 
 any arbitration." In reality, however, the gentlemen of 
 the Brewers' Pool were well aware of these controversies, 
 for within their own ranks they had to suppress a number 
 of their colleagues and use all their power to prevent them 
 from renewing the contract with their employees. After 
 the issuance of the manifesto of March 26, Seifert himself 
 said that half the bosses were willing to sign a new con- 
 tract. This was especially the case with the small brewery 
 owners, who were afraid that the threatening conflict 
 would put them out of business. A few of them, perhaps, 
 realized that the struggle was a welcome one to the large 
 brewery owners, because it would not aflfect the working- 
 men alone, but would also ruin the small bosses. 
 
 After the efforts of the Central Labor Union of New 
 York to negotiate had proved futile, the boycott on all 
 "Pool beer" was declared on April 8. Nearly all the labor 
 organizations of New York endorsed this boycott and fre- 
 quently in a very emphatic way. The Bakers' Union, for 
 
The Lockout in New York. 155 
 
 instance, passed a resolution that any member who drank ' 
 pool beer should be subject to a fine of $10 ; any member 
 who even went into a saloon where pool beer was sold 
 was to be fined $5. Furthermore, a number of labor or- 
 ganizations decided that at the next election the members 
 should vote the Prohibition ticket if the brewery bosses 
 in future would not recognize the organization of their 
 workingmen. The bakers were by no means the only 
 ones who took such a firm stand against the pool brewers. 
 
 However, as already stated, the labor movement on the 
 whole seemed on the wane. The execution of the Chicago 
 Anarchists, who were hanged not because they gave utter- 
 ance to anarchistic doctrines, but because they defended the 
 rights of workingmen, brought new courage to the em- 
 ployers of labor and discouraged a number of the work- 
 ing class. There was also another circumstance to be 
 noted in connection with the condition in the breweries 
 of New York and vicinity. The officers and other repre- 
 sentatives of the organization proved themselves in that 
 trying hour not able to cope with the situation. The Na- 
 tional Secretary, Herbrand, especially did not know in that 
 critical moment what his duty was. 
 
 The brewery owners, on their side, had committed the 
 error of betraying their plans almost three weeks in ad- 
 vance. Instead of profiting by this error and declaring a 
 strike at once, as a struggle was inevitable, the officers 
 and representatives of the workingmen did absolutely 
 nothing to make use of the favorable situation. Instead of 
 immediately declaring a general strike, they let the men 
 continue at work and thus gave the pool brewers time to 
 take steps to make the struggle easier for themselves. All 
 saloonkeepers got their supply of beer for several weeks 
 in advance, and the breweries themselves tried to increase 
 their reserve supplies as much as possible. When in the 
 ranks of the workingmen it was proposed to anticipate 
 
156 The Struggle of 1888. 
 
 the threats of the employers and' to commence the struggle 
 at once, it was the delegates of the New York central 
 labor body, the Central Labor Union, and the National 
 Secretary, Herbrand, who opposed this proposition with 
 all their influence. Only the execution of this measure 
 could have weakened the threatened blow. At that time 
 the suspicion was expressed that the brewery capitalists 
 with their money had made attempts at corruption in the 
 ranks of the workingmen, as has been proven to be the 
 case on other occasions. However this may be, the fact 
 remains that neither the National Executive of the Union 
 nor Secretary Herbrand did their duty in that time of need. 
 On April 16, at noon, all the breweries of New York 
 and the vicinity, seventy-eight in number, were closed by 
 the owners, and about 4,000 men were thrown out upon 
 the street. The workingmen took up the fight with all 
 their might. Committees of all kinds watched over the 
 shipping of beer, organized the boycott, and tried to keep 
 away the streams of scabs, but it soon became evident that 
 the struggle was a hopeless one. The general labor move- 
 ment could not succeed in making its influence felt in the 
 same manner as in the years 1886 and 1887. The number 
 of members in the brewery workers' organization was 
 decreased owing to the fact that a great many men re- 
 turned to work within a few days as non-union laborers. 
 Scabs appeared in great numbers, and those brewery work- 
 ers who still put confidence in their craftsmanlike skill 
 and thought that beer-brewing could not be conducted 
 without them soon learned that in reality they were noth- 
 ing more than ordinary factory workmen whose work 
 could be performed by anyone, even the most unpracticed. 
 The greater part of the men were compelled to leave their 
 organization. Out of the 4,000 locked-out men who had 
 until then belonged to the Brewers', Beer Drivers', Halt- 
 ers' and Firemen's Unions, only a handful of 400 men 
 
The Lockout in New York. 157 
 
 remained from all these branches, and- these men were 
 employed in twelve breweries whose owners had recog- 
 nized the union and acceded to its demands. 
 
 Almost heroic efforts were made on the part of the 
 brewery workmen to bring to a successful termination this 
 struggle into which they had been forced. In a period of 
 seven weeks almost $40,000 was paid out for the support 
 of the locked-out workingmen. To this sum Brewers' 
 Union No. 1 contributed $16,000. The two Beer Drivers' 
 Unions which belonged to the organization in New York 
 contributed $11,000 to the fund. The national organiza- 
 tion gave over $1,500, and $6,700 was raised in New York 
 and the vicinity on lists and by other labor organizations. 
 The body of organized labor, and especially its German 
 branches, did their utmost, but still it was not enough to 
 make a victory possible in view of the great number who 
 were locked out. Brewers' Union No. 1 could show that 
 in contrast to the $6,700 which was raised by all the labor 
 organizations of New York outside the brewing industry 
 in this time of need, the locked-out brewers had contrib- 
 uted almost $25,000 in the course of thfe year and a quarter 
 preceding the lockout for general labor purposes, and in 
 addition to that more than $3,500 had been given by the 
 Beer Drivers' Union. A full year after the outbreak of 
 the struggle, Brewers' Union No. 1 put an additional tax 
 upon its members in order to support those workmen 
 whom the brewery capitalists had put on the blacklist. 
 The hand of the powerful brewery capitalists lay heavily 
 upon the workingmen who had taken their fate into their 
 hands in order to protect their interests from the brewery 
 princes. They were refused work everywhere. And if 
 by mistake they did get work in some place, they were 
 driven out with scorn and derision when the mistake was 
 discovered. The capitalists now revenged themselves 
 
158 The Struggle of 1888. 
 
 upon the leaders of the workingmen for having caused 
 them two unpleasant years and curtailed their profits. 
 
 A day after the lockout of the brewery workmen, 
 on April 17, one could read in all the bourgeois papers 
 of New York, that the pool brewers were going to give 
 their men the same hours and wages as in the preceding 
 year when they were bound to these conditions by a con- 
 tract. They did not mention, however, that this new 
 scale of wages and the change in the working hours had 
 been won by the organization which they now wanted to 
 destroy. They did not mention that when the labor 
 organisation was once destroyed, the conquests of the or- 
 ganization would fall to pieces of their own accord. They 
 attempted to mislead public opinion, and succeeded in this 
 end with the bourgeois portion of the population, who 
 looked upon the "presumption and impudence of the work- 
 ingmen" with the same eyes as did the brewery princes 
 themselves. 
 
 The National Union of United Brewery Workmen 
 almost broke down under the blows which fell upon its 
 branch organizations in New York and the vicinity. The 
 confusion increased still more when the National Secre- 
 tary and editor of the Brauer-Zeitung, Herbrand, suddenly 
 left the scene of action and turned his back upon the 
 battlefield just when the struggle was at the heaviest. He 
 took a trip to Germany, without giving any thought to the 
 straightening out of the affairs which had been entrusted 
 to him. The secretary of Brewers' Union No. 1, Ernst 
 Kurzenknabe, took over the management of the affairs of 
 the organization for the time being, and Karl Ibsen took 
 up the editing of the Brauer-Zeitung, which in those days 
 of struggle was of double importance. 
 
 The "pool beer," as the entire product of the New York 
 breweries who had taken up the struggle against the union 
 was called, was avoided by all organized workmen of New 
 
The Lockout in New York. 159 
 
 York, but the setbacks which occurred after the high tide 
 of 1886 in the labor movement made an earnest struggle 
 almost impossible. All organizations were occupied with 
 their own affairs and had to represent their own claims 
 and defend their own achievements. They could therefore 
 not pay much attention to the demands of other working- 
 men. With the decline of the labor movement came dis- 
 putes of all kinds which weakened the general solidarity. 
 The boycott on pool beer became less and less effective, 
 and the length of the struggle and its apparent hopeless- 
 ness contributed to this weakening. 
 
 But all this did not discourage the small group which 
 i;emained in the fight against the brewers. Comparatively 
 large sums were raised in order to continue the boycott 
 and to force other brewery owners to recognize the union 
 of their workingmen and to accede to the conditions they 
 demanded. All the newly organized breweries had to 
 reckon with the union, as the latter was still strong enough 
 to be able to hinder the success of a new brewery. Though 
 the union suffered very heavily, it could not be entirely 
 suppressed. 
 
 The number of members in Union No. 1 amounted at 
 that time to about two hundred, who had kept up their 
 ten-hour day and their wages of $16 to $18 a week. Then 
 the number of union breweries gradually rose from twelve 
 to twenty-five, with a consequent increase in the member- 
 ship of the union. In 1891 a friendly agreement was 
 reached by the Brooklyn members of "the union and they 
 separated from the mother section in New York. In the 
 latter then remained only 130 members, which number 
 was doubled during the following ten years of the struggle. 
 Progress was terribly slow. Many of the members would 
 frequently hang their heads and despair of success. All 
 the more praiseworthy is the tenacity and perseverance 
 of the others who continued the fight. Never despairing, 
 
160 The Struggle of 1888. 
 
 ceaselessly struggling, alert to every advantage, slowly 
 but tenaciously they gained one foothold after the other, 
 until finally the battle was won. 
 
 5. BEFORE THE STATE BOARD OF ARBITRATION. 
 
 In the year 1886 a State Board was formed in Albany, 
 N. Y., whose task it was to mediate in cases of labor dis- 
 putes. This "Board of Mediation and Arbitration," whose 
 decisions were, however, not binding for either party, 
 immediately after the lockout of the brewery workmen 
 took up this matter. On April 19, 1888, this Board held 
 its first meeting at the Metropolitan Hotel in New York, 
 and the representatives of the brewery workers as well as 
 the brewery owners were called to appear before them. 
 
 The proceedings of the State Board of Arbitration in 
 regard to the lockout of the New York brewers extended 
 over a period of fourteen days. Both parties appeared 
 with their witnesses and lawyers. The Central Labor 
 Union was represented by its committee and by counsel. 
 In the beginning, Samuel Gompers undertook to represent 
 the brewery workmen, but he was relieved by a lawyer 
 engaged by the Brewers' Union. The Pool Brewers' 
 Association was represented in addition to its counsel, 
 Mr. Untermeyer, by W. A. Miles, Henry Clausen, A. N. 
 Beadleston and R. Katzenmayer. From the National 
 Union of Brewery Workmen appeared Secretary Her- 
 brand, also the Secretary of Union No. 1, E. Kurzen- 
 knabe, and a number of members of the organization, who 
 for the most part had been called as witnesses. 
 
 The representatives of the Pool Brewers took the stand 
 that they had nothing to arbitrate. Mr. Miles declared: 
 "There is nothing to decide in this matter, for we consider 
 our side as the just one." Although they intended to con- 
 tinue the wages and working hours as heretofore, they 
 would not allow themselves to be dictated to as to whom 
 
Before the State Board of Arbitration. 161 
 
 they were to employ. The president of the Pool Brewers 
 declared: "W" ^ave in reality nothing against our work- 
 ingmen belonf?;ing to a union, but we demand from our 
 people that they do not support an organization with their 
 contributions which makes an attempt to destroy our 
 business." "The locked-out workingmen," Mr. Miles ex- 
 plained, "are to be pitied, but they permitted themselves 
 to be misled by 'godless' leaders." 
 
 The spokesmen of the workingmen, however, took the 
 stand that they must insist upon recognition of the Union. 
 The organization of the workingmen had produced the 
 improvement in their condition. Without a contract 
 between the workingmen and the bosses, in times when 
 work was not plentiful, the men would be out on the 
 street, as had been the case prior to the establishment of 
 the union. The workingmen cared much less about the 
 particular points upon which they could eventually agree, 
 than upon the recognition of the union by the closing of a 
 contract the different demands of which could eventually 
 be agreed upon ; in fact, they would be willing to leave 
 the details of this contract to the decision of the State 
 Board of Arbitration. Only one condition they would 
 have to hold to, insist upon, namely, that the locked-out 
 workmen would have to be reinstated. 
 
 The representatives of the Pool Brewers most decidedly 
 refused to make an agreement with the union. They had 
 made up their minds to take up the fight all along the line 
 and to destroy the organization of their workingmen. 
 
 As under these circumstances an adjustment by the 
 Arbitration Board could not be thought of, they gave up 
 the attempt to do this; but in accordance with the law, 
 they undertook an investigation of the whole affair in 
 order to determine the facts which led to the outbreak of 
 the struggle. 
 
 Even now the Pool Brewers took up the standpoint 
 
162 The Struggle of 1888. 
 
 that there was no dispute, and that therefore there was 
 nothing to investigate. Their counsel, Untermeyer, de- 
 clared that his clients would only take the part of spectators 
 in this investigation ; but they soon gave up this idea 
 when they found that it did not prevent the State Board 
 from proceeding with the investigation. 
 
 All the details of what happened before the lockout of 
 the brewery workmen in Milwaukee, as well as the entire 
 history of events leading up to the conflict in New York 
 was now brought to light. A great part of the arbitrary 
 actions which the brewery owners had perpetrated were 
 now exposed. The assertion of the bosses that the brewery 
 workers in Milwaukee had broken their contract by refus- 
 ing to work with scab malt was met by the proof that 
 the breaking of contracts was a daily occurrence with the 
 Pool Brewers. The complaint that the beer boycott had 
 been declared was met with the proof that the brewery 
 owners themselves had made an agreement according to 
 which they were to boycott the barley of states where 
 prohibition and temperance laws had been enacted. 
 
 The investigation showed that the brewery owners, 
 not the brewery workers, had been the aggressors. It 
 was shown that some of the brewery owners of New York 
 had wanted to renew the contract with the union, but they 
 refrained from doing this out of fear, because they had 
 been threatened by the Pool that their business would be 
 ruined if they did it. One brewery owner had explained 
 to the committee of workingmen that waited upon him: 
 "If I sign this, I cannot obtain any malt." George Bechtel, 
 a well-known and respected brewer of Staten Island, who 
 had not joined the Pool, explained to the lawyer of the 
 Pool at the hearing before the Arbitration Board: "The 
 Pool would like to destroy me. I think I would not even 
 be able to get coal if you could prevent it." Untermeyer, 
 counsel for the Pool, attempted to fasten suspicion upon 
 
Before the State Board of Arbitration. 163 
 
 the brewers who had given in to the demands of their 
 workingmen and had signed contracts with the Union, by- 
 asserting that these owners had given money to the 
 workingmen. He tried to prove this assertion especially 
 in regard to Bechtel and Loewer, but without success. He 
 was also unsuccessful in trying to prove that the officers 
 of the Union had used its money for their own purposes. 
 The insolent manner in which the counsel for the Pool 
 Brewers endeavored to confuse the workingmen during 
 cross-examinations often brought him an answer of the 
 same kind. When he asked Richard Eisner, Secretary of 
 the Milwaukee Brewers' Union, whether he did not have 
 a weak memory, Eisner replied aptly: "Perhaps, I just 
 happened to have had a glass of Pool beer; that may be 
 the reason for it." 
 
 The arbitrary manner in which the brewery owners 
 treated their workmen was shown when it was pointed 
 out that the bosses simply decided when their workingmen 
 were to join an organization and when they should not do 
 so. The secretary of the Brewery Workmen's Union 
 declared under oath, that in the year 1885, when Brewers' 
 Union No. 1 had only 60 members, several brewery owners 
 had come to him, among them Scharmann and Clausen and 
 the secretary of the Brewers' Association, R. Katzenmayer, 
 and had offered to sign a contract with the union. When 
 he explained that the union was very weak as yet, he was 
 told: "Let us look out for that," implying thereby that 
 they would compel their workingmen to join the union. 
 And what this committee of brewery owners had declared 
 did happen. Not only did they force their workingmen to 
 join the organization, but in certain instances they dis- 
 ciplined the men who refused to join, not only by 
 threatening that they would discharge them, but by 
 actually doing so. By this compulsion which the brewery 
 owners exercised upon their workingmen the Brewers' 
 
164 The Struggle of 1888. 
 
 Union No. 1 got its strength and its importance. While 
 then, as was proved by witnesses before the Arbitration 
 Board, the brewery owners had forced their men by threats 
 to join the union, and had declared that they would dis- 
 charge anyone who refused to join the organization, the 
 bosses now declared that they would discharge everyone 
 who did not leave the union. 
 
 Counsel of the Pool Brewers did not know how to 
 meet these examples of arbitrary treatment and abuse of 
 economic power against their union competitors and 
 against their workingmen except by casting suspicion on 
 the brewery workers in the eyes of the Arbitration Board 
 by representing them as anarchists. To this end the most 
 ridiculous assertions were made by him and the silliest 
 proofs offered. 
 
 The main object of this comedy was to influence 
 public opinion, which the brewery owners very much 
 needed on their side in order to carry out their plan of 
 destroying the organization of their workingmen. The 
 tragedy in Chicago where a number of anarchists had been 
 hanged, and the exploitation of this tragedy by the 
 bourgeois press for the purpose of bourgeois reaction, had 
 antagonized public opinion against everything which 
 resembled anarchism or what the bourgeois mind imagined 
 as anarchism. The brewery workmen at their second 
 convention had issued a protest against the condemnation 
 of the Chicago anarchists. Many of their unions had made 
 contributions towards the defense fund. On the day of 
 the judicial murder in Chicago, the brewery workmen of 
 that city as an expression of their sorrow and their protest, 
 had suspended work, and this without the permission of 
 the brewery owners, who protested against this independ- 
 ent action of their workingmen. The New York Brewers' 
 Union had taken part in a parade in honor of the executed 
 men. All this was used by counsel for the brewery owners 
 
Before the State Board of Arbitration. 165 
 
 to show that the organization and its workingmen were 
 "anarchistic." 
 
 Issues of the Brauer-Zeitung, which like all pro- 
 gressive labor papers of that time, had sympathetic 
 articles in behalf of the hanged anarchists, were submitted 
 to the Arbitration Board. Mr. Untermeyer tried to bring 
 out by his questions that the Brewers' Union is a "secret 
 oath-bound organization," and that by the admission of 
 its members the "anarchistic" red flag played a part. He 
 even had the union books dragged into court in order to 
 prove this. He declared that the workingmen had carried 
 red flags at the labor demonstration at Union Square. He 
 demanded that as a proof of this the "blood-red" flag of 
 Brewers' Union No. 1 be brought into court. The flag was 
 brought. It was red in parts, but it also had all sorts of 
 other colors, and in the center it had a figure of Gambrinus. 
 Mr. Untermeyer's proofs failed. To the amusement of all 
 it came out that the flag of Brewers' Union No. 1 had 
 only been procured since the demonstration in question, 
 and therefore could not have been used at the parade. 
 
 The attempt to prove the Brewers' Union an an- 
 archistic organization was not confined to New York. In 
 Chicago and Milwaukee the same game was played by 
 the brewery owners. In Milwaukee they issued a circular 
 in which they protested against their so-called anarchistic 
 tendencies and the expression of such tendencies in their 
 journals. 
 
 The investigation of the dispute in New York by the 
 State Board of Arbitration was without any result, and 
 this could not be otherwise. The Pool desired the destruc- 
 tion of the workingmen's organization. This organization 
 tried to defend itself, and although greatly weakened con- 
 tinued its fight. However, it was only a small group which 
 in these hard times held the flag of the union aloft. 
 
166 The Struggle of 1888. 
 
 e. THE STRUGGLE THROUGH THE COUNTRY. 
 
 At the same time as in New York, the struggle broke 
 out all over the country wherever organizations of brewery 
 workmen had been formed. 
 
 In most cases the result of the lockout of the workmen 
 was the same as in New York. In Newark the number 
 of members of Union No. 2 went down irom 350 to 
 thirty-five. But these held out, even when there was 
 not a single union brewery in Newark. Then they 
 succeeded in inducing one brewery owner, Joseph Kastner, 
 to leave the Brewers' Pool, and with the union beer of 
 this concern as a weapon they soon succeeded in getting 
 other breweries to give in. By the end of the year 1889, 
 Union No. 2 of Newark and the vicinity gained no less 
 than eight breweries in which union rules were enforced. 
 
 These conquests were not made without a struggle. 
 The boycott claimed its victims. Not less than six 
 members of the union were brought before the court in 
 one year on the charge of boycotting, and the union had 
 to pay fines up to the amount of a thousand dollars. 
 
 In Buffalo the lockout of the workingmen occurred on 
 the first of May. On this day the contract between the 
 brewery owners and their workingmen expired and the 
 former refused to renew it, but on the contrary locked out 
 the union workmen, about 250 in number. A single 
 exception to this was the Columbia Brewing Company, 
 which signed the contract after two days and took its 
 men back to work. 
 
 In Buffalo the struggle lasted three years. The Pool 
 Brewers had formed their workingmen into an "inde- 
 pendent union," a name which was to mask the actual 
 dependence of their men. Then came peace and all 
 breweries of that city organized as union breweries. The 
 "independent union" joined the local union of the United 
 
The Struggle Through the Country. 167 
 
 Brewery Workmen, and thus the conflict of 1888 ended as 
 far as Buffalo was concerned. 
 
 In Cincinnati the fight started by a strike of the 
 workingmen in a few of the larger breweries, whereupon 
 on July 19 all the brewery owners, with one solitary 
 exception, demanded that their workingmen either leave 
 the union or cease working in their breweries. The work- 
 ingmen did the latter and the lockout was general. Here, 
 too, the union was affected in the same way as in New 
 York. The membership of the organization dwindled 
 down from a round hundred to thirteen men, who were 
 employed in one union brewery. In the year 1900 another 
 firm recognized the union, and in the following year six 
 additional breweries were conquered by the organization. 
 Only on September 20, 1902, did the struggle of 1888 
 come to an end in Cincinnati, when all the breweries of 
 that city recognized the union and at the same time 
 abolished all Sunday work. 
 
 In Chicago the situation was the same as in the other 
 places. Here the struggle started in April, 1888, and the 
 lockout immediately made a great reduction in the mem- 
 bership of the union. The union retained but little influence 
 and was of practically no importance. On June 8, 1888, 
 the strike was declared to be at an end and the breweries 
 were now open to all members. It was not until Septem- 
 ber 13, 1891, that the union was reorganized in Chicago. 
 
 The situation in the small places was just the same 
 as in the large cities. Everywhere there were struggles 
 and temporary defeats. But everywhere there was a small 
 group which held out tenaciously, and which gradually 
 gained more and more ground. One or the other brewer 
 would consider it to his advantage to make peace with 
 the union. The consumption of union beer was then used 
 as a lever to get other brewery owners out of the Pool. 
 From all over, even from San Francisco and other places 
 
168 The Struggle of 1888. 
 
 on the Pacific Coast, the news came that some brewery 
 owners had made peace with the union and that thereby 
 the prospects for the union had improved. All this made 
 the future look more hopeful. For the present, however, 
 most of the local unions and through them the National 
 Union had suffered terribly. 
 
 7. THE SPECIAL CONFERENCE IN CHICAGO. 
 
 The attack of the brewery capitalists upon the organi- 
 zation of their workingmen and the numerous struggles 
 and defeats had weakened the undeveloped labor organiza- 
 tion very much indeed. The number of members was 
 scarcely a third of what it had been in the preceding 
 year. The treasury was depleted. The administration 
 of the National Union had broken down completely and 
 the bookkeeping and financial management was greatly 
 confused by the sudden disappearance of the National 
 Secretary. 
 
 A consultation of all the elements which still stuck to 
 the organization was necessary, if the National Union was 
 not to go to pieces altogether. 
 
 A special conference of delegates was, therefore, called 
 at Chicago for July 15, 1888. The conference met there 
 on that day and remained in session until July 18. 
 
 Fourteen delegates were present, representing twenty 
 local unions. But these unions had had their membership 
 very much diminished by the existing struggles. The 
 5,000 members of the preceding year had dwindled down 
 to less than 2,000. 
 
 The convention made a survey of the situation possible. 
 In the East, where the struggle had been the hardest, there 
 were still several hundred members to support who had 
 been put on the black-list by the boss brewers' association. 
 New York, Chicago, Cincinnati and Buffalo suffered most 
 under this condition. In Philadelphia and Pittsburg the 
 
The Special Conference in Chicago. 169 
 
 local unions of the brewers scarcely existed. In New 
 Haven, too, the organization was badly shaken. Only 
 on the Pacific Coast, in Cleveland, and in Syracuse, was 
 the condition of the union a good one. In the other places 
 where organizations still existed, and where union rules 
 were partly enforced without a contract, a disposition 
 showed itself to neglect the payment of dues and this led 
 to the neglect of the union on the whole. The sudden 
 departure of National Secretary Herbrand had been seized 
 upon by the Pool Brewers and made the basis for all sorts 
 of lies and calumnies against the officers of the union, in 
 an attempt to make the workingmen suspicious of the 
 organization. In regard to wages the fact was brought 
 out that in those places where union men worked, the old 
 wages and the same working hours had been kept up, 
 but that in the places where non-union men were employed 
 these worked for from $10 to $20 a month less. 
 
 The provisional secretary of the National Union, 
 Ludwig Arnheim, of New York, showed in his report a 
 picture of the struggle and pointed out that the brewery 
 owners had carried out a long cherished plan when they 
 dealt the blow to the organization. 
 
 The conduct of the former National Secretary and of 
 the National Executive was sharply criticised, and this 
 criticism was expressed in a resolution which declared 
 that Herbrand "was not equal to the important and diffi- 
 cult task of a National Secretary, nor could he represent 
 the organization during dangerous and unsettled times." 
 Herbrand was, therefore, declared to have forfeited his 
 office as National Secretary. In regard to the National 
 Executive of the organization similar action was taken. 
 It was said that this board had grossly neglected its 
 duties, that during the struggle in New York they hkd 
 proved themselves incompetent to have the leadership and 
 guidance of the organization, and that therefore all the 
 
170 The Struggle of 1888. 
 
 members had forfeited their offices and their places were 
 declared vacant. 
 
 According to the new constitution which was adopted 
 in Chicago, the Executive was to be composed of five 
 members, to be selected from the organizations of the 
 place to be designated as the seat of the Executive and 
 of four additional members from the unions of four cities 
 which the convention was to designate. The convention 
 named San Francisco, St. Louis, Chicago, and Cleveland 
 each to furnish one member of the Executive, and also 
 determined that New York was to be the seat of the Board, 
 and that the Brauer-Zeitung should also remain there. 
 Karl Ibsen was elected editor, as he had edited the paper 
 since April. Ernst Kurzenknabe was elected National 
 Secretary. 
 
 The proceedings in Chicago showed that the working- 
 men had learned something from the action of the bosses. 
 In their debates it was emphasized that the "craft spirit" 
 of the brewers was out of date, as the employers had shown 
 them that unskilled "hands" could, if necessary, perform 
 the work pretty well. 
 
 In general, the conference advocated a uniting of all 
 labor organizations and voted to express its thanks for 
 the assistance rendered by the central bodies of New York, 
 Chicago, and Buffalo, and other unions. 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 The Development of the United Brewery Workmen. 
 1. DARK TIMES. 
 
 THE successes which the brewery workers had achieved 
 as a result of their organization in their first attempts 
 were so great that it is not to be wondered at that the 
 brewery capitalists made the attempt by means of their 
 economic power to destroy the union and to bring back 
 the former conditions. For a decade the workingmen 
 had to defend what they had achieved at the v^ry start. 
 That they finally succeeded in doing this is due less to 
 the power of the brewery workers than to the fact that the 
 development of the industry made a return to former 
 conditions impossible as well as to the fact that a small 
 group of brewery workers held aloft the banner of the 
 organization at the cost of heavy personal sacrifices and 
 that in spite of the occasional lukewarmness of organized 
 labor in general, they did finally, at the decisive moment, 
 step in for the brewery workers and their organization. 
 
 The years 1888 and 1889 were the hardest which the 
 United Brewery Workmen ever had. Their ranks were 
 depleted, their treasury empty, and discouragement pre- 
 vailed. In addition to this there was a new struggle in 
 San Francisco where the organization had still retained 
 some strength. Four hundred men were affected by this 
 struggle and they were therefore busy enough with them- 
 selves without assisting the organization in the East. In 
 July, 1889, this struggle ended with the victory of the 
 union, but this as we shall see later was of no advantage to 
 the organization, in fact, was rather detrimental. 
 
 On September 8, 1889, the fourth convention of the 
 organization assembled in Cincinnati. Only eleven dele- 
 
172 The Development of the United Brewery Workmen. 
 
 gates were present, representing twenty-three local unions. 
 The report of the National Secretary presented a sad 
 picture. He complained about the bad condition of the 
 general labor movement and the consequent weakness of 
 the brewery workers' organization. 
 
 Local Union No. 16, on the Pacific Coast, was the 
 only one, so the Secretary reported, which had been able 
 to "breast the storm" and that was the reason why the 
 imited brewery capitalists had now directed a renewed 
 attack against this union. Among the workingmen in 
 New York a lack of enthusiasm in regard to the boycott 
 began to show itself. In the central body votes were 
 raised in favor of revoking the boycott against the Pool 
 Brewers. There seemed to be no doubt that the Pool 
 Brewers were behind these motions, and later on this 
 was directly proved. 
 
 In the brewing cities of the West — Chicago, Mil- 
 waukee, Cincinnati, and St. Louis — things were no better 
 than in New York, in some respects even worse. There 
 were but few. places where the organization had retained 
 some degree of strength. Nevertheless in some cities, as 
 Baltimore, Syracuse, Albany, and partly in New York, 
 Newark, and Cincinnati, advantages had been gained in 
 the form of contracts, while San Francisco was able to 
 look back upon a good victory. 
 
 The treasury of the organization contained less than 
 $300, the membership consisted of less than 2,000 men. 
 This was a state of affairs which might make even the 
 bravest despair. 
 
 The proceedings of the convention were therefore 
 confined to routine business. The seat of the Executive 
 of the National Union was retained in New York. Ernst 
 Kurzenknabe was retained as National Secretary and Karl 
 Ibsen was re-elected as editor of the Brauer-Zeitung. 
 It was recommended that there be a district division for 
 
Dark Times. 173 
 
 the country according to which the organization was to 
 be sub-divided into five geographical divisions. This new 
 form of organizatign, however, was never carried out. 
 Resolutions were passed against the pool beer in Cincin- 
 nati, St. Louis, and Milwaukee, an eight-hour day was 
 recommended, and disapproval was expressed of several 
 socialistic sections who held their meetings in places where 
 scab beer was sold. With this the activity of the Cincin- 
 nati convention was exhausted. 
 
 But as hopeless as the prospects were then, it was 
 even worse later. The attack which threatened to destroy 
 the union came from within its own ranks. 
 
 2. STRUGGLE AND STRIFE ON THE PACIFIC COAST. 
 
 The brewery owners of San Francisco who had closed 
 a contract with their men used the outbreak of the struggle 
 in the East as the opportunity for constant violations of 
 this contract. It was evidently intended to cause a clash. 
 The workingmen who were organized in Local Union 
 No. 16, Pacific Coast, declared a boycott against one of 
 the firms in question, the United States Brewing Co. 
 Thereupon the united employers submitted a document to 
 the workingmen which they were to sign and according 
 to which they were to solemnly renounce the union for 
 all time. The Executive Board of the union requested 
 the workingmen to sign, and this was done. However, 
 when the employers observed that in spite of having 
 signed the paper, the workingmen remained true to their 
 organization, they demanded in October, 1888, that all 
 the membership books be submitted to them, so that they 
 could see up to what date the various men had paid their 
 union dues. All those who said that the books were no 
 longer in their possession, as well as those who had 
 continued to pay after they had signed the document, were 
 immediately discharged. About 150 men were disciplined 
 
174 The Development of the United Brewery Workmen. 
 
 in this manner. The boycott which was previously 
 declared was emphasized more sharply. The bosses now 
 used corrupt practices. As in the East, they attempted 
 bribery. In some of the unions — those of the coopers and 
 the boilermakers — they were successful in procuring the 
 passage of anti-boycott resolutions. Various attempts to 
 bribe delegates to the central labor body were made known. 
 The brewery workmen's union took into its own hands 
 the matter of getting a regular supply of beer from a 
 brewery in Sacramento. In April, 1889, the support which 
 the Brewers' Pool in the East had been giving to the 
 brewery capitalists in San Francisco came to an end. They 
 had become tired of the struggle and so it came to a 
 temporary peace. But new disputes arose whereupon the 
 central labor body threatened a renewal of the boycott. 
 Then two firms left the Brewers' Pool and sent their 
 workingmen into the union. This example was followed by 
 the other brewery owners. The boycott had done its part. 
 
 This victory of the brewery workers of San Francisco 
 had brought the Secretary of their union, Alfred Fuhr- 
 mann, into greater prominence. He ruled his organization 
 completely, and when the convention in Cincinnati was 
 called, he was naturally sent as delegate. 
 
 At the convention Fuhrmann attempted to weaken the 
 National Executive and the organ of the union, the 
 Brauer-Zeitung, as much as possible. He opposed the 
 weekly issuance of the paper, and declared that the 
 National Executive had had no right to levy an assessment 
 of 10 cents upon the membership. It was due to Fuhr- 
 mann's influence that his union refused to pay this 
 assessment. He also opposed the resolution to raise the 
 tax to 25 cents for a few months in order to insure the 
 existence of the Brauer-Zeitung. 
 
 Whether the weakness of the organization which was 
 disclosed at the convention in Cincinnati gave him the 
 
Struggle and Strife on the Pacific Coast. 175 
 
 conviction that this organization could not continue, or 
 whether he had other reasons, the fact remains that 
 Fuhrmann planned to form a new organization which 
 was to have its seat in the West, and where he was 
 naturally to play an important part. He declared after 
 his return from the convention in Cincinnati, that the 
 existing organization was no longer of any use and that it 
 would have to be brought to an end. He hoped to get the 
 support of the unions in Cleveland, Buffalo, St. Louis, and 
 Denver — a hope which, however, proved futile. 
 
 After his return to San Francisco Fuhrmann began his 
 activities against the National Executive. He induced his 
 union not to pay the assessment which the National Ex- 
 ecutive had proposed and which had been passed. The 
 administration of the National Union thereupon was 
 compelled on January 14, 1890, to suspend Local Union 
 No. 16, in San Francisco. The local union of Cleveland 
 was suspended for the same reason, but paid immediately 
 and was then again taken into the organization. 
 
 With the suspension of the local union in San Francisco 
 the organization lost 400 members, and its numbers had 
 now dwindled down to 1,300. 
 
 Fuhrmann now organized his "United Brewery Work- 
 men's Union of the Pacific Coast," whose General 
 Secretary he became. He made connections with Oakland, 
 Seattle, Portland, Tacoma, Sacramento, and San Jose, 
 and brought the membership of his organization to about 
 700 men. As he was the president of the San Francisco 
 Central Labor Body, this organization, too, stood .by him. 
 It was said that he endeavored to form a new labor federa- 
 tion of the Pacific Coast. 
 
 But opposition too was not lacking. A number of 
 brewery workers applied to the National Executive of 
 the United Brewery Workmen for a charter, and this was 
 granted. This mistake caused a general conflict among 
 
176 The Development oj the United Brewer'^) Workmen. 
 
 the workingmen of San Francisco by which the German 
 organizations and their organ, the San Francisco Arbeiter- 
 Zeitung, suffered most. The different interests of the 
 brewery owners, the so-called English syndicate and the 
 independent brewers, also played a part in this struggle 
 among the workingmen through the agency of their tools 
 within the labor movement. Republican and Democratic 
 politicians, with whom Fuhrmann was unfortunately in 
 touch, also stepped into the struggle of the brewery work- 
 men. Socialists, Nationalists and Trade-Unionists were 
 all antagonizing each other. Very suspicious leaders, 
 Fuhrmann and Albert Curblin on the one side, and the 
 notorious Henry Weissmann on the other, thus pursued 
 their own various interests. Even human life was sac- 
 rificed in this struggle. An adherent of the United 
 Brewery Workmen, John May by name, was shot dead 
 by a policeman ; the savagely bitter feeling which was 
 caused by this struggle is shown by the fact that when 
 the news of May's death was made known in the central 
 labor body of San Francisco, it was received with a 
 clapping of hands, and in the Brewery Workmen's Union 
 of the Pacific Coast, a resolution was passed forbidding 
 any of its members to attend May's funeral. 
 
 At its convention, held in Detroit in 1890, the American 
 Federation of Labor had suspended the Council of 
 Federated Trades, the central labor body of San Francisco, 
 because it had refused to unseat the local union on its 
 suspension by the United Brewery Workmen. The Ex- 
 ecutive Council of the American Federation of Labor, 
 however, did not pay any attention to this resolution, or 
 at any rate it did not enforce it, and the fifth convention 
 of the National Union of United Brewery Workmen 
 framed a resolution, in which the President and Executive 
 of the Federation of Labor were blamed for not following 
 the instructions of the convention of their organization. 
 
Struggle and Strife on the Pacific Coast. 177 
 
 It especially protested that under the lead of the suspended 
 brewers' union of the Pacific Coast and its general sec- 
 retary, Fuhrmann, a new federation of all the unions of 
 the Pacific Coast was being formed in the name and under 
 the protection of the American Federation of Labor. 
 
 At the convention of the Federation of Labor which 
 was held in December, 1891, in Birmingham, the Council 
 of Federated Trades in San Francisco asked to be rein- 
 stated in the Federation of Labor. This was granted 
 under the condition that the brewery workers of the Pacific 
 Coast again join their National Union. A kind of truce 
 set in, partly against the will of the newly founded Local 
 Union No. 16 in San Francisco. The reunion took place 
 at the sixth convention of the United Brewery Workmen, 
 held in Buffalo in 1892. The members of the new Union 
 No. 16 joined the old union, which now had become No. 7, 
 and the latter paid the assessment which had been the 
 innocent cause of this ugly fight. 
 
 The union suffered very much through these disputes 
 and at that time made no progress. Karl Ibsen had given 
 up his position as editor of the Brauer-Zeitung and 
 National Secretary Kurzenknabe had taken this post in/ 
 addition to his other work. All in all, it was a pretty sad 
 state of affairs. 
 
 3. A CHANGE FOR THE BETTER. 
 
 Already at the convention of the American Federation 
 of Labor which took place in Boston in 1889 it had been 
 decided to concentrate the struggle against certain large 
 breweries. In accordance with this decision the fight was 
 waged chiefly against the two largest brewery firms in 
 the country, namely, the Anhauser-Busch Brewing Co. 
 in St. Louis and the Pabst Brewing Co. in Milwaukee. 
 The boycott against the Anhauser-Busch Co. was endorsed 
 by the Executive of the Knights of Labor, because the 
 
178 The Development of the United Brewery Workmen. 
 
 brewery workers of St. Louis belonged to this organiza- 
 tion. This was of great importance for the brewery 
 workers, since the firm against whom the boycott was 
 declared had its chief trade in the South, where the 
 Knights of Labor were particularly strong. 
 
 In the meantime the strength of the Brewers' Pool had 
 diminished somewhat. In some cities the workingmen 
 had kept their ground without having to take up the fight. 
 In others they had won certain advantages which made it 
 possible for them to organize the boycott against the Pool. 
 The lengthy struggle became wearisome to the brewery 
 owners. At Buffalo in June, 1891, there were the first 
 signs of an improvement in the situation. After a struggle 
 which lasted about three years the workmen gained the 
 upper hand and they soon controlled all the breweries in 
 which union conditions prevailed. 
 
 While the convention of the Brewery Workmen in 
 St. Louis was in session in 1892, negotiations were started 
 with the Anhauser-Busch Co., but they were without 
 result, as the firm insisted that the boycott must be revoked 
 before they could think of negotiations. But a month 
 after the convention the General Executive of the Knights 
 of Labor informed the Brewers' Union in St. Louis, where 
 about a hundred men had continued the fight, that A. 
 Busch, president of the Anhauser-Busch Brewing Asso- 
 ciation, was ready to make an agreement. The terms 
 offered were refused by the brewery workers. Further 
 negotiation led to an agreement and eight workingmen 
 who had been discharged by the firm on account af the 
 boycott had to be reinstated. 
 
 The surrender of Anhauser-Busch, which was mainly 
 caused by the enormous losses of the firm in the South, 
 forced the other firms in St. Louis to make peace with the 
 union. After a struggle lasting three and a half years, the 
 
A Change for the Better. 179 
 
 workingmen had been victorious. The membership of 
 the union rose from 93 to 684. 
 
 Although up to this time Milwaukee was lost to the 
 union, as there was no trace of a local organization, the 
 victory of the St. Louis brewers forced the brewery princes 
 of that city also to surrender. 
 
 The revocation of the boycott against the Anhauser- 
 Busch Co. was the signal for a reinforced boycott against 
 the Pabst beer, which, as has been mentioned, was one of 
 the two especially boycotted. The carpenters of Milwaukee 
 had at the same time a special boycott against tbe Pabst 
 beer, because the owner had shown himself a particularly 
 bitter enemy of labor. Pabst, the president of the firm, 
 who was the real originator of the attempt to destroy the 
 Brewery Workmen's Union in 1888, now began to feel 
 the power of organized labor, and in addition to this he. 
 now had to meet the competition of the union breweries 
 in St. Louis. Therefore he himself asked his workingmen 
 to reorganize their union. He telegraphed to the National 
 Union of United Brewery Workmen and requested them to 
 send an organizer, as he wished to see his men in a union. 
 
 It seems that the National Executive was somewhat 
 too hasty in acceding to the request of Mr. Pabst. At 
 any rate, the brewers of St. Louis complained that it would 
 have been possible to obtain a better contract than the 
 one which was made. The firm of Anhauser-Busch com- 
 plained in a number of letters directed to the General 
 Executive of the Knights of Labor that Milwaukee — the 
 other breweries there had followed the example of Pabst — 
 paid lower wages to the brewery workers than they. They 
 even threatened that if the wages in Milwaukee were not 
 brought up to the standard of St. Louis, they would be 
 compelled to reduce their wages. 
 
 In reply to this the brewery workers of St. Louis asked 
 their colleagues in Milwaukee that they too should join 
 
180 The Development of the United Brewery Workmen. 
 
 the Knights of Labor. In order to avoid friction, the 
 convention of the National Union decided that in future 
 conditions of worlc for St. Louis, Milwaukee, Chicago, and 
 Cincinnati, which cities had about the same market for 
 their product, should be the same. 
 
 4. GROWTH OF THE ORGANIZATION. 
 
 The conclusion of the struggle in St. Louis, Milwaukee, 
 and a number of smaller places naturally gave the organi- 
 zation new strength and increased its membership. In 
 places where the struggle continued — as in New York — 
 it was pursued with renewed courage, for the men saw 
 that perseverance leads to the goal, and that for them, too, 
 success was only a question of time. 
 
 Although in a number of small places the brewery 
 workers were organized and formed into local unions, the 
 membership in the large brewing cities of the Middle West 
 increased but slowly prior to the victory. When in 
 August, 1891, the fifth convention of the United Brewery 
 Workmen assembled in St. Louis, although the number 
 of local unions represented had risen to thirty and the 
 number of delegates to twenty, the membership of the 
 organization was still only a little over 2,800. Since the 
 preceding convention about a dozen new local unions had 
 been organized, but this was outweighed by the loss of 
 the 400 San Francisco members. 
 
 At this convention it was proposed that the seat of 
 the Executive be transferred from New York, which in 
 reality was no longer the central point of the organization, 
 to the Middle West. This proposition did not meet with 
 the approval of the convention. At the election of officers 
 Ernst Kurzenknabe was again chosen National Secretary. 
 His opponent was Ernst Bohm. The editing of the 
 Brauer-Zeitung still remained in the hands of the National 
 Secretary. 
 
Growth of the Organization. 181 
 
 The sixth convention of the National Union took place 
 in Buffalo in 1892. Its composition showed a gratifying 
 progress. The number of delegates had increased to thirty- 
 six, the number of unions represented to forty-eight. In 
 consequence of the conclusion of the struggle in St. Louis 
 and Milwaukee, which had brought the brewery workers 
 of those cities into the organization, the number of local 
 unions belonging to the United Brewery Workmen had 
 risen to sixty-six, with a membership of 6,830. 
 
 This rapid increase in the number of local unions was 
 due in part to the fact that the competition of the large 
 firms in St. Louis and Milwaukee which were now union 
 breweries compelled many small brewery owners in the 
 Middle West to make their breweries union establish- 
 ments. They themselves founded "unions" of their 
 workingmen, but were not very strict about upholding 
 union rules. Especially as to the hours of work, they were 
 not very particular. While the average union working 
 time was ten hours, and on the Pacific Coast only nine 
 hours, there were union breweries where the men worked 
 eleven and twelve hours. 
 
 This state of affairs was brought to an end by the 
 convention in Buffalo, when it declared that no member 
 of the organization was to be permitted to work longer 
 than ten hours a day. 
 
 Another resolution was passed at Buffalo requesting 
 the pardoning of the Chicago anarchists who were im- 
 prisoned in Joliet. Instead of one National Secretary, two 
 were now elected, Ernst Kurzenknabe and Ch. F. Bechtold. 
 The seat of the Executive was transferred from New York 
 to St. Louis. 
 
 The seventh convention, held in Milwaukee in Septem- 
 ber, 1893, again showed good progress of the organization. 
 Eorty-eight delegates were present, representing fifty-eight 
 local unions. The membership had grown to 8,925, and 
 
182 The Development of the United Brewery Workmen. 
 
 the standing of the organization had been made firmer 
 because it had succeeded in obtaining a complete victory 
 at Cincinnati. 
 
 In San Francisco the struggle between some of the 
 brewery workers and a few of the breweries continued and 
 the product of these breweries had been placed under 
 boycott. There were constant disputes as a result of the 
 rule of Fuhrmann and this prolonged the fight. 
 
 In Milwaukee conditions had improved considerably. 
 The union of that city, No. 9, consisted of not less than 
 1,200 members, and they had closed a new contract with 
 the brewery owners which brought them an increase of 
 from five to seven dollars per month. 
 
 At the convention in Milwaukee Ernst Kurzenknabe 
 and Ch. F. Bechtold were again re-elected as National 
 Secretaries. 
 
 In the course of the following year the United Brewery 
 Workmen, as well as all other labor organizations, suffered 
 very much from the crisis which then prevailed and which 
 threw hundreds pf thousands of workingmen out of em- 
 ployment. By September, 1894, when the eighth conven- 
 tion assembled in Cleveland, the membership had gone 
 down to 7,634— that is, it had lost 1,300 members. The 
 attendance at the convention also decreased; there were 
 only forty delegates present, representing fifty-two local 
 unions. 
 
 The internal conditions of the organization also left 
 much to be desired. Several large unions, especially those 
 of Buffalo, Cleveland, and Chicago, had refused after the 
 convention in Milwaukee to submit to certain resolutions 
 passed there. Especially did they refuse to pay an assess- 
 ment of 10 cents which had been decided upon by the 
 convention. Far-reaching disputes and controversies within 
 the organization were the result of this lack of discipline 
 and the brewery owners, who were fully informed as to the 
 
Growth of the Organisation. 183 
 
 happenings within the workmen's organization, naturally 
 sought to gain advantage from this state of afifairs. 
 
 In St. Louis the situation was the worst. Here the 
 brewery workers demanded the recognition of the organi- 
 zation of beer drivers and brewery firemen, but this demand 
 was refused by all the breweries except those of Anhauser- 
 Busch and William I. Lemp. When the workingmen 
 declared a boycott the breweries in question locked out 
 400 men. It seems that in this struggle the controversies 
 between different groups of capitalists played a part. It 
 appears that one group desired to buy the stock of the 
 breweries which were affected by the boycott and that 
 this stock could be obtained at lower figures on account 
 of the boycott. This, of course, helped to prolong 
 the struggle. 
 
 The United Brewery Workmen attempted with their 
 own means to bring union beer from other cities into 
 St. Louis. This experiment cost about $6,000, but was 
 not entirely without success. The cost of the struggle 
 from October, 1893, to September, 1904, amounted to 
 more than $13,000, and the union decreased from a mem- 
 bership of 795 to 335. In the following year, while the 
 struggle still continued, the membership sank to 270. 
 
 At the conclusion of the Cleveland convention, 
 Kurzenknabe and Bechtold were again elected National 
 Secretaries. 
 
 When two years later, in September, 1896, the ninth 
 convention assembled in Cincinnati, the National Union 
 had won a few hundred more members, but the condition 
 of the organization was not particularly good. The num- 
 ber of members was 8,072, the number of local unions 
 104. Forty-nine delegates were present at the conven- 
 tion, representing sixty-three local unions. The reports 
 showed that in St. Louis, as well as in San Francisco and 
 Pittsburg, the union was still involved in local struggles. 
 
184 The Development of the United Brewery Workmen. 
 
 Among other things, it was decided that the editor- 
 ship of the Brauer-Zeitung should be separated from the 
 national secretaryship. Jakob Franz was elected to 
 this position. 
 
 The English element made itself more strongly felt 
 for the first time at this convention. It requested that 
 the organ of the union be published in English as well 
 as in German; this request, however, was not granted 
 for the present, on account of the increased expense it 
 would involve. 
 
 The next convention took place in Boston in Septem- 
 ber, 1897, and was attended by fifty-one delegates, repre- 
 senting sixty local unions. The membership had grown 
 to 10,199, and these were distributed in 126 local unions. 
 Besides this there were twenty-seven branch organiza- 
 tions, which did not have sufficient members to constitute 
 local unions by themselves and therefore had to affiliate 
 with the nearest local union. The appearance of these 
 "branches" was proof that the brewers' organization was 
 beginning to get a foothold in the single breweries in 
 smaller places. 
 
 On the whole, Chicago, Milwaukee, and Cincinnati 
 were at that time the best organized places. The officers 
 of the organization were all re-elected. 
 
 The next convention, which was at the same time a 
 special convention called by general vote of the member- 
 ship, assembled in April, 1899, at St. Louis. It was at- 
 tended by fifty-six delegates. The special purpose of the 
 convention was to straighten out disputes and irregularities 
 which had developed in the office of the organization, 
 especially between the two national secretaries, and which 
 required immediate adjustment. The special convention 
 attacked the matter by first forming a committee which 
 took charge of the treasury and then declaring vacant the 
 offices of the two national secretaries, the treasurer, the 
 
Growth of the Organization. 185 
 
 editor, and the entire executive. The filling of the vacant 
 places was to be taken up at the regular convention 
 which followed the special convention. 
 
 After five days had been spent in adjusting the dis- 
 putes and irregularities of the office of the National 
 Union, the activities of the regular convention com- 
 menced on April 7. The report of Secretary Bechtold 
 showed that the number of local unions had increased 
 by thirty-four and the membership of the organization 
 had grown by 1,350. In St. Louis the struggle had 
 come to a victorious conclusion in February, 1899, after 
 a duration of more than five years. The expenses of this 
 struggle amounted to about $27,000. The St. Louis Local 
 Union No. 6, which had 800 members at the outbreak 
 of the dispute, had at the end of the struggle, when all 
 the breweries were again union establishments, a mem- 
 bership of 663. This decrease is explained by a fact 
 which is a frequent occurrence in labor struggles. While 
 the struggle was on the brewery owners did all in their 
 power to introduce improved machinery in order to over- 
 come the lack of reliable and efficient workmen. 
 
 In Pittsburg, Philadelphia, and New York the struggle 
 was continued, but without success, and the situation on 
 the Pacific Coast was not very good. In a few Eastern 
 places, the union had succeeded in reducing the working 
 time to nine hours. 
 
 The election of officers resulted in the choice of Bech- 
 told as first and J. Zorn as second National Secretary. 
 J. Franz was elected editor of the Brauer-Zeitung. The 
 seat of the executive was transferred from St. Louis 
 to Cincinnati. 
 
 The twelfth convention of the National Union took 
 place in Detroit on September 9, 1900. Eighty-six dele- 
 gates were present, representing 105 local unions. The 
 membership as well as the number of affiliated organiza- 
 
186 The Development of the United Brewery Workmen. 
 
 tions showed a decided progress. There were now 202 
 local unions, with which in turn were connected eighty- 
 three branches, and the membership had almost doubled 
 within the last three years. It had grown to 19,^00. 
 Since the previous convention fifty-one local unions and 
 thirty-five branches had been newly organized. In sev- 
 eral districts where until now conditions had not been 
 so favorable, they improved on account of the general rise 
 in the labor movement; this was notably the case in San 
 Francisco. The nine-hour day had been introduced not 
 only on the Pacific Coast, but also in a number of places 
 in the Middle West, especially in Detroit, Cleveland, Mil- 
 waukee, and St. Louis. This, according to the report of 
 the National Secretary, proved a blessing especially for 
 the unemployed. Further reduction in the hours of labor 
 was recommended. 
 
 In Cincinnati at this time all the breweries had closed 
 a contract with the union, and the membership of Local 
 Union No. 12, in that city, was 640. In Milwaukee a 
 dispute had arisen between the brewery workers and the 
 coopers, because the latter had declared a strike in order 
 to prevent the introduction of machinery and machine 
 production in the Pabst Brewery. This was a reaction- 
 a;ry position which the brewery workers rightly refused 
 to endorse. 
 
 The erection of a home for old and disabled brewery 
 workers was taken up at this convention in Detroit, but 
 no definite steps were taken towards that end. A resolu- 
 tion was unanimously adopted asking the Congress of the 
 United States to repeal the war tax on beer and restore 
 the old tax of $1.00 per barrel. 
 
 The office of editor of the brewers' journal was taken 
 away from its present incumbent and given to W. E. 
 Trautmann. The two national secretaries, Bechtold and 
 
Growth of the Organisation. 187 
 
 Zorn, were re-elected. The headquarters of the organi- 
 zation remained in Cincinnati. 
 
 At Detroit it was decided that the next convention was 
 to take place at Philadelphia, and here the delegates 
 assembled on September 8, 1901. There were 121 dele- 
 gates present, representing 188 local unions. The mem- 
 bership had risen to 26,000, the number of local unions 
 to 280, and the branches to 115. Since the Detroit con- 
 vention eighty-nine local unions and twenty branches had 
 been formed. However, a small number of unions had in 
 the meantime been dissolved. 
 
 At the convention in Philadelphia, also, internal dis- 
 putes played a large part. The first National Secretary, 
 Charles F. Bechtold, had been suspended by the Executive 
 of the National Union on June 5, 1901, and charges were 
 made against him. Much time was spent on this matter, 
 but without arriving at any definite decision. 
 
 According to the Secretary's report the eight-hour day 
 prevailed in the brewing trade on the Pacific Coast and 
 in Texas, and in union breweries elsewhere the nine-hour 
 day obtained. A motion to start an immediate fight to 
 establish the eight-hour day generally and to embody it 
 in contracts with the brewery owners was lost. 
 
 It was decided that the officers of the National Union 
 should be elected by general vote of the membership. 
 This election gave the first and second national secretary- 
 ships to J. Zorn and L. Kemper, respectively, and the 
 editorship of the Brauer-Zeitung to W. E. Trautmann. 
 
 From less than 2,000 in the year 1889, when the brew- 
 ery capitalists had inaugurated their general attack on the 
 organization of their workmen, the membership of the 
 National Union of United Brewery Workmen in these 
 twelve years of uninterrupted struggle had grown to 
 26,000. In the Far West, as well as in the Middle States, 
 the situation was now good. In all the large cities of 
 
188 The Development of the United Brewery Workmen. 
 
 these regions the brewery workers had been successful in 
 their fight against the Brewers' Pool. In New York, how- 
 ever, the chief center of the industry, the pool brewers still 
 held their ground. We must now see how affairs had 
 developed here during these long years of struggle. 
 
 5. THE COURSE OF THE STRUGGLE IN NEW YORK. 
 
 The fight against the Brewers' Pool was unceasingly 
 continued in that territory which is now included in 
 Greater New York. The union which conducted this 
 fight was weak. The labor movement during those years 
 was disintegrated. The general public had become tired 
 of the boycott and finally grew indifferent to it. The lack 
 of success in this struggle and the apparent hopelessness 
 of the cause led to disputes and quarrels which contrib- 
 uted not a little to the difficulty of the whole situation. 
 
 Besides all this, there were betrayals and corruption 
 in the workingmen's own ranks which were instigated 
 and promoted by the Brewers' Pool and its money. 
 
 No matter how much the brewery capitalists might 
 pretend that the boycott on their beer had no effect what- 
 ever, still it was very embarrassing to them. Especially 
 did the opposition of the workingmen to their product 
 have its effect in hampering their efforts to obtain new 
 trade and win new territory, even though this fight was 
 so long drawn out. 
 
 The bribery of influential delegates in the central labor 
 body of New York was therefore resorted to in the attempt 
 to get the boycott against pool beer raised. In Brooklyn 
 this boycott had been withdrawn as early as 1888 by the 
 Central Labor Union of that city. In its place a special 
 boycott was declared against certain particular breweries, 
 but this special boycott was never carried into effect. As 
 a result of these actions a separate central labor body was 
 
The Course of the Struggle in New York. 189 
 
 formed by the German unions, which took up the fight 
 against the pool breweries. 
 
 At this time a number of voices were also raised in 
 the New York Central Labor Union in favor of suspend- 
 ing the boycott against pool beer; the same proposition 
 was also made in a number of unions. The members of 
 the labor organizations had become tired of the boycott. 
 As there was a lack of union meeting rooms, the organi- 
 zations could not find suitable halls for their meetings and 
 entertainments. They had either to content themselves 
 with inadequate accommodations or else hold their meet- 
 ings and entertainments in halls whose proprietors sold 
 non-union beer. 
 
 This situation, so unfavorable to the prosecution of the 
 boycott, was taken advantage of by the pool brewers, and 
 they tried by the use of money to get the boycott raised 
 by the central labor body of New York. 
 
 Since July, 1888, some members of the New York 
 Central Labor Union had been advocating the suspension 
 of the boycott. For the present they were unsuccessful, 
 but a suspicion prevailed that paid agents of the brewery 
 owners were at work among the delegates in order to 
 effect the withdrawal of the boycott. In the fall of 1888 
 a delegate from Brewers' Union No. 1 was approached 
 by a detective, who told him that he could earn from 
 $1,500 to $2,500 if he would aid in getting the boycott 
 raised. Being desirous of finding out who stood behind 
 the detective, this delegate acted as if he intended to 
 accept the proposition. He was taken to a secret service 
 man of the city police, who informed him that there were 
 fourteen other delegates in the Central Labor Union who 
 had been won over for the purpose of raising the boycott. 
 This matter, it was said, would be brought up in the 
 Central Labor Union, and the delegate from Brewers' 
 Union No. 1 would have nothing to do except to answer 
 
190 The Development of the United Brewery Workmen. 
 
 in the affirmative the question whether it would not be 
 possible to get places in the malthouses, whose season was 
 about to begin, for a number of brewery workmen who 
 had lost their jobs through the lockout. Thereupon the 
 Central Labor Union would withdraw the boycott on the 
 ground that such action was in the interest of the brew- 
 ery workers. If this plan were successfully carried out 
 the brewery workers' delegate would get his money. 
 
 Immediately after his first conversation with the detec- 
 tive, however, this delegate had informed the secretary 
 of his union, Ernest Kurzenknabe, and these two had 
 imparted the secret to a number of trusted members of 
 organized labor in New York. It was arranged that 
 Kurzenknabe should also be requested by the detective 
 to aid in the withdrawal of the boycott. He likewise 
 pretended that he was going into the scheme. He was 
 paid several bribes by the detective. Von Gerichten, in- 
 cluding $600 at one time, and it was ascertained that the 
 money came from A. E. Seifert, the secretary of the local 
 Brewery Owners' Association. 
 
 Early in January, 1889, the New Yorker Volkszeitung 
 published. an account of the whole conspiracy, with sworn 
 statements of witnesses, and exposed the delegates in the 
 Central Labor Union who had been involved in the affair. 
 This gave rise to excited debates in the next meeting of 
 the Central Labor Union. The delegates who had been 
 exposed denied the charges, and the central body did not 
 take any decisive steps to get rid of them. On February 
 18 it came to an open breach. The greater part of the 
 unions affiliated . with the Central Labor Union withdrew 
 from it, especially the German organizations, and another 
 central body was formed — the Central Labor Federation 
 — which continued the boycott against pool beer. The 
 brewery workmen's struggle had thus led to a disruption 
 of the whole labor movement of New York. 
 
The Course of the Struggle in New York. 191 
 
 Thus unsettled conditions in the general labor move- 
 ment in New York had become an ever greater hindrance 
 to the brewery workmen's struggle. But it now became 
 worse than ever. 
 
 In the summer of 1891 a number of unions withdrew 
 from the Central Labor Federation, under the leadership 
 of the notorious Weissmann, and formed a third central 
 body, which called itself the New York Federation of 
 Labor. The Central Labor Federation demanded that its 
 affiliated unions should refuse to recognize this third cen- 
 tral body. Brewers' Union No. 1 declined to comply with 
 this demand, as it did not wish to antagonize the American 
 Federation of Labor, which had recognized the third 
 central body. Thereupon Union No. 1 was expelled from 
 the Central Labor Federation. 
 
 Opposition had been aroused in Brewers' Union No. 1 
 because of the recognition of a certain brewery in New 
 Jersey as a union establishment, although not all branches 
 of labor employed in it had insisted on union conditions. 
 The Central Labor Federation ol Brooklyn protested 
 against this action, and the body in New York bearing 
 the same name decided that henceforth every contract 
 made with the brewery bosses would first have to be sub- 
 mitted to it for endorsement. Brewers' Union No. 1 
 declared itself against this decision and the Brauer-Zeitung 
 took the same stand. Personal motives and rivalries of 
 all sorts embittered these controversies. It even went so 
 far that the Central Labor Federation resolved to form 
 a union in opposition to Brewers' Union No. 1, composed 
 in part of the discontented members of Union No. 1. The 
 latter body expelled these members and demanded that 
 all the union breweries with which it had contracts should 
 discharge any workmen belonging to the opposition union, 
 which called itself the Journeymen Brewers' Union of 
 New York. Twelve workmen were discharged from Val. 
 
192, The Development of the United Brewery Workmen. 
 
 Loewer's brewery in consequence of this affair, where- 
 upon the Central Labor Federation declared a boycott 
 against the product of Loewer's brewery. The New York 
 section of the Socialist Labor Party, which was repre- 
 sented in the Central Labor Federation — a fact which had 
 caused dissatisfaction in a number of unions — took the 
 side of the new union of brewery workmen. As a result 
 of this quarrel both the Central Labor Federation and the 
 New York section of the Socialist Labor Party removed 
 the boycott from pool beer. During all this confusion, 
 Local Union No. 30 of the U. B. W., consisting of firemen 
 in New York breweries, had adhered to the Central Labor 
 Federation and withdrawn from the National Union of 
 United Brewery Workmen. A few other locals of the 
 United Brewery Workmen, among them the Ale and 
 Porter Union No. 33, whose secretary was Ernst Bohm, 
 also stood out against Local Union No. 1. As a result of 
 this the Local Executive for New York was dissolved 
 and reorganized. The opposition union had but little suc- 
 cess and soon died out. But these antagonisms, involving 
 both personalities and questions of principle and leading 
 to the general disruption of the New York labor move- 
 ment, greatly weakened the efforts of the New York 
 brewery workers and for the time prevented the boycott 
 against pool beer from having any effect. The personal 
 controversies were so sharp that they led to several law- 
 suits in the capitalist courts. 
 
 In the year 1891 a body had been formed for the gen- 
 eral direction of the brewery workmen's unions in Greater 
 New York. This was called the United Local Executive, 
 and was composed of delegates from the various local 
 unions ; seven unions were represented. This Local Ex- 
 ecutive was convinced that under the existing circum- 
 stances it was impossible to enforce the boycott against 
 pool beer effectively, and accordingly it decided to declare 
 
The Course of the Struggle in New York. 193 
 
 a special boycott against the largest brewery in New York, 
 that of George Ehret. This special boycott was endorsed 
 by all the laxger labor organizations of the city, but for 
 the time it did not yield any very encouraging results for 
 the brewery workmen. The convention of the National 
 Union in 1892 adopted a resolution for the vigorous prose- 
 cution of the boycott against Ehret, and at the same time 
 it rebuked the Socialist movement in New York for its 
 alleged failure to observe the boycott against pool beer. 
 
 By 1893 matters had improved but very slightly. At 
 the national convention held in that year it was complained 
 that in New York and its vicinity the boycott against 
 Ehret's beer found but little support among the members 
 of the American Federation of Labor. The delegates from 
 New York therefore advised the renewal of connections 
 with the Knights of Labor, so that they could get assist- 
 ance from that Order in the fight against Ehret. This 
 was not done at the time, but in the following year the 
 brewery workmen's unions of New York joined the Order, 
 so that during the years from 1894 to 1896 they belonged 
 both to the American Federation of Labor and to the 
 Order of the Knights of Labor ; they had a label for their 
 union product which combined the emblems of the Federa- 
 tion with those of the Knights of Labor. 
 
 About this time also the personal antagonisms were 
 somewhat straightened out. At the convention of 1893 
 the local union of firemen, which had left the National 
 Union in consequence of the strife in New York, asked 
 to be reinstated. This request was referred to the National 
 Executive. At this time, in 1894, Local Union No. 1 had 
 about 150 members. It had contracts with nine brewing 
 firms providing for union conditions. Besides these, there 
 were a number of breweries, especially those which 
 produced ale and porter, which were controlled by the 
 Knights of Labor. It was difficult for members of Union 
 
194 The Development of the United Brewery Workmen. 
 
 No. 1 to obtain employment in these breweries, as the 
 Knights did not give equal recognition to the brewers be- 
 longing to the National Union. This condition was not 
 remedied to any gre^t extent even when the iinion brew- 
 ery workmen in several cities, notably in New York, joined 
 the Order of the Knights of Labor. 
 
 Not until 1896 did the boycotts against Ehret and 
 against pool beer in general take a turn for the better, not 
 so much through the support of organized labor in New 
 York as through the assistance rendered by the work- 
 ingmen of New England. The workingmen of Boston 
 especially, and the Central Labor Union of that city, dis- 
 tinguished themselves by their energetic activity against 
 pool beer. Ehret had to face a great loss of trade in all 
 the New England states, where up to that time his product 
 had found a good market. He was even compelled to give 
 up most of his agencies in those states. 
 
 While outside of New York a turn for the better had 
 now come, the situation in New York itself was again 
 getting worse for the brewery workmen. Here in 1896 
 a new national labor organization, the Socialist Trade 
 and Labor Alliance, was endorsed by the Socialist Labor 
 Party. This led to new strife and antagonisms within the 
 labor movement in New York, under which the brewery 
 workmen suffered severely. 
 
 Brewers' Union No. 1, as well as the National Union 
 of United Brewery Workmen, the New York Central 
 Labor Union, and the executives of the Knights of Labor 
 and the American Federation of Labor, had made repeated 
 attempts to bring the long struggle in New York to a 
 close by negotiations with the Brewers' Pool. But all 
 these attempts were in vain. Ehret and his colleagues 
 refused to negotiate. The workingmen were therefore 
 compelled to continue the struggle. 
 
 Toward the end of the nineties the situation in the 
 
The Course of the Struggle in New York. 195 
 
 New York labor movement became somewhat more favor- 
 able for the brewery workmen. The Central Labor Union 
 and the Central Labor Federation had again reunited. In 
 the political labor movement there came a hoiisecleaning 
 in which those elements which were opposed to trade- 
 unions were defeated. The high-license system which was 
 introduced in the state of New York, as well as the Federal 
 law imposing an increased war tax upon alcoholic drinks, 
 diminished the consumption of brewed beverages. The 
 effect of the boycott against Ehret's beer began to make 
 itself felt with renewed vigor in the New England states. 
 More vigorous competition by the union breweries in 
 New York, as well as the improved condition of the 
 general labor movement, increased the losses which the 
 pool brewers had to suffer and inclined them toward nego- 
 tiation. By 1901 — that is, after a struggle lasting for 
 thirteen years — the Brewers' Pool promised to enter into 
 an agreement with their organized workmen. In Newark 
 the brewery workmen at this time won a decided victory. 
 The pool there was destroyed, and what the brewery 
 workmen had lost since 1888 was regained. Local Union 
 No. 2 of Newark closed a contract with all the breweries 
 in the city, under the terms of which the wages of 1888 
 were restored — that is, from $16 to $18 a week. The 
 membership of the union was thereby increased to 375. 
 
 When negotiations were started with the Brewers' As- 
 sociation or Pool in New York in 1901, Local Union No. 
 1 had grown to a membership of about 300, of which 
 number 212 worked in union establishments and seventy- 
 five in non-union breweries. With a membership averag- 
 ing 125, this union had in the decade from 1890 to 1900 
 been able to raise not less than $28,000 with which to 
 wage war against the united capital of the brewery owners. 
 
 With so small a membership this was a remarkable 
 achievement. 
 
196 The Development of the United Brewery Workmen. 
 
 6. TERMINATION OF THE STRUGGLE IN NEW 
 YORK AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. 
 
 By 1901 the brewery owners of New York who had 
 until this time maintained the lockout against union men 
 had become tired of the long struggle and were ready 
 for negotiations. But they held out firmly for every ad- 
 vantage which they thought they could gain and they 
 made every effort to profit by the dissensions in the labor 
 movement which arose from differences in organization, 
 the trade organization on the one side and the industrial 
 organization on the other. This was the reason why the 
 negotiations between the brewery workers and brewery 
 capitalists consumed almost an entire year. Finally, in 
 May, 1902, a contract was closed for three years. With 
 the exception of a few points which will be mentioned 
 separately, this contract was identical with that which 
 the brewery workers had until that time had with the 
 union breweries, the owners of which, by the way, had 
 formed an organization in the preceding year. The sign- 
 ing of this contract terminated a struggle between capital 
 and labor which had lasted fourteen years and which had 
 been as obstinate and as long as any conflict waged in 
 any trade. The membership of Brewers' Union No. 1 
 increased after the closing of this contract to 900. 
 
 However, if this contract ended the fight with the 
 enemy, it brought renewed dissension within the ranks 
 of the union. 
 
 The contract which had been closed with the pool 
 brewers contained certain provisions which were injurious 
 to the interests of brewery workers in other cities, where 
 conditions more favorable than those in New York had 
 been obtained previously. The New York contract, for 
 instance, provided for a ten-hour day, while in the vicinity 
 of the city, the nine-hour day had been in part won. Fur- 
 thermore, the contract certainly was disadvantageous to 
 
Termination of the Struggle in New York. 197 
 
 the firemen's and engineers' unions which were connected 
 with the brewery workers' organizations and to which not 
 sufficient attention had been paid in making the contract. 
 Even while the negotiations for the contract were in 
 progress disputes had arisen between the labor organiza- 
 tions in question. The central labor body of New York, 
 the Central Federated Union, had entered the contro- 
 versy and had demanded that the unions of engineers and 
 firemen dissolve and join the Brotherhood of Stationary 
 Firemen and Engineers. But as the firemen and engineers 
 which belonged to the National Union of United Brewery 
 Workmen had better conditions than those of the trade 
 organization, they rejected this proposition, and as a con- 
 sequence all unions which were associated with the United 
 Brewery Workmen were suspended from the Central 
 Federated Union. But now the pool brewers in the course 
 of their negotiations for a contract with the brewery 
 workmen took up this matter. They demanded that their 
 firemen and engineers remain ten hours at their work in- 
 stead of the eight hours for which the firemen and engi- 
 neers of the United Brewery Workmen stood. Unions 
 1 and 69 of the Brewery Workmen, as well as Ale and 
 Porter Union No. 31 and Beer Drivers' Unions Nos. 23 
 and 24, consented to the plan of the brewery owners, 
 while the unions of firemen and engineers within the 
 United Brewery Workmen, and also Local Union No. 59, 
 protested most vigorously. The controversy within the 
 United Local Executive of Greater New York went so 
 far that the unions last named were excluded from that 
 body. Thus it happened that by closing the contract with 
 the pool brewers they acted in accordance with the in- 
 terests of the Stationary Firemen's and Engineers' Union 
 and contrary to the interests of the unions of these workers 
 within their own national organization. In all this the 
 influence of the Central Federated Union and of the 
 
198 The Development of the United Brewery Workmen. 
 
 American Federation of Labor, which had been brought 
 into the dispute by Samuel Gompers, was strongly felt. 
 
 Local Union No. 59 had the following history : While 
 the labor movement was at its height in 1886, the ale and 
 porter brewers of New York had organized and had 
 formed a local assembly of the Order of the Knights of 
 Labor. On June 10 of that year an agreement was made 
 that the working hours should be ten per day and the 
 weekly wage from $12 to $18. 
 
 This new organization, which was called the Ale and 
 Porter Employees' Protective Association, was composed 
 chiefly of men of English and Irish origin. This organi- 
 zation was pretty hard on the employers and showed itself 
 in general a good fighting body. Shortly after the great 
 lockout in the lager beer breweries of New York, the 
 united bosses of the ale and porter breweries thought that 
 the time had come when they could free themselves from 
 the "fetters" of the union. On November 27, 1888, they 
 decided to lock out their workmen if these did not give 
 up their organization. The members of the Protective 
 Association declared themselves willing to comply with 
 the wishes of their employers; and so the lockout did not 
 take place. In spite of this, however, the workingmen 
 remained true to their organization, which was not dififi- 
 cult for them to do, since they had been organized as a 
 secret order. 
 
 Between the ale and porter workers, about 900 in 
 number, and lager-beer workers, who had organized into 
 the United Brewery Workmen, frequent disputes arose, 
 which were based more on questions of jurisdiction than 
 caused by national antagonism. It was quite natural that 
 with the rapid development of the lager-beer industry, 
 many breweries which previously had only manufactured 
 ale and porter now took up lager beer as a side line or 
 eventually devoted themselves entirely to the manufacture 
 
Termination of the Struggle in New York. 199 
 
 of lager beer. The Protective Association naturally re- 
 tained jurisdiction over such breweries, so that soon they 
 had not only ale and porter brewers, but lager-beer brew- 
 ers among their numbers. This condition was somewhat 
 ameliorated when in the year 1900 the Protective Asso- 
 ciation left the declining Order of the Knights of Labor 
 and was induced by two representatives of the National 
 Union of United Brewery Workmen, Wood and Bechtold, 
 to join this organization as Local Union No. 59. 
 
 This affiliation, however, did not put an end to all the 
 disputes between Local Union No. 59 and the other brew- 
 ery workers' organizations in New York, mostly com- 
 posed of Germans. National antipathies played a certain 
 part, but what counted for more than that was the fear 
 of Union No. 59, that it would lose its dominion over the 
 breweries which had hitherto been under its jurisdiction; 
 all this made it hard for them to work together. At the 
 convention of the United Brewery Workmen, held in 
 Philadelphia in September, 1901, the delegates of Local 
 Union No. 59 complained that the local autonomy which 
 had been guaranteed to them when they joined the Na- 
 tional Union was now threatened. These disputes were 
 intensified by the fact that capitalist politicians had great 
 influence within Union No. 59. 
 
 The President of Local Union No. 59, for instance, was 
 a certain O'Connell, who at the same time had a political 
 position as officer in the Supreme Court in Brooklyn. 
 O'Connell was sent by his union as delegate to the con- 
 vention of the National Union at Philadelphia. Accord- 
 ing to the constitution of the United Brewery Workmen 
 no one could be elected to any office who did not work 
 as brewer. As this was not the case with O'Connell, he 
 was not seated as a delegate in the Philadelphia conven- 
 tion. Shortly after this, on December 13, 1901, the Na- 
 tional Secretary sent a letter to Union No. 59, in which 
 
200 The Development of the United Brewery Workmen. 
 
 he specifically drew their attention to the particular pro- 
 vision in the constitution, and requested them at the 
 coming election to observe this rule and not to re-elect 
 O'Connell. Union No. 59 declared that O'Connell had 
 been rejected at Philadelphia for political reasons, because 
 he had a political job, and they therefore did not pay any 
 attention to the request of the National Executive. 
 
 When the closing of the contract with the pool brewers 
 called out the protests of the brewery workers in Newark, 
 Union Hill, Paterson, and further of the firemen and engi- 
 neers in the National Union of United Brewery Workmen 
 in New York, Union No. 59 took their part. A number 
 of engineers and firemen in the breweries lost their em- 
 ployment as a result of these disputes between the various 
 organizations. The demand of the National Executive 
 of the United Brewery Workmen, as well as that of the 
 American Federation of Labor, that these discharged men 
 be reinstated, was met by Local Union No. 59 with the 
 answer that neither the Central Labor Federation nor the 
 American Federation of Labor could dictate to them. 
 Because of the refusal to discharge engineers and firemen 
 belonging to the International Firemen's Union, Local 
 Union No. 59 declared a boycott against the beer of the 
 F. & M. Schafer Brewing Company and that of several 
 other breweries, which had been recognized as union 
 establishments by the National Union of United Brewery 
 Workmen. A few days later this firm, as well as the 
 secretary of the United Local Executive of the brewery 
 workmen of New York, were served with an injunction, 
 issued at the request of Local Union No. 59 by Justice 
 Gaynor, of the same Supreme Court in which O'Connell, 
 president of Local Union No. 59, was an officer. By this 
 injunction the firms of F. & M. Schafer, and also A. 
 Hiipfel in New York, and Liebmann's Sons in Brooklyn, 
 were forbidden to have the union label of the United 
 
Termination of the Struggle in New York. 201 
 
 Brewery Workmen on their barrels, and the secretary of 
 the United Local Executive was forbidden to provide such 
 labels to these firms. 
 
 The Local Executive of New York suspended Local 
 Union No. 59 from its delegate body on account of this 
 procedure. 
 
 An uncertainty of position in regard to this matter 
 on the part of the national administration of the United 
 Brewery Workmen sharpened the disputes. On May 21 
 the closing of the New York contract was discussed in the 
 National Executive and it was decided to grant to the 
 secretary of the New York United Local Executive, E. 
 Bohm, together with the brewers' committee, authority 
 to make contracts with the Brewers' Pool for the brewers; 
 beer drivers, engineers, and firemen. It was further de- 
 cided to send a letter to Local Union No. 59 in which it 
 would be indicated that they had no right to interfere in 
 the matter of contracts. The secretary of the Brewers' 
 Pool in New York, Warner, was informed that Bohm 
 and the brewery workers' committee had authority to 
 close contracts. 
 
 At this same meeting of the National Executive, dele- 
 gates from Local Union No. 59 and the Newark Local 
 Executive were present, who demanded a non-recognition 
 of th6 contract which had been closed in New York. 
 
 It was decided to send a committee to New York 
 which was to investigate the matter on the spot. 
 
 At the July meeting of the National Executive of the 
 National Union, the New York matter was again brought 
 up. It was decided on the first day to request Local 
 Union No. 59 by telegram to remove the boycott which 
 had in the meantime been declared against Schafer and 
 others by July 9, and to withdraw the injunctions which 
 had been issued, if they did not want to be expelled from 
 the National Union. Local Union No. 59 replied by 
 
202 The Development of the United Brewery Workmen. 
 
 telegram, asking for another committee for the further 
 investigation of the matter, but the National Executive 
 insisted that its demand be first complied with. On July 
 12, 1902, the 'National Secretary wrote to Local Union 
 No. 59 that they had been expelled from the National 
 Union of United Brewery Workmen because they had 
 failed to meet the request of the National Executive to 
 withdraw the injunction and the boycott. 
 
 About the end of July and beginning of August an 
 investigation committee of the Executive of the National 
 Union was in New York, and its report led to the rein- 
 statement of Local Union No. 59 in the United Brewery 
 Workmen and to the temporary suspension of the Secre- 
 tary of the United Local Executive of New York, E. 
 Bohm, from membership in the National Union. The then 
 editor of the Braner-Zeitung took the part of Local Union 
 No. 59, against which the other New York unions pro- 
 tested and demanded the removal of the editor, Traut- 
 mann. Then complaints were made by Local Union No. 
 59 and the engineers and firemen of the United Brewery 
 Workmen in New York to the National Executive against 
 the leading officers of the New York unions. These com- 
 plaints were directed against Ernst Bohm, Chas. Pommer, 
 Wm. Graven, Jakob Huber, and Peter Hoffmann. 
 
 The complaints were taken up by the National Exec- 
 utive at its meeting in October, 1902. The complaints 
 accused the above-named men of having closed the con- 
 tract with the pool brewers of New York without obtain- 
 ing the consent of the United Local Executive, which 
 was known to be split into two bodies. Furthermore, they 
 were accused of having betrayed the members of the 
 complaining unions, in that they had helped the Union 
 Brewers' Association to close contracts with those unions 
 of which the accused men were members, which contracts 
 excluded the complaining unions, and had made an agree- 
 
Termination of the Struggle in New York. 203 
 
 ment instead with the local unions of the Brotherhood of 
 Stationary Firemen. 
 
 The endorsement of the pool contract, it was said, 
 was obtained upon a false statement of facts. It was 
 also alleged that the National Executive had been mis- 
 led by false reports. These proceedings led to the ex- 
 pulsion of Bohm from the National Union of United 
 Brewery Workmen. 
 
 In the meantime the matter of the New York contract 
 had raised so much disturbance that a cry was beginning 
 to be raised for a special convention for the adjustment 
 of this matter. New York Union No. 1 and its friends 
 advocated this special convention, which after having been 
 decided upon by general vote, met on February 1, 1903, 
 in Cincinnati. 
 
 Here a detailed report on the matter was submitted. 
 The National Secretary declared that the contracts which 
 had been made with the New York pool were not as 
 favorable for the workingmen as those made by other 
 tmions; that Bohm and others had attempted at the con- 
 vention of the American Federation of Labor in New 
 Orleans, in a question of jurisdiction, to take the part 
 of the Brotherhood of Stationary Engineers and Firemen 
 and against the National Union of United Brewery Work- 
 men; especially in the contracts as signed, the bosses had 
 been permitted to discharge their workingmen whenever 
 they pleased. 
 
 On the part of the accused it was pointed out that the 
 National Executive itself had approved the contracts. 
 
 The convention came to the conclusion of endorsing 
 the expulsion of Bohm by the National Executive and 
 deciding to reinstate Local Union No. 59 into all its rights. 
 All New York delegates from Local Unions Nos. 1, 23, 
 24, and 69 were thereupon admitted to representation at 
 the regular convention which followed the special con- 
 
204 The Development of the United Brewery Workmen. 
 
 vention, with the exception of Hoffmann, Graven, and 
 Pommer. Bohm, being expelled from the National Union, 
 could not exercise any authority. 
 
 Thus closed this by-play of the New York struggle. 
 
 7. ON FIRM GROUND. 
 
 The result of the New York struggle, as we have seen, 
 brought partial disappointment, but it had its good side, 
 as by the recognition of the union in the largest beer- 
 producing city in the United States it put the United 
 Brewery Workmen on firni, ground. By this victory, after 
 a struggle of fourteen years, the organization had secured 
 its existence and compelled recognition by the brewery 
 capitalists. After the conclusion of this struggle it was 
 impossible for them to destroy the organization, or even 
 to attempt to do so. 
 
 At the convention of 1903, which followed the special 
 convention, the secretary could already report that the 
 number of members had grown to over 31,000, who were 
 organized in 317 locals and 121 branches. As the chief 
 centers of the industry had already been organized the 
 union's further growth was rather slow. In the following 
 year, when the convention met in Indianapolis, the national 
 organization had 33,000 members ; but in 1906, only two 
 years later, at the convention of Toronto, the membership 
 had already grown to 38,000, distributed in 373 local 
 unions and 176 branches. At the last convention, held 
 in September, 1908, in New York, the membership of the 
 brewery workers' organization had grown to 42,570, in- 
 cluding the unemployed. The number of local unions was 
 373 and of branches 180. In the fall of 1909 the officers 
 of the Executive could report that the number of members 
 in the organization had grown to 45,233, who were organ- 
 ized in 366 local unions and 187 branches. On July 1, 
 1909, these were distributed as follows: Brewers, 14,160; 
 
On Firm Ground. 205 
 
 apprentices, 478; maltsters, 2,070; coopers, 266; beer 
 drivers, 14,126 ; bottlers, 9,759 ; engineers, 1,573 ; firemen, 
 1,512; laborers, 1,087; and distillery workers, 202. 
 
 Hand in hand with the increase in the membership 
 went the increase in the treasury of the organization and 
 its financial resources were strengthened. 
 
 The financial status of the organization was revealed 
 by stately rows of figures at the last few conventions. In 
 1887 the income did not quite reach $5,000, and by 1891 
 it had amounted to over $10,000, in 1893 over $20,000, and 
 by 1896 the income was more than $50,000. In 1901 the 
 hundred thousand mark was passed, and 1903, with an 
 extra assessment of $166,000, showed the highest income 
 of the organization, with $304,986.70. At the convention 
 of 1908 the yearly income was stated as $213,538.02. 
 
 With the increase in income, the balance in the treasury 
 increased. In the year 1889 there was scarcely $300 avail- 
 able for the organization ; by 1893 this had risen to some- 
 what over $6,000, but in the following year it went down 
 again to $500. From that time on 'the wealth of the 
 organization increased steadily; in 1897 it amounted to 
 a round $15,000, in 1900 to almost $50,000. In the four 
 following years up to 1904 it grew to $164,357.40, and by 
 1908 it amounted to $366,192.66. Out of the income a 
 round half million dollars was spent for support of strikers 
 and about a quarter of a million for agitation. The total 
 income of the organization from its foundation until the 
 seventeenth convention, in September, 1908, amounted to 
 $1,600,000 ; the expenditures to somewhat over $1,235,000. 
 
 Of the struggles which the United Brewery Workmen 
 had to carry on within the last few years, those which 
 took place in 1902 in Cincinnati and Boston must be men- 
 tioned especially. The former cost the organization about 
 $84,000, the latter about $91,000. In the following years 
 larger strikes broke out in Columbus, Ohio, and Toronto, 
 
206 The Development of the United Brewery Workmen. 
 
 Canada, both of which ended in victory for the brewery 
 workers, although in Columbus they were attacked by 
 trade organizations which had the American Federation 
 of Labor behind them. On the first of May, 1905, a strike 
 broke out in Seattle and several other cities of the state 
 of Washington; this strike lasted until November, 1905, 
 and ended with the defeat of the workingmen. This 
 strike, which had been declared without the consent of 
 the national administration, involved it in a cost of $70,000. 
 
 On the first of June, 1907, a struggle broke out in New 
 Orleans, and in March of the same year in St. Louis — two 
 struggles which are of great interest on account of the 
 accompanying circumstances. In New Orleans the strug- 
 gle began with the lockout of the workingmen of the 
 Columbus Brewery, which the workingmen of other brew- 
 eries answered with a strike. The strike cost the organi- 
 zation about $50,000 without anything being achieved. 
 The affair in New Orleans became especially complicated 
 on account of disputes in regard to jurisdiction, about 
 which we shall hear later and in which the Federation 
 of Labor played an ugly part. 
 
 In St. Louis the local unions of the United Brewery 
 Workmen had bought their own hall, and here again was 
 shown the truth of the statement that the possession of 
 real estate is a source of strife for a labor organization. 
 The secretary of Beer Drivers' Union No. 43 of St. Louis, 
 A. Priestersbach, was superintendent of the hall. He 
 misused his position to exercise a power in the organi- 
 zation which did not belong to him. He acted in com- 
 bination with the brewery owners in order to get their 
 assistance against the majority of the members. When 
 the administration of the National Union tried to settle 
 the disputes, he attempted to defeat this by the use of 
 court injunction. Hundreds of members of the organiza- 
 tion were simply declared expelled by Priestersbach. The 
 
On Firm Ground. 207 
 
 brewery owners worked hand in hand with Priestersbach. 
 They declared that they had made contracts with Priest- 
 ersbach, not with the organization — a warning that in 
 making an agreement not too much power ought to be 
 placed in the hands of individual persons. On March 12 
 the brewery owners offered an ultimatum to their work- 
 ingmen to the effect that they were to join Priestersbach's 
 organization within twenty-four hours or be discharged. 
 On the following day over 500 beer drivers were dis- 
 charged and their places were immediately taken by men 
 whom Priestersbach had ready. During the following 
 twenty-four hours 900 brewers and bottlers were dis- 
 charged who had refused to work with Priestersbach's 
 men. Proposals for negotiations were peremptorily re- 
 jected by the brewery owners, and on March 16 more 
 than 3,000 brewery workers of St. Louis went on strike. 
 
 The fight lasted two weeks and cost the organiza- 
 tion $40,000 for the support of the strikers. A settlement 
 was then made on the basis of the existing contracts. 
 Mr. Priestersbach had played out his role, but the con- 
 troversies which he stirred up had their influence for a 
 long time to come in the brewery workers' organization 
 of St. Louis. At any rate, the brewery capitalists had 
 learned in this struggle that it is useless for them to try 
 to depend on individual members of the labor organiza- 
 tions for their purpose. The United Brewery Workmen 
 had attained sufficient strength to be able to cope with 
 the treacherous machinations of such persons and their 
 connection with the brewery capitalists. 
 
 The conventions of the United Brewery Workmen 
 since 1900 naturally showed an increase in the number 
 of delegates. At Cincinnati in 1903 only 103 delegates 
 were present; at Indianapolis in 1904 there were already 
 131. At the convention in Toronto in 1906 there were 
 142 delegates, and this number had increased to 154 at 
 
208 The Development of the United Brewery Workmen. 
 
 the last convention, held in New York in 1908. As ofificers 
 during these years there were elected by general vote 
 in 1903, Zorn, Proebstle and Kemper as secretaries, and 
 Trautmann as editor. In the following year Adam 
 Hiibner took the place of Zorn, who declined re-election; 
 the other ofificers were re-elected. At the convention in 
 Toronto the secretaries were re-elected and Gustav Mostler 
 was made editor of the Brauer-Zeitung. Trautmann had 
 left the organization, and J. P. Weigel, who had taken 
 his place, had died soon after taking the office. At the 
 New York convention all the ofificers of the organization 
 were re-elected. 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 The American Federation of Labor and the Brewery 
 
 Workers. 
 
 1. FOUNDING OF THE FEDERATION. 
 
 AT a labor congress which was held at Baltimore in 
 ^ August, 1866, the first general national labor organi- 
 zation of the United States was created — leaving out of 
 consideration some attempts toward this end which had 
 been made in the thirties of the last century. The National 
 Labor Union, which was founded at Baltimore, was but a 
 loosely united organization. A few of its leaders, it is true, 
 far surpassed the later leaders of the American labor 
 movement in their insight into the nature of the class 
 struggle, but the general movement was too little developed 
 for the new organization to have any very great success. 
 Annual conventions were held until 1872, but without 
 producing any lasting results. Especially detrimental to 
 the organization was its connection with the farmer ele- 
 ment, who introduced all kinds of bourgeois-reform 
 demands, and particularly the demand for money reform, 
 and thereby diluted the labor movement. 
 
 The last convention of the National Labor Union was 
 held at Columbus, Ohio, in 1872. In the following year 
 came the great financial crisis all over the country, which 
 wiped out nearly all labor organizations or weakened them 
 to such an extent that they hardly retained any signifi- 
 cance. In April, 1874, an Industrial Congress met at 
 Rochester, N. Y., in which, besides a number of trade 
 unions, there were represented a great number of secret 
 labor orders which were everywhere springing up at that 
 time. This Industrial Congress had but little success. 
 The time was exceedingly unfavorable for a labor move- 
 
210 Ameridan Federation of Labor and Brewery Workers. 
 
 ment, as the after effects of the crisis of 1873 were still 
 strongly felt. 
 
 Even in the following years a revival of the labor 
 movement was hardly to be thought of, though at that 
 time a series of secret labor orders were developing, of 
 which only the Knights of Labor achieved any importance. 
 But in 1877, when the great railway strike agitated the 
 entire United States, things became a little more lively 
 in the general labor movement. Toward the end of the 
 seventies trade unions were formed in all quarters, and 
 the organizations already in existence won new strength, 
 the secret as well as the open unions. 
 
 In 1878 a number of members had severed their con- 
 nection with the Knights of Labor and had formed the 
 Amalgamated Labor Union. In conjunction with another 
 secret organization called the Knights of Industry, they 
 issued an appeal which called a labor convention to take 
 place at Terre Haute, Ind., on August 2, 1881. This con- 
 vention was to call into life another secret order in com- 
 petition with that of the Knights of Labor. This plan 
 was frustrated because the delegates present from the 
 open unions, a large proportion of whom were also mem- 
 bers of the Knights of Labor, prevented its consummation. 
 
 This convention called for another assemblage of labor 
 delegates to meet at Pittsburg on November 19, 1881. 
 On the day fixed, 107 delegates met there, representing 
 262,000 organized workingmen. The convention was 
 presided over by John Jerrett, President of the Amal- 
 gamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers, and it 
 was decided to form a national organization of all working- 
 men, which was to be called the Federation of Organized 
 Trades and Labor Unions of the United States and 
 Canada. Open unions as well as assemblies of the Knights 
 of Labor were represented in this organization, and it was 
 intended to work hand in hand for the best interests of 
 
Founding of the Federation. 211 
 
 the whole body of organized labor. Independence was 
 guaranteed to both forms of labor organization, but it was 
 agreed as far as possible to prevent the formation of 
 further national organizations of workingmen outside the 
 Knights of Labor and the open unions. 
 
 A number of political demands were made — for ex- 
 ample, compulsory schooling for children, prohibition of 
 child labor in factories, restriction of prison labor, repeal 
 of conspiracy laws, and others along similar lines. The 
 chief demand, however, was for the Eight-Hour Law, and 
 it was also emphasized that the working class must be 
 represented in all legislative bodies in order to pass laws 
 which would be of benefit to the working people. Steps 
 were also taken toward establishing a connection between 
 American, English, and French workingmen, but this 
 came to nothing. 
 
 At the Pittsburg convention a committee was elected 
 which was to get into connection with Congress at Wash- 
 ington. This Legislative Committee induced Congress to 
 institute a thorough inquiry into the conditions of labor 
 in the United States. 
 
 The second convention of the Federation took place 
 at Cleveland in November, 1882, and here Samuel Gompers 
 was for the first time elected permanent presiding officer 
 of the Federation. Already at this convention certain 
 jealousies between the Knights and the open unions were 
 to be observed, which later grew more acute, and finally 
 developed into open hostilities. At the convention of 
 1883, which met in New York in the month of August, 
 Samuel Gompers was re-elected. 
 
 The following convention of the Federation, which was 
 held at Chicago in October, 1884, was an important one. 
 Here the necessary steps were discussed for the general 
 agitation for an eight-hour day, and the first of May, 1886, 
 was fixed as the time for its introduction ; but each organi- 
 
212 American Federation of Labor and Brewery Workers. 
 
 zation was to decide for itself whether or not it would take 
 up the fight. Among the organizations which had decided 
 for the introduction of the eight-hour day, the lead was 
 taken by the German unions and those unions whose mem- 
 bership was largely permeated by German workingmen, 
 such as the cigar makers, the cabinet makers, the German 
 compositors, and the carpenters. The cigar makers and 
 the German compositors, it may be stated here, carried 
 their eight-hour demand into effect. The cabinet makers 
 won a nine-hour day, while the carpenters gained an eight- 
 hour day in seven cities and a nine-hour day in eighty- 
 four places. 
 
 The next convention of the Federation met at Wash- 
 ington in 1885, and the one for 1886 was originally called 
 for the end of the year at St. Louis. However, the ex- 
 citing events in the labor movement during that year 
 necessitated a conference of the ofificers of the trade unions, 
 which was held in May, 1886, and at which the differences 
 with the Knights of Labor were particularly discussed. 
 It was there agreed to call a new convention at Columbus, 
 Ohio, to which all the trade unions of the country were 
 especially invited. Here the former Federation was dis- 
 solved, and in its place the American Federation of Labor 
 was organized, the same body which still exists today, 
 and which has grown to be the strongest labor organiza- 
 tion in the country. 
 
 2. THE KNIGHTS OF LABOR AND THE 
 FEDERATION OF LABOR. 
 
 The National Union of United Brewery Workmen soon 
 after its formation in 1886 had applied to the Executive 
 of the American Federation of Labor for a charter from 
 this league of labor organizations. This charter was 
 granted and was issued on March 4, 1887. 
 
 Now, as we have seen, a large proportion of the 
 
Knights of Labor and Federation of Labor. 213 
 
 brewers' unions had been organized by the Order of the 
 Knights of Labor, and a good part of the local unions still 
 belonged to that Order when their national organization 
 received its charter from the Federation. It was, there- 
 fore, inevitable that in the competitive struggle which 
 developed between the Knights of Labor and the Federa- 
 tion, the brewery workmen would be exposed to all kinds 
 of strife and injury. 
 
 It was in the nature of the brewers' movement that 
 they should count on support from all sections of organized 
 labor. More than most other trades, the brewery workers 
 had to depend in their struggles upon the assistance of 
 the whole body of organized workingmen. Their best 
 weapon, the boycott, could be handled effectively only if 
 all workingmen agreed to and helped in it. The division 
 of the labor movement into two strong factions such as 
 the Knights of Labor and the Federation, which moreover 
 fought against each other, was certain to be especially 
 detrimental to the organization of the brewery workmen. 
 
 The organization of the Federation in open instead of 
 secret unions undoubtedly represented the more progres- 
 sive principle, and besides this the Order of the Knights 
 of Labor declined rapidly after 1886, while the Federation 
 of Labor was in the ascendant. Furthermore, certain 
 temperance ideas had taken root in the Knights of Labor, 
 with which the brewery workers showed but little sym- 
 pathy, all the .less as their interests were involved. 
 Controversies soon arose, therefore, between the brewery 
 workmen and the Knights of Labor, although, as already 
 mentioned, the latter had assisted materially in the organi- 
 zation of the brewery workers. 
 
 Already at the third convention of the United Brewery 
 Workmen, held at Chicago in 1888, the antagonism 
 between the Knights of Labor and the Brewery Work- 
 men had found expression. By that time the National 
 
214 American Federation of Labor and Brewery Workers. 
 
 Union was composed mostly of open unions. But the 
 resolutions passed in regard to the Knights of Labor dealt 
 less with the question of open or secret organization than 
 with the question Of temperance. The following resolution 
 was passed at this convention : 
 
 "Whereas, T. V. Powderly, General Master Workman of the 
 Order of the Knights of Labor, has used certain expressions in a 
 recent speech which prove that he has temperance tendencies; and 
 
 "Whereas, The General Executive has supported the General 
 Master Workman in this respect; and 
 
 "Whereas, Even the constitution of the Knights of Labor 
 contains a clause which excludes organizations whose members earn 
 their living by the manufacture of alcoholic drinks ; and 
 
 "Whereas, The enactment of temperance laws would threaten the 
 existence of thousands of brewery workers and their families and 
 would cause the government to lose an annual revenue of millions of 
 dollars ; and 
 
 "Whereas, The Order of the Knights of Labor has not supported 
 us in any way and we cannot point to any victory in our struggle 
 against capital which has been won through the assistance of the 
 Knights of Labor; be it 
 
 "Resolved, That we, the National Union of United Brewery 
 Workmen of the United States, condemn the action of General 
 Master Workman Powderly as detrimental to the emancipation of our 
 brothers and co-workers in the brewery trade ; and further be it 
 
 "Resolved, That in politics we pledge ourselves not to support 
 any candidate, no matter of which party, for any political office, if 
 he does not publicly express himself against prohibition." 
 
 At the same convention it was decided that such local 
 unions of the United Brewery Workmen as still belonged 
 to the Knights of Labor might act according to their own 
 judgment if local conditions should compel them to main- 
 tain their membership in the Order. It was added, 
 however, that the open unions should keep away from the 
 Knights until conditions within the Order had improved. 
 
 In spite of the declaration against the Knights of 
 Labor, accordingly a number of local brewers' unions were 
 represented in the Order even after the Chicago conven- 
 
> Knights of Labor and Federation of Labor. 215 
 
 tion. In the succeeding years the attitude even changed 
 in favor of the Knights of Labor, as the latter rendered 
 the United Brewery Workmen considerable assistance in 
 the boycott against Anhauser-Busch, especially in the 
 South, while the Federation remained very lukewarm. At 
 the convention held at Buffalo, in 1892, a resolution was 
 introduced by Chas. F. Bechtold, which was referred to 
 general vote and for final action to the National Executive, 
 and which dealt with the relations of the brewery workmen 
 to the Knights of Labor and to the Federation. In this 
 resolution it was pointed out that the brewery workers 
 especially required the support of all workingmen in their 
 struggles. The constant friction between the two great 
 national organizations of workingmen had a detrimental 
 influence upon the whole labor movement. The brewers, 
 therefore, requested the two organizations to act in unison. 
 It was further declared that the brewers had to protect 
 themselves against the danger that in their struggles and 
 boycotts the bosses would play off the Federation and the 
 Knights of Labor against each other, and it was finally 
 recommended "That our organization at the same time 
 form a National Trade District within the Knights of 
 Labor, so that each local union in case of a struggle may 
 enjoy the support of both the American Federation of 
 Labor and the Knights of Labor." 
 
 The general vote of the members of the National Union 
 upon this question, which had been ordered by the con- 
 vention, resulted in a great majority in favor of forming 
 a National Trade District of the Knights of Labor. This 
 proceeding, however, did not please the leaders of the 
 Federation of Labor, and they even resorted to the threat 
 that they would injure the interests of the brewery workers 
 in the event of the proposed plan being carried out. 
 
 The Executive of the Knights of Labor also met the 
 brewery workers' plan only half-heartedly. They declared 
 
216 American Federation of Labor and Brewery Workers. 
 
 that if the brewery workers wanted to join the Order in a 
 body they must first give up their charter in the Federation. 
 Later, however, they changed their attitude. The Execu- 
 tive of the Order decided that the United Brewery 
 Workmen could at the same time be a Trade District of 
 the Knights of Labor and a National Union of the Federa- 
 tion — which, indeed, had previously been conceded to 
 other national organizations by both parties, as, for 
 instance, to the mine workers. 
 
 At the brewers' convention, held at Milwaukee in 1893, 
 the matter was decided. It was resolved that the National 
 Union should join the Knights of Labor as a Trade District. 
 
 A considerable part of the local unions of the United 
 Brewery Workmen now got together, and, as National 
 Trade District No. 35, constituted themselves a part of 
 the Knights of Labor. However, the decision of the Mil- 
 waukee convention was never carried out in full. The 
 entire organization as such never belonged to the Knights 
 of Labor, though a large part of its local unions did, 
 especially those in the East. Chas. F. Bechtold acted as 
 Master Workman of the Order, while E. Kurzenknabe was 
 secretary of the brewers' division of the Order. Moreover, 
 not all of the brewery workers' organizations which 
 belonged to the Knights of Labor were part of National 
 Trade District No. 35. The latter was composed only of 
 such brewery workers' organizations as also belonged to 
 the National Union of United Brewery Workmen. 
 
 Soon after this plan was carried out, complaints began 
 to arise that since the connection with the Knights of 
 Labor more friction and dissension prevailed in the local 
 unions than before. The local assemblies of brewers which 
 did not belong to the National Union did not care for their 
 newly acquired brothers, but very often fought them. The 
 membership cards of the brewers' unions were often not 
 recognized by the Knights of Labor. Occasionally district 
 
Knights of Labor and Federation of Labor. 217 
 
 assemblies of the Knights refused charters to brewers' 
 unions as long as these remained in afHliation with the 
 Federation of Labor. The leading persons in these dis- 
 tricts protested against the formation of the brewery- 
 workers into National Trade District No. 35, because they 
 wished to retain them in their respective districts. Such 
 dissensions were even carried to the point of a mutual 
 boycott. 
 
 In short, friction and strife of all kinds arose, which 
 proved that the United Brewery Workmen had made a 
 mistake when they decided to affiliate with both of the 
 general organizations. 
 
 At the convention of the National Union which met at 
 Cleveland in 1894 these disputes were considered, and it 
 was decided to instruct the delegates to the General 
 Assembly of the Knights of Labor that in that assembly 
 they should seek to have National Trade District No. 35 
 granted entire control over all the brewery workers in 
 the country. At the same time the connection with the 
 Knights of Labor was somewhat relaxed, as each local 
 union was again declared free to belong to the Order or 
 not, as it might see fit. The Federation of Labor was 
 also requested to organize the brewery workers into open 
 unions in the New England States, where the brewers' 
 organizations at this time belonged almost entirely to 
 the Knights. 
 
 The administration of the Federation of Labor now 
 considered that the time had come for it to take up an 
 open fight against the Knights of Labor, so far as the 
 brewery workers were concerned. The connection of the 
 local brewers' unions with the Order of the Knights of 
 Labor was taken by many organizations of the Federa- 
 tion as a ground for not supporting the United Brewery 
 Workmen in their struggles. On the same ground the 
 Federation of Labor refused to endorse the brewers' union 
 
218 American Federation of Labor and Brewery Workers. 
 
 label, which at that time contained the emblems both of 
 the Knights and of the Federation. The Federation 
 refused to support a brewers' boycott in Pittsburg until 
 the National Union should give up its connection with 
 the Knights of Labor. Finally the Federation put before 
 the United Brewery Workmen in" their convention at 
 Cincinnati in 1896 the alternative either to dissolve 
 National Trade District No. 35 of the Knights of Labor or 
 else to be suspended from the Federation. 
 
 At this convention it was declared that to refuse com- 
 pliance with the demand of the Federation "would bring 
 us into conflict with all the larger trade unions of the 
 country, which would result in the ruin of our National 
 Union." 
 
 The demand of the Federation was, therefore, acceded 
 to, and National Trade District No. 35 was dissolved, with 
 the following explanation : "While we regret that the con- 
 vention of the American Federation of Labor has decided 
 upon such a severe resolution, we must submit to circum- 
 stances and must request our local unions which form 
 District No. 35 to dissolve that district." 
 
 Herewith the connection of the National Union of 
 United Brewery Workmen with the Knights of Labor 
 was severed, and the Order now rapidly declined. The 
 open unions which, under the control of the American 
 Federation of Labor, had so far kept away from the 
 National Union now joined it, and gradually they suc- 
 ceeded in bringing in the still existing brewers' assemblies 
 of the Knights of Labor. Through this the National Union 
 lost its original purely German character, as these new 
 elements were composed almost entirely of English-speak- 
 ing workmen. Certain national and personal antagonisms 
 continued for some time within the National Union, and 
 indeed led to open fights, until finally an agreement was 
 reached in the recognition that the workingmen of all 
 
Jurisdiction Disputes. 219 
 
 nationalities had one and the same interest and the same 
 ultimate goal. 
 
 3. JURISDICTION DISPUTES. 
 
 When, in 1887, the American Federation of Labor 
 granted a charter to the National Union of United Brewery 
 Workmen, the latter was authorized, according to the 
 wording of the charter, "To proceed with the organization 
 of the trade and to admit any person or persons to mem- 
 bership, in accordance with its existing laws, and to 
 conduct the affairs of the union in accordance with the 
 interests of the trade." 
 
 The administration of the National Union had acted 
 in harmony with this provision and had tried to organize 
 all workingmen, no matter to which particular trade they 
 belonged, so long as they were employed in the brew- 
 ing industry. 
 
 In the very beginnings of the union it had become 
 evident that, in view of the special character of the industry, 
 the only practicable and effective organization of brewery 
 workers would be one which embraced all the workingmen 
 in the industry — ^that is, an industrial organization, not 
 merely a trade organization, which would divide the 
 workingmen of the industry into various unions. Already 
 in the second convention of the National Union at Detroit 
 in 1887, the National Secretary said in his report: "The 
 chief factor is the uniting of all trades employed in the 
 brewing industry. Experience in our struggles has taught 
 us what solidarity means. "If the drivers, the coopers, the 
 engineers, the firemen, the maltsters, had helped us, our 
 victory would have been assured within twenty-four hours 
 — that is what is being said everywhere, and it is correct. 
 Not only are the brewers dependent upon these branches ; 
 no, each one is dependent upon the others. Solidarity, 
 man for man from roof to cellar, all for each and each for 
 all — this alone can secure our future," 
 
220 American Federation of Labor and Brewery Workers. 
 
 Following out this declaration, which the convention 
 adopted as its own, the Executive of the National Union 
 was constituted of men belonging to all the branches of 
 labor in the brewing industry. Five brewers, two beer 
 drivers, two maltsters, one engineer, and one fireman were 
 elected. Later, at the Philadelphia convention, the bottlers 
 were given representation in the Executive, and by enlarg- 
 ing the Executive provision was made that in future all 
 branches of the industry should so far as possible be 
 represented in the administration of the National Union. 
 
 It was clear that this composition of the National Union 
 would be detrimental to certain trade organizations, as 
 workingmen who would otherwise have joined the unions 
 of their special trades now held to the United Brewery 
 Workmen. This first expressed itself in the case of the 
 coopers, who in 1896, at the brewers' convention in Cin- 
 cinnati, demanded that all coopers employed in breweries 
 should leave the United Brewery Workmen and join the 
 coopers' union. The brewery workers' convention evaded 
 an immediate decision of the question by declaring that 
 their National Union would do all in its power to help 
 the coopers in their work of organization. Before this, 
 at the Buffalo convention in 1892, the brewers had decided 
 that all coopers doing brewery work must be members of 
 the United Brewery Workmen, and also that all coopers 
 in cities where no coopers' union existed might join the 
 brewery workers' organization. The National Union of 
 United Brewery Workmen, however, was not to issue 
 charters to coopers' unions. 
 
 Down to 1896 it was only with regard to the coopers 
 that the United Brewery Workmen had to dispute with 
 other organizations, but at that time the matter became 
 more compHcated. In 1896 the engineers and in 1898 the 
 firemen received a charter from the American Federation 
 of Labor, under which they each formed their own national 
 
Jurisdiction Disputes. 221 
 
 union. In addition to these came the teamsters, who in 
 1898 also organized into a national union. All these trade 
 organizations now came to the National Union of United 
 Brewery Workmen and called upon it to turn over to 
 their respective national trade organizations such of its 
 members as were employed at these particular branches 
 of work — the beer drivers to the teamsters' union, the 
 brewery firemen and engineers to the firemen's and en- 
 gineers' unions. 
 
 In the convention of the Federation of Labor at Kansas 
 City in 1898, the national union of engineers laid claim 
 to those members of the brewers' organization who were 
 employed in running engines in breweries. The coopers 
 had in the meantime also revived their old claims. At the 
 St. Louis convention of the brewery workers in 1899 the 
 National Secretary, in his report, recommended that a 
 general vote be taken among the engineers, the firemen, 
 and the teamsters in the National Union of United 
 Brewery Workmen on the question whether they desired 
 to remain in that organization or to join the unions of 
 their respective trades. The convention rejected the 
 proposition. In support of this refusal it was pointed out 
 that to split up the United Brewery Workmen into dif- 
 ferent trade organizations would give the brewery owners 
 the longed-for opportunity to play off one portion of the 
 workingmen against another. The door would be opened 
 to all kinds of corruption, as experience had already taught. 
 
 At the next year's convention in Detroit it was reported 
 that no better understanding with the firemen's and 
 engineers' unions had been reached. In St. Louis, Buffalo, 
 and elsewhere, attempts had been made by these unions 
 to disrupt the local unions of the brewery workmen. The 
 jurisdiction disputes had already been made use of by 
 large brewery owners to obtain a separate charter for the 
 beer bottlers, and thus to get an entering wedge into the 
 
222 American Federation of Labor and Brewery Workers. 
 
 United Brewery Workmen. This proceeding, however, 
 had been defeated by the resistance of the brewery workers. 
 
 It is manifest that it was of great advantage to the 
 brewery owners to split up the brewery workers into dif- 
 ferent trade organizations, and we may, therefore, assume 
 the truth of the report made to the brewers' convention 
 at Philadelphia in 1901 that there existed proofs that cer- 
 tain ofHcials of local unions of engineers and firemen had 
 joined with brewery owners in order to injure the United 
 Brewery Workmen. It was reported from Cincinnati that 
 difiSculties had been experienced in closing a contract of 
 the beer drivers' union because the International Associa- 
 tion of Teamsters had acted with the brewery capitalists 
 and made a contract with them, although it had not a 
 single beer driver among its members. Even Gompers, 
 who was by no means well disposed toward the United 
 Brewery Workmen, had to admit that the action of the 
 teamsters' union was unworthy. 
 
 At the following convention complaints were frequently 
 made in regard to the conduct of the rival trade unions. 
 In some cases they succeeded in alienating some of the 
 local unions from the United Brewery Workmen; this 
 was the case with the engineers in New England and with 
 the beer drivers in Chicago. The National Union did 
 not sufifer very great injury, but it was forced into severe 
 struggles on account of the attitude of the American Fed- 
 eration of Labor, which by taking the part of the trade 
 organizations compelled the brewery workers to make 
 sacrifices of money and energy which would have been far 
 better spent in the interest of the general labor movement. 
 
 4. ANTAGONISM BETWEEN THE FEDERATION 
 AND THE BREWERS. 
 
 The jurisdiction disputes between the United Brewery 
 Workmen and the trade organizations of teamsters, 
 
Antagonism Between the Federation and the Brewers. 223 
 
 coopers, engineers, and firemen were naturally brought 
 before the annual meetings of the American Federation 
 of Labor. In the decisions of this body the general interest 
 of the labor movement ought to have been the decisive 
 considerations, but instead of that favoritism and personal 
 matters were often taken into account and as a rule a stand 
 was taken against the brewery workers' organization. 
 
 At the convention of the Federation which was held 
 at Louisville toward the end of the year 1900 a resolution 
 was adopted in regard to the jurisdiction controversy in 
 which it was declared that it would seem to be to the best 
 interest of the labor movement for the United Brewery 
 Workmen to have jurisdiction over all workingmen in the 
 breweries. But as the execution of this decision would be 
 detrimental to the newly organized trade unions, exception 
 was made in regard to coopers working on repairs and 
 new work in the breweries; these were to belong to the 
 International Coopers' Union. Painters employed in the 
 breweries were also to belong to their trade organization, 
 and engineers, firemen, and other workers who belonged 
 to their respective trade unions and were employed in 
 breweries were to retain the right to remain at their 
 work until they should decide to join the United Brewery 
 Workmen. 
 
 The beer drivers, on the other hand, were turned over 
 to the United Brewery Workmen without any reservation ; 
 and on the whole it was recommended that the various 
 organizations concerned should make a settlement by the 
 exchange of cards. 
 
 The decision made in Louisville was ambiguous, but 
 at any rate it declared that it was in the interest of the 
 entire movement for the United Brewery Workmen to 
 have jurisdiction over all workingmen in the brewing 
 industry. The Federation convention held the next year 
 at Scranton confirmed the Louisville resolution, and at 
 
224 American Federation of Labor and Brewery Workers. 
 
 the same time instructed the Federation Executive to 
 'egulate the disputes among the five unions concerned 
 within ninety days. 
 
 The Executive of the Federation proceeded to this task 
 by first requesting that the United Brewery Workmen 
 withdraw all the charters which it had issued to firemen's 
 and engineers' unions since the Louisville convention, as 
 according to the decision then made the firemen and 
 engineers were to belong to the brewery workers' organi- 
 zation as individuals and not as unions. In cases where 
 no locals of the respective trade unions existed, members 
 of these trades might belong to the United Brewery 
 Workmen, but not otherwise. 
 
 The Executive of the United Brewery Workmen did 
 not at once submit to this decision, but brought the matter 
 before the convention of the Federation, which was held 
 in November, 1902, at New Orleans. Here all the details 
 of the case were brought out. It was pointed out that the 
 attitude of the trade unions and of the Federation Execu- 
 tive against the United Brewery Workmen had led to a 
 lockout of 1,200 members of the brewers' organization in 
 Cincinnati, and that also in other places the employers 
 were seeking to take advantage of the disagreements 
 within the camp of labor. Some brewery owners had 
 openly boasted that they would soon get at the United 
 Brewery Workmen by means of these jurisdiction disputes 
 and with the aid of members of labor organizations. 
 
 But the presentation of all these facts did not help the 
 brewery workers. The Federation convention took a stand 
 against them, and declared that the engineers' and fire- 
 men's unions which belonged to the United Brewery 
 Workmen must give up their charters and join their trade 
 unions, conditionally upon the consent of the brewery 
 workers' convention. The engineers' and firemen's unions 
 of the United Brewery Workmen at the following con- 
 
Antagonism Between the Federation and the Brewers. 225 
 
 vention of that body protested against the decision of the 
 Federation convention. Negotiations were next begun 
 between the representatives of the brewers, the engineers, 
 the firemen, and the Federation of Labor. These negotia- 
 tions led to an agreement by which the unions of firemen 
 and engineers in the brewers' organization were to be 
 turned over to their respective trade unions and the rela- 
 tions between the different organizations were to be 
 regulated by local conferences. This agreement was 
 rejected by the convention of the United Brewery Work- 
 men in Cincinnati. This convention passed a resolution 
 consenting that the engineers and firemen in the brewery 
 workers' organization should be turned over to their trade 
 unions, on condition that the Federation of Labor should 
 decide that all the firemen and engineers in all the labor 
 organizations affiliated with the Federation should be 
 turned over to the firemen's and engineers' trade unions. 
 This did not alter the situation, for the other organizations, 
 especially the United Mine Workers, energetically pro- 
 tested against turning over their engineers and firemen 
 to the trade unions. 
 
 In the course of the following year the situation as to 
 jurisdiction disputes changed but little. The firemen's and 
 engineers' unions continued their attacks upon the United 
 Brewery Workmen and attempted to induce the firemen 
 and engineers to desert that body, though with little suc- 
 cess. In accordance with the resolution of the Cincinnati 
 convention, the authorities of the United Brewery Work- 
 men refused to give up their jurisdiction over brewery 
 firemen and engineers. Conferences of all kinds were 
 held for the purpose of arranging the disputes. The 
 brewers were threatened with a revocation of their charter 
 by the Federation. The latter body, at its convention in 
 Boston, reaffirmed the resolutions it had adopted at 
 New Orleans. 
 
226 American Federation of Labor and Brewery Workers. 
 
 The organizations of firemen and engineers were joined 
 in their attacks by the coopers, and the teamsters' union 
 in its convention, held in 1904 at Cincinnati, decided to 
 demand that the United Brewery Workmen turn over 
 to it all beer drivers now belonging to the brewery workers' 
 organization. This question of the beer drivers was for 
 the United Brewery Workmen the most important of all 
 the jurisdiction disputes. Not less than 10,000 beer drivers 
 belonged to the brewery workers' organization, and they 
 had obtained far more favorable conditions than the 
 teamsters' trade union had procured for its members. This 
 assured to the United Brewery Workmen the support of 
 the beer drivers, and when the matter was brought to a 
 general vote it was declared by a vote of 34,612 against 
 367 that the National Union of United Brewery Workmen 
 would not relinquish its jurisdiction over any portion of 
 the workingmen belonging to that organization. 
 
 This was the state of affairs when, toward the end of 
 the year 1906, the convention of the American Federation 
 of Labor assembled at Minneapolis. Through the influence 
 of the delegates from the firemen's, engineers', coopers', 
 and teamsters' trade unions and their friends, a resolution 
 was passed at this convention providing that the United 
 Brewery Workmen must submit within ninety days to the 
 decision of the American Federation of Labor in regard 
 to jurisdiction over firemen, engineers, and drivers em- 
 ployed in the breweries, under penalty of having its charter 
 withdrawn by the Federation. 
 
 After the result of the general vote within the National 
 Union, submission by the brewery workers was naturally 
 not to be thought of. On June 1, 1907, the Executive 
 of the American Federation of Labor declared the charter 
 of the United Brewery Workmen revoked. The brewers 
 were now outside the Federation of Labor. Thereby the 
 brewery workers were also excluded from the more than 
 
Antagonism Between the Federation and the Brewers. 227 
 
 five hundred local central labor bodies affiliated with the 
 Federation of Labor. 
 
 The brewers' Executive, immediately after their ex- 
 clusion, issued a statement in which, among other things, 
 they said: 
 
 "The brewery workers have not demanded anything more than 
 was conceded to the organizations of coal miners, of longshoremen 
 and seamen, and other organizations ; the unions named demand for 
 their membership the engineers and firemen employed in the mines, 
 on the docks, and on the ships on rivers, lakes, and ocean. 
 
 "As jurisdiction is granted to the organizations named over all 
 the workingmen employed in their respective industries, and this 
 right of jurisdiction is denied to us, we maintain that the proceedings 
 against our National Union of United Brewery Workmen are acts of 
 class legislation, and that they deprive our National Union of its 
 guaranteed rights, privileges, and autonomy." 
 
 The action of the Federation Executive met everywhere 
 with adverse criticism. In all centers of the labor move- 
 ment the progressive portion of the working class declared 
 themselves in favor of the brewery workers. Several con- 
 ferences of union representatives were held which 
 emphatically protested against the exclusion of the brewers, 
 and the matter was taken up again at the next convention 
 of the Federation, which took place at Norfolk in 1907. 
 It found itself forced to reconsider the decisions of former 
 conventions relating to jurisdiction in the brewery industry 
 and instructed the Executive of the Federation to make 
 renewed efforts to settle the disputes within sixty days. 
 
 These renewed negotiations were concluded in Feb- 
 ruary, 1908, and resulted in the restoration to the United 
 Brewery Workmen of their old charter in the American 
 Federation of Labor and in the declaration that they were 
 to have jurisdiction over all workingmen employed in the 
 brewing industry. 
 
228 American Federation of Labor and Brewery Workers. 
 
 Thus the jurisdiction question was settled in principle, 
 but this was far from ending the actual strife. On the 
 contrary, the trade unions concerned continued to do all 
 in their power to injure the brewers' organization. Conse- 
 quently severe struggles arose in Providence, in Pittsburg, 
 and especially in New Orleans, which put a heavy drain 
 upon the strength and resources of the United Brewery 
 Workmen. In New Orleans the struggle lasted more 
 than a year. In that city there existed a union of beer 
 drivers belonging to the United Brewery Workmen. The 
 officers of the teamsters' union were not deterred by this 
 fact from organizing a new local union, which then offered 
 its men to the brewery owners at lower wages. The 
 members of the old beer drivers' union were thus forced 
 out of their places, which caused a general strike of 
 brewery workers in New Orleans. This strike was lost. 
 When the brewers' organization was again admitted to the 
 Federation of Labor, the brewers' unions of New Orleans 
 naturally applied for readmission to the central labor body 
 of that city. This was at first denied to Beer Drivers' 
 Union No. 215, which belonged to the United Brewery 
 Workmen, but later they were admitted. Officers of the 
 American Federation of Labor played anything but a good 
 role in these disputes. 
 
 In Pittsburg these jurisdiction disputes took on a legal 
 aspect. The trade unions brought actions against officers 
 of the local brewers' unions for perjury and also instituted 
 damage suits against them. These were all results of the 
 fact that the interests of the narrower trade circles, and 
 even personal advantages, were put above the welfare of 
 the whole, the general labor movement. 
 
 The jurisdiction disputes and the injurious manner in 
 which they were often conducted fill one of the ugliest 
 pages in the history of the American labor movement. 
 
Industrial or Trade Organisation. 229 
 
 5. INDUSTRIAL OR TRADE ORGANIZATION, 
 
 The question of the form of organization, as we have 
 seen, plays an important part in the labor movement. It 
 is a source of innumerable internal disputes, which the 
 employers use to their own advantage; and furthermore, 
 it brings bitterness and dissension into the ranks of 
 organized labor. 
 
 In the building up of a labor organization, of course, 
 the important point is as far as possible to get together 
 into one organization all those workingmen who, in case 
 of struggle with the employers, could replace each other — 
 that is, who could eventually perform each other's work — 
 in order that they may act together for mutual advantage. 
 This can be done in two ways. In one case the working- 
 men are organized according to their trade — as, for in- 
 stance, the carpenters, the smiths, the teamsters, the 
 engineers, etc. ; in the other case labor organizations are 
 formed which embrace all the workingmen of any given 
 industry — as, for instance, all the metal workers, all the 
 wood workers, all the leather workers, etc. The first kind 
 is called trade or craft organization; the second kind, 
 industrial organization. A variety of the industrial organi- 
 zation, and that which is best known in the United States, 
 includes all the workingmen of any given industry regard- 
 less of the kind of work they do. Examples of this kind 
 of industrial organization are the unions of the brewery 
 workmen, the mine workers, the longshoremen, and others. 
 
 These two forms of labor organization naturally cause 
 frequent conflicts among the unions over the limits of 
 their respective organizations, as to whether the working- 
 men of a given trade should belong to the union of their 
 respective craft or to the union of the industry in which 
 they are employed. Thus, it is in the interest of the trade 
 unions of teamsters, engineers, and coopers to draw all 
 the workingmen of these trades into their respective 
 
230 American Federation of Labor and Brewery Workers. 
 
 organizations — even those, for instance, who have already 
 been organized in the industrial unions of the brewery 
 workmen, the mine workers, etc. On the other hand, the 
 industrial organizations of brewery workmen, mine 
 workers, etc., find their interest in having all the working- 
 men in their industries, including the teamsters, engineers, 
 etc., in their organization — indeed, this is often a matter 
 of life and death for them. Thus conflicts often arise 
 which have a very injurious effect, especially if the persons 
 at the head of the organizations put their personal interests, 
 which of course are often identical with the growth and 
 interests of their respective organizations, above the in- 
 terests of the general labor movement. This is a reason, 
 by the way, why the responsible positions in the labor- 
 union movement should be filled only by persons to 
 whom the general labor movement with its progressive 
 tendencies of international unity and solidarity is not an 
 unknown quantity. 
 
 It will be seen, then, that the question between indus- 
 trial organization and trade organization is not so easy 
 of solution as many persons imagine. The simple asser- 
 tions that industrial organization is the progressive form 
 or that the workingmen can be more easily organized in 
 trade unions prove but little. From a practical point of 
 view the question which of these forms of organization 
 is to be preferred is extremely complicated. It is difficult, 
 if not impossible, to find a solution acceptable to all sides. 
 
 First of all it must be emphasized that it is not correct 
 to assert that industrial organization is in principle the 
 form of organization of the future. The question of the 
 form of labor organization is not one of principle, but of 
 expediency. Its solution is not to be determined by fixed 
 fundamental principles, but is prescribed by the develop- 
 ment of the various industries. Each case must, therefore, 
 be decided by itself. A general decision that this section 
 
Industrial or Trade Organisation. 231 
 
 of workingmen is to belong to the trade union and that 
 one to the industrial organization is not possible. 
 
 It is, however, correct to assert that the development 
 of the labor movement is undoubtedly in the direction of 
 consolidation into large and efficient organizations. The 
 development of industry and technique tends to bring 
 together trades which were before sharply separated. The 
 organization of capitalist employers and the forms under 
 which this organization occurs compel the workingmen 
 to unite their small trade unions into larger associations. 
 The form which this takes is determined by the peculiarities 
 of the industry; and, as has already been pointed out, it 
 is often determined also by the form of organization 
 adopted by the employers against whom the workingmen 
 have to struggle. Now whether these larger associations 
 of labor will take the form of industrial organizations as 
 these are exemplified by the metal workers' union of 
 Germany and the wood workers of that country and similar 
 industrial organizations in Great Britain, or of the variety 
 of industrial organization exemplified by the brewery 
 workmen's unions of Germany and the United States, the 
 municipal employees' organization of Germany, or the 
 mine workers' union in this country, is a question which 
 must be left to industrial evolution. Here again fixed 
 fundamental principles cannot be laid dowa The develop- 
 ment of industry and various related influences will decide. 
 In certain branches of industry the bringing together of 
 workingmen according to the nature of their work — as 
 workers in wood, workers in iron, etc. — is the governing 
 factor in their form of organization; in other branches, 
 on the contrary, it is advantageous to organize together 
 all the workingmen employed in a certain industry, regard- 
 less what kind of work they do. This question is not, 
 therefore, definitely settled, even though the last trade- 
 union congress in Germany, for instance, expressed the 
 
232 American Federation of Labor and Brewery Workers. 
 
 opionion that the development of labor organizations will 
 take the direction of the grouping of workingmen into 
 large vocational unions, embracing groups of related trades, 
 not that of the sort of industrial organizations represented 
 by the brewery workmen and the municipal employees. 
 
 This latter is the only possible form of organization 
 in the brewing industry. The simple industrial organiza- 
 tion — as, for instance, the organization of all metal work- 
 ers, all wood workers, etc. — ^would mean for the brewery 
 workmen a division of forces which they could hardly if 
 at all overcome. The jurisdiction controversies which now 
 appear between the brewery workmen's organization and 
 the unions of teamsters, engineers, and coopers, and which 
 are not confined to the United States, but show themselves 
 everywhere, would continue in the same manner even if 
 this kind of industrial union were to become the dominant 
 form of organization in the labor movement. Between 
 the wood workers, the workers in the machine industry, 
 and the transportation workers on the one side and the 
 brewery workmen or mine workers on the other, there 
 will always remain sufiScient matter for dispute over the 
 affiliation of certain branches of labor, and with inconsider- 
 ate methods of procedure this will easily lead to jurisdiction 
 conflicts. This condition would not be changed even by 
 further consolidating several unions — as, for instance, by 
 the formation of a union of food workers' organizations. 
 The matter for dispute still remains. The only radical 
 solution might be found in the idea of a general labor union, 
 which, however, would have to possess a much closer 
 unity and exercise a much more far-reaching influence 
 upon its members than does, for instance, the American 
 Federation of Labor. 
 
 Until this is reached jurisdiction conflicts must, as 
 far as possible, be prevented by the exercise of good will 
 and insight into the nature of the general labor movement. 
 
Industrial or Trade Organization. 233 
 
 This can be done by means of understandings and agree- 
 ments among the various organizations which divide 
 a common field. The principle of equal rights, the recog- 
 nition of mutual possession, the avoidance of unfair 
 agitation, such as the pointing out of lower dues or higher 
 benefits, and especially timely understandings upon all 
 questions of working together — all these ought to be used 
 in order to prevent any possible strife between different 
 branches of the general labor movement. 
 
 It should always be kept in mind that the further 
 development of the union movement has to take such forms 
 as will not be injurious to the labor movement as a whole. 
 The uniting of forces, not their division, must be the 
 guiding rule in the labor movement. 
 
 What, then, is to be the answer to the question as to 
 trade organization or industrial organization in either of 
 its forms? The answer must be — all three, each according 
 to the stage of development, the peculiarities of the industry 
 in question, the attitude of the employers, and the condition 
 of the organization in question. 
 
 For the workingmen in the brewing industry, the 
 species of industrial organization which unites all the 
 workingmen employed in that industry is the only possible 
 form of organization. It is, therefore, a question of life and 
 death for these workingmen to maintain it, and they can- 
 not under any circumstances allow it to be taken from them. 
 
CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 Labor Union and Political Organization. 
 1. THE LABOR UNION AND ITS WEAPONS. 
 
 THE labor-union movement is not the result of the 
 desires and activities of certain individuals. It is a 
 necessary accompaniment of economic evolution. 
 
 Simultaneously with the development of industry, 
 bodies of workingmen develop themselves who get together 
 in unions ; and we have seen that, for instance, in the 
 brewing industry, as soon as it had reached a certain stage 
 of development, an organization of the workingmen in 
 this industry was founded which maintained itself in spite 
 of all the efforts of the brewery capitalists and all their 
 economic power. 
 
 Just as the organization itself, so are its struggles 
 natural phenomena which are intimately connected with 
 the growth of the particular industry. The common 
 interests of the workingmen who have been driven together 
 by the nature of great industry impel them to makd 
 demands which tend toward the improvement of their 
 condition of labor. The opposition of the capitalists to 
 the labor unions forces the workingmen into extended 
 struggles for the right and existence of these organizations. 
 The existing laws and the power of the state aid the 
 capitalists and are turned against the workingmen. The 
 latter are thereby forced to turn against the existing state 
 and to strive by political struggle to gain influence over 
 the government and the legislature. The economic strug- 
 gle of the workingmen develops into a political struggle, 
 into a struggle for power in the state. 
 
 The struggle of the labor organization is a struggle 
 for civilization. Not only does it aim at obtaining better 
 
The Labor Union and Its Weapons. 235 
 
 working conditions, higher wages, shorter hours of labor, 
 etc., but it aims also at advancing the progress of civiliza- 
 tion for the workingmen. Without the labor movement, 
 the working class would have no share in the progress 
 of the world. 
 
 The right of organization into labor unions, which 
 was originally limited everywhere, has to be won for 
 themselves by the workingmen against the will of the 
 capitalists and the laws of the state. This applies also 
 to the weapons which the workingmen have to use in their 
 economic struggle. A new conflict ensues over each step 
 of progress in the use of these weapons. When the battle 
 for the right to organize is decide'd, then a new struggle 
 breaks out over the use of further weapons. The treat- 
 ment of the boycott by the courts is a good example. 
 The prohibition of this weapon by the courts will not 
 prevent its use by the workingmen. Finally the accom- 
 plished fact — that is, the use of the boycott as a weapon 
 in labor disputes — ^will also receive the sanction of the 
 courts. New antagonisms will develop, however, between 
 the ruling class which has the power of the state in its 
 hands and the working class which is striving for the 
 betterment of its condition and for its emancipation, and 
 out of them will develop new struggles, economic and 
 political. The class struggle knows no cessation, so long 
 as there are class antagonisms in our society. 
 
 The weapons and means at the disposal of the labor- 
 union movement in its struggles are organization, the 
 growth of which is a veritable life-and-death question for 
 the workers, and further the strike, the boycott, the 
 solidarity of the working class, and also well filled 
 treasuries for their organizations. It is not to be supposed 
 that the capital at the disposal of the labor unions can hold 
 its own as compared with the capital in the possession of 
 the capitalists — for against every hundred thousand in the 
 
236 Labor Union and Political Organisation. 
 
 treasuries of the unions the capitalists can put down ten 
 millions. On the field of finance the labor organizations 
 cannot compete with the capitalist class. Nevertheless, 
 well filled union treasuries mean increased power of endur- 
 ance for the organized workingmen in the struggle ; if it is 
 possible for the workingmen to tire out the capitalist, 
 then they are enabled to wage their battles with increased 
 power. According as the union funds are large or small 
 they constitute a great or a small weapon in the labor 
 conflict, hence their importance. 
 
 Naturally the strength of the organization plays an 
 important part. The task of the organization and its 
 leaders will be to make out of the local trade union a 
 national organization and to draw into its ranks all the 
 workingmen in the trade. Above the national union is the 
 international. The National Union of United Brewery 
 Workmen at its Cincinnati convention changed its title to 
 "International Union" because it had extended its organ- 
 izing activity into Canada. But even before that a 
 federation of all brewery workers' organizations of all 
 countries had been thought of. 
 
 As early as 1893 the United Brewery Workmen of 
 America, the first to be organized in any country, addressed 
 themselves to the representatives of brewery workers' 
 organizations assembled in Germany, proposing to estab- 
 lish a kind of federation. It was agreed to exchange 
 mutually important information ; the establishment of an 
 international defense fund was discussed, and voluntary 
 international aid in time of struggle was taken for granted. 
 Later on it was agreed that membership cards should be 
 mutually recognized and that each organization should 
 accept any person who had held membership in the other 
 for one year. This agreement was also extended to 
 Austria and Switzerland, and in 1894 the American organi- 
 
The Labor Union and Its Weapons. 237 
 
 zation sent $150 to assist the locked-out brewery workers 
 in Berlin. , 
 
 When the International Socialist and Trade Union 
 Congress was held at London in 1896, to which the United 
 Brewery Woi-kmen of America sent Charles F. Bechtold 
 as their delegate, there also took place a conference of 
 brewers' delegates from America, Germany, Austria, and 
 Switzerland. An international information bureau was 
 planned and it was also proposed to urge the brewers of 
 other beer-producing countries who were not yet organized 
 to join the movement. This referred particularly to Great 
 Britain, as the brewery workers' organization there was 
 very weak. 
 
 However, all these plans had no practical effect. 
 
 In the summer of 1908 the European brewers' organi- 
 zations called a conference at Munich, at which a closer 
 international affiliation of organized brewery workers was 
 considered. The creation of an international secretariat 
 was especially discussed, which led to the decision to put 
 this point on the order of business for the next international 
 conference. In the meantime, the Executive of the German 
 organization undertook to direct the international afifairs, 
 and the organizations of Holland, Austria, and Switzer- 
 land were each to name a member of the administrative 
 committee. 
 
 The American brewery workers were not represented 
 at this international conference. The United Brewery 
 Workmen had referred the matter to its convention, held 
 in the same year in New York. This convention decided 
 to send delegates to the next international brewers' con- 
 ference, which had been provided for by the Munich 
 conference, and to work for an international federation of 
 the brewery workers of different countries. This confer- 
 ence is to take place at Copenhagen in 1910, in connection 
 with the International Socialist Congress, to be held there. 
 
238 Labor Union and Political Organization. 
 
 Next to organization itself, which of course is the most 
 important of all, the kind of weapons which the organiza- 
 tion can use is of importance in connection with the 
 outcome of its struggles. More important than the strike, 
 for the brewery workers, is the boycott. Not that the 
 strike can be disregarded, but in beer production it will 
 always play a minor role — will, so to speak, be the intro- 
 duction to the struggle, which will be conducted in the 
 main by the use of the boycott. 
 
 The boycott has played a most important part in the 
 history of the brewery workers' movement in America, 
 more important perhaps than in that of any other trade. 
 The ten-year boycott against the New York "Pool Beer," 
 which was decided chiefly by the attitude of the New 
 England workingmen; the boycott against the St. Louis 
 beer, which ended favorably for the brewery workers on 
 account of the strong support of the Knights of Labor in 
 the South — in short, every one of the greatest struggles of 
 the brewery workers was decided by the boycott, which 
 proved the strongest weapon in the hands of the working- 
 men in these conflicts. 
 
 The boycott — or at least its name — originated in 
 Ireland. At the time of the struggles of the Land League 
 there in the later seventies of the last century, there lived 
 in Ireland, a certain Captain Boycott, who was the agent 
 for a large British land-owner and who treated his tenants 
 with such severity that they petitioned their landlord to 
 recall him. Their request was refused, and the Land 
 League decided that its members should have no further 
 dealings with Captain Boycott. No one would work for 
 him, buy from him, or sell to him — in short, every dealing 
 and connection with him was broken off. It was the 
 proscription of the medieval guilds which here reappeared 
 in a new form, and under the name "Boycott" this declara- 
 
The Labor Union and Its Weapons. 239 
 
 tion of non-intercourse made its way around the world and 
 became a weapon also in the struggles of the workingmen. 
 
 But in this struggle the boycott changed its character. 
 As we have seen, the boycott in Ireland was originally 
 directed against an individual. But in the labor struggle, 
 it is in the main a proscription of certain goods, and 
 especially of certain goods such as are used by the masses. 
 Its use is, therefore, chiefly for such industrial workers as 
 produce foodstuffs and other articles of common use — 
 bakers, butchers, cigar makers, brewers. In the brewing 
 industry the boycott is an especially good weapon because 
 the male workers, who are the best organized, have the 
 decision in the matter of purchasing. 
 
 If the boycott is to be successful, it presupposes a strict 
 organization of the working class industrially and politi- 
 cally, and a wide circulation of the labor press. In declaring 
 a large boycott, it must always be taken into consideration, 
 not only that organized labor is necessary for its execution, 
 but that large circles of consumers must be interested in the 
 struggle. If the struggle is carried on against a monopoly 
 which controls the market in the district concerned, then 
 it is necessary that organized labor see to it that sub- 
 stitutes are provided there, so that the consumer can buy 
 the necessary goods without violating the boycott. On 
 several occasions the United Brewery Workmen have 
 found it necessary, in places where the entire local beer 
 product was boycotted, to import union-made beer from 
 other places, often at great expense, in order to give the 
 boycotting consumers a chance to buy beer at all. 
 
 The boycott is a two-edged weapon, which when once 
 undertaken should be energetically used, but whose use in 
 any case should be carefully considered beforehand. In 
 the first place, it must be certain that if a boycott Is 
 declared it will be supported by the whole body of organ- 
 ized labor, and that the workingmen are inspired by the 
 
240 Labor Union and Political Organisation. 
 
 right feeling of solidarity. Therefore it is advisable, when- 
 ever possible, that the declaration of any large boycott be 
 made dependent upon the previous consent of the central 
 labor body, and if possible also of the political labor 
 organization, whose representatives should under such 
 circumstances be consulted. All trivial boycotts should 
 be avoided, as they |Weaken the reputation and influence 
 of the labor unions concerned. Above all, it should never 
 be thought that the boycott may be made a substitute for 
 organization. The main point is under all circumstances 
 to strengthen the organization for the industrial struggle, 
 and this strengthening should, as far as possible, be accom- 
 plished by its own efforts. 
 
 In the execution ,of a boycott, it is to be kept in mind 
 that it acts not only directly, but also indirectly. That is, 
 it strengthens the employers who are in competition with 
 those firms against whom the boycott is declared, and in 
 this way also it benefits the workingmen. 
 
 That the employers also know how to use the boycott 
 is shown not only by the numerous instances in which 
 great capitalists have refused to deliver to employers who 
 have conceded the workingmen's demands the raw ma- 
 terials which they needed in their .manufacture, but also 
 by the use of "blacklists." The blacklist of the employers 
 is a boycott against the commodity labor power, the only 
 commodity which the workingmen have to sell. It is by 
 far the worst form of boycott, as hundreds of employers 
 often direct all the power which their wealth gives them 
 against a single person who has nothing but his own labor 
 power, which he then cannot sell anywhere. 
 
 For certain branches of labor, among which are especially 
 the brewery workers, the boycott is a weapon which they 
 cannot dispense with if they wish to maintain their organi- 
 zation. But the importance of this weapon is just as well 
 known to the employers as to the workingmen, and they 
 
The Labor Union and Its Weapons. 241 
 
 have done all in' their power to make it impracticable. The 
 courts, naturally, have in this matter ranged themselves 
 on the side of the employers. The United States courts 
 have declared the boycott and the spoken or written pro- 
 motion of a boycott, in so far as it affects goods which are 
 transported from one state to another, to be an unlawful act, 
 and they are threatening the boycotters with imprison- 
 ment. Of course this will not prevent the workingmen 
 from doing what they find necessary for the protection of 
 their interests. All the rights which the labor movement 
 now possesses, as we have seen, have been wrested from 
 the ruling classes in spite of the law. 
 
 Closely related to the boycott, and really a variety of 
 it, is the union label. By means of the union label and 
 the insistance on it in the purchase of goods, a boycott is 
 declared, so to speak, against all similar wares which do 
 not bear the label. But it is a kind of boycott against 
 which no one can say anything, as this label also 
 indicates that the product in question has been made under 
 union conditions. 
 
 The United Brewery Workmen early began the use of 
 the union label. Already at the Detroit convention, in 
 1887, the question of introducing a uniform union label 
 was taken up by the organization, but it was not then 
 considered practicable by the delegates. From 1887 until 
 1892 the union label question was an open one in the 
 organization. Various local unions had introduced a label, 
 but these were different in almost all cities. There was 
 no uniform rule, but circumstances forced the local unions 
 to introduce a label, independent of the national organiza- 
 tion, as organized labor insisted on it. In the year 1892 the 
 National Secretary again recommended the introduction of 
 a union label, but this was again voted down by the con- 
 vention. Among the labels introduced by the various local 
 unions, some were blue, others red, and still other locals 
 
242 LMbor Union and Political Organization. 
 
 used the label of the Knights of Labor. In the year 1896 
 the convention, held at Cincinnati, elected a special com- 
 mittee to consider the label question, and this committee, 
 after investigating the problem, recommended the introduc- 
 tion of a uniform label for the entire International Union. 
 
 Among the places which up to this time were using 
 local beer labels were New York, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, 
 and almost all the larger cities of the United States. The 
 number of the local labels thus used is put at about 
 1,200,000, of which Utica and Troy, N. Y., and Columbus, 
 O., used the most. Only 179,000 International Union 
 labels were used during the first year, but in the following 
 year this number increased to 3,511,500. By 1901 it had 
 grown to 12,000,000, by 1904 to 40,000,000, and since then 
 it has remained about stationary. In the year 1908 the 
 number of labels given out by the International Union 
 was 42,260,000, not a noticeable increase. These figures 
 do not include the beer-bottle labels, which were also used. 
 
 The employers put every possible obstacle in the way 
 of introducing these labels by the International Union. 
 At first they had to pay for the labels. When later on 
 the labor organization delivered the labels free of charge 
 in order to bring about their more general use, the em- 
 ployers declared that they did not want the labels, even 
 gratis, and the use of labels increased but little. In order 
 to cover the cost of printing and sending out the labels, 
 the International Union imposed an initiation fee of $1.00 
 upon its members. 
 
 The opposition of the brewery owners to the union 
 label is easily understood. It meant a new strengthening 
 of the workingmen's organization in their industry. And 
 if they gave up their opposition it was only because they 
 knew that organized workingmen who used beer wanted 
 to be certain that the product which they drank was pro- 
 duced by union labor under union conditions. 
 
Political Action. 243 
 
 The support of members by an organization forms a 
 bond which attaches them to the union, and the brewery 
 workers' organization has sought to form such a bond by 
 an out-of-work benefit. Twice, in 1897 at Boston and 
 again at St. Louis in 1899, the convention of the United 
 Brewery Workmen instructed the National Executive to 
 work out a plan for the support of unemployed members 
 by the national organization. In both cases the plan 
 submitted was voted down. Since then there is no unem- 
 ployment benefit from the International Union, but such 
 benefits are provided by the local unions as far as their 
 strength permits. 
 
 2. POLITICAL ACTION. 
 
 The labor-union struggle, when carried on by the mass 
 of the working people, can accomplish much. It is not a 
 means of bringing about the complete freedom of the 
 working class. Indeed, it is not even adequate to the 
 acquisition and maintenance of all that the workingmen 
 are under existing conditions able to force from the ruling 
 classes. At a certain stage, when consistently carried 
 out, this industrial struggle develops into a political 
 struggle, for the reason that the ruling class employs 
 political methods to oppose the efforts of the workingmen 
 for the improvement of their condition. In this way the 
 capitalists almost force the organized workingmen to use 
 politics as a means in their struggle for betterment and 
 freedom. Whoever seeks to keep politics out of the labor 
 unions is therefore almost a traitor to the labor movement. 
 Of course there is no question of the business politics which 
 are carried on in the interest of one of the capitalist parties. 
 Naturally, this is to be excluded as much as possible. The 
 independent political movement of the working class, how- 
 ever, which is carried on for the sole purpose of improving 
 the condition of the workingmen and in order to free them. 
 
244 Labor Union and Political Organieation. 
 
 is only a continuation and generalization of the industrial 
 struggle, and it means almost an arrest of the development 
 of the industrial struggle if such independent politics of 
 the working class, as represented in all modern countries 
 by the Socialist parties, are to be kept out of the labor 
 unions. This does not mean, of course, that such politics 
 are to be arbitrarily forced upon the unions. 
 
 The opposition to the political movement within the 
 unions, in so far as such opposition is honest, is based 
 upon two motives. On the one hand, there is the fear 
 that if labor politics are carried on in the unions, free play 
 will be given to bourgeois politics, or that the capitalistic 
 parties will then seek to gain influence within the unions. 
 This objection is not altogether groundless, and it can be 
 overcome only by teaching the members the difference 
 between capitalistic and proletarian politics. On the other 
 hand, the opinion is expressed, even in the ranks of 
 enlightened workingmen, that the labor-union movement 
 as such, and without the aid of the political movement of 
 the working class, can develop sufficient strength gradually 
 to crowd out the employers — indeed, to force the capitalist 
 class to abdicate. Whoever holds this opinion overlooks 
 the fact that the ruling class daily fights the labor move- 
 ment with political weapons — ^that the legislatures, the 
 courts, and the state and national governments themselves 
 are merely organs for the protection of the capitalists' 
 interests against the onslaughts of the working class. 
 
 The organized working class demands the right of 
 uniting and the removal of all restraints upon that right. 
 Existing legislation restricts this right as much as possible. 
 The working class demands a legal regulation of working 
 hours, in order to make more general and more secure the 
 shortening of the workday, which they have won through 
 industrial struggles. The capitalistic legislatures comply 
 with this desire of the working class only when forced 
 
Political Action. 245 
 
 to it, and seek to defeat it by trickery. The workingmen 
 demand legislative protection' for labor, an effective liability 
 law — in short, laws of all kinds which they must demand 
 in view of the development of industry and the consequent 
 changes in the position of workingmen. The legislature 
 does not willingly do anything to meet these demands 
 which conditions compel the workingmen to make. 
 
 The same is the case with the judiciary. Especially 
 here in the United States, the courts have shown that they 
 are more than anywhere else merely organs for the repre- 
 sentation of capitalistic interests. If anywhere a legislature 
 has finally passed a law favorable to the workingmen, one 
 can be sure that it will, be declared unconstitutional by 
 some court. By the use of injunctions the courts seek to 
 hamper the industrial struggles of the workingmen, and 
 attempt to hinder the use of the weapons necessary in 
 this struggle. In many cases the strike has been made 
 impossible by these injunction. The boycott has been 
 made a criminal offense, punishable by imprisonment. 
 The laws for the reduction of working hours have almost 
 always been declared unconstitutional by court decisions. 
 In short, the courts have in every way been active as a tool 
 of the capitalists in opposition to the labor movement. 
 
 And the state and national governments likewise are 
 only committees which attend to the business of the capital- 
 ist class. Whenever, in the case of a large strike or other 
 labor dispute, there seems to be danger to the property of 
 the capitalists, one can be certain that the government will 
 call out its militia or its soldiers to "maintain order"— 
 after order has been destroyed in most cases by the police 
 and the Pinkertons. 
 
 Everywhere, then, we see that political weapons are 
 being used against the aspirations of the workingmen. 
 Everjrwhere are political organs which by their state 
 authority oppose the struggle of the workingmen for 
 
246 Labor Union and Political Organisation. 
 
 economic improvement. And what have the labor unions 
 to set against this attitude of the political authorities? 
 Nothing but the independent political struggle of the 
 working class. 
 
 The labor union, as such, is powerless when confronted 
 with the inactivity of the legislature in the matter of 
 enacting laws which are necessary for the improvement 
 of the workingmen's condition. The labor unions can do 
 nothing against the courts which throw their leaders into 
 prison, nor against the governments whose soldiers and 
 militia shoot them down, unless the organized workingmen, 
 together with the working class as a whole, also enters 
 the political field, develops its industrial struggle into a 
 political struggle, attempts to get its spokesmen into the 
 legislatures of the land, seeks through its political power 
 to gain influence upon the judges' bench, and forms its 
 own political party to undertake the task of conquering 
 the governmental power of the country — all this for the 
 one purpose of utilizing this legislative, judicial, and 
 administrative power for the benefit of the working class, 
 to win the freedom of the working class by means of these 
 political weapons. 
 
 The labor union has to guard the special interests of 
 the workingmen in each industry, has to wage the daily 
 economic battle of the workingmen against the capitalists. 
 The political labor party, the Socialist party, exists for 
 the purpose of waging the general battle of the working- 
 men, has to express the common interests of the whole 
 working class. Industrial and political struggles are 
 essentially the same; the latter is only a combination of 
 all the smaller struggles of the unions, and is the continua- 
 tion of the struggle of organized labor upon a field where 
 the weapons of the unions themselves no longer suffice. 
 
 Of course it is always to be kept in mind that practical 
 and successful labor pohtics must be independent politics. 
 
The Brewery Workmen and the Political Struggle 247 
 
 Any connection of labor organizations with capitalistic 
 parties and capitalist politicians is a betrayal of the cause 
 of labor. Capitalist politics mean the protection of capital- 
 ist interests. Labor politics, in which political action is 
 not an end, but a means for the advancement of the cause 
 of labor, represents proletarian interests. Just as industrial 
 struggles of workingmen against the employers in their 
 trade, if they are to be successful, can never be conducted 
 by the workingmen in unison with their employers, so 
 likewise the political struggles of the workingmen, if rhey 
 are to be effective for the cause of labor, must be waged 
 against the capitalist parties, not together with them. 
 
 Therefore every honest union man, if he understands 
 his interests and the interests of his class, must also be an 
 adherent of independent labor politics, must be a Socialist. 
 The emancipation of the working class will become possible 
 only when this class wins the political power of the state, 
 when it takes all the power of the state into its own service, 
 when it embodies in legislation what it has set forth in its 
 political demands — when, in other words, it makes the state 
 a tool in its work of emancipation. 
 
 3. THE BREWERY WORKMEN AND THE 
 POLITICAL STRUGGLE. 
 
 The National Union of United Brewery Workmen, so 
 far as its administration and its conventions are concerned, 
 has always represented the progressive point of view in 
 the labor movement. Both by the spoken word and in 
 writing it has always declared that besides the labor-union 
 organization, the independent political organization of the 
 working class is necessary in order to bring about the 
 complete emancipation of the workers ; and there has, 
 hardly been a single convention in which it was not em- 
 phasized in one form or another how necessary it is for 
 the brewery workers to support the Socialists in elections 
 
248 Labor Union and Political Organization. 
 
 and declare themselves a part of the Socialist movement 
 The officers of the organization never failed to impresi 
 the members with the fact that it was their duty to joir 
 the Socialist movement, to vote the Socialist ticket, anc 
 to learn to understand Socialism. The "Brauer-Zeitun^ 
 also has always done its duty in this respect, and has always 
 tried to keep the members informed in regard to the genera 
 labor movement, political as well as industrial. 
 
 In other respects also, whenever the organization hac 
 a chance to express itself, it was always on the most pro- 
 gressive side of the labor movement. When the Chicagc 
 Anarchists were brought to the gallows through unjusi 
 persecution in the courts, the members of the brewer) 
 workers' unions were among those who raised the loudesl 
 and most emphatic protest against this judicial murder 
 The National Union had hardly been formed before ii 
 impressed its members with their duty to become citizen; 
 of this country in order to represent labor in the political 
 struggles. In the convention held at Milwaukee in 1893 
 it was decided that no member of the United Brewer) 
 Workmen be allowed to belong to the state militia — i 
 resolution which has special significance because th( 
 brewery workers before the formation of their union hac 
 particularly delighted in military organizations (Schutzen 
 vereinigungen) and other similar amusements. Jvist ai 
 they opposed the persecution of the Chicago Anarchists 
 the organized brewery workmen also opposed the persecu 
 tion of the officers of the Western Federation of Miners 
 and the National Union, as such, contributed $500 to th- 
 Haywood election fund, aside from the large sums whicl 
 the local unions contributed to the defense fund for Moyei 
 Haywood and Pettibone. Union No. 1 of New Yorl 
 donated not less than $1,000 to this defense fund. Th 
 struggles of the Russian revolution were supported witl 
 $500; the Socialist parties of this country received con 
 
The Brewery Workmen and the Political Struggle 249 
 
 siderable contributions toward their election expenses, and \ 
 the SociaHst newspapers were also given numerous i 
 financial contributions. The proletarian virtue of solidarity 
 has been exercised at every opportunity by the United | 
 Brewery Workmen in a far higher degree than by other] 
 organizations. 
 
 As long as the organization had a purely German - 
 character, its political attitude and the frequent sacrifices \ 
 its' members made on account of that attitude met with 
 little or no opposition. But such opposition did arise, and 
 often grew very serious, when the [ English-speaking 
 element gained greater influence; within the organization. 
 This element was frequently connected with capitalist 
 parties and Jiad no experience whatever in proletarian 
 politics, and it is only surprising that the persons who 
 had the management of the organization in hand could, 
 in spite of this opposition by the English-speaking element, 
 uphold the political principle which from the beginning 
 determined the general direction of the organization. 
 
 The Declaration of Principles in which is laid down 
 the political confession of faith of the International Union 
 of United Brewery Workmen is worded as follows : 
 
 "In present-day society there are classes whose interests are 
 sharply opposed to each other. On the one side there is the possessing 
 class, which owns almost all the land, houses, factories, means of com- 
 munication, machines and raw materials — all the means of life. 
 In proportion to the entire population, this class is a small minority. 
 
 "On the other side are the workingmen, who possess nothing but 
 their mental and physical labor power, which they are compelled to 
 sell to the owners of the means of production. The workingmen are 
 numbered by millions. 
 
 "It is in the interest of the possessing class to buy labor power 
 as cheaply as possible, to produce as much as possible, and to accu- 
 mulate riches. The few hundred thousand owners take for themselves 
 the larger part of the wealth produced by the workingmen. 
 
 "The millions of workingmen get from the product of their labor 
 only enough to keep up a miserable existence. 
 
250 Labor Union and Political Organisation. 
 
 "Every invention in machinery, every new discovery of natural 
 power is taken by the possessing class exclusively for their enrich- 
 ment ; human labor power is thereby ever more crowded out. 
 
 "The superfluous workingmen, in order to exist, are compelled 
 to sell their labor power at any price they can get. The value of 
 labor sinks by degrees; the working population becomes poorer and 
 poorer, its consuming power becomes less and less, it is able to buy a 
 smaller part of the goods produced, the stock accumulates, produc- 
 tion is restricted and partly stopped. The crisis is here. 
 
 "The possessing class takes the power of state, police and militia, 
 press and pulpit into its service in order to sanctify and protect its 
 ownership of the wealth which has been created by others. 
 
 "On the other hand, there are the millions of workers without 
 means of support, without rights and defenseless, betrayed and sold 
 by state, press, and pulpit. The weapons of the police and militia are 
 directed against them. 
 
 "In consideration of these facts we declare: 
 
 "1. That the working class must emancipate itself from all 
 influences of the hostile and antagonistic class, must organize itself 
 locally, nationally, and internationally in order to set the power of 
 organized labor in opposition to the power of capital and in order 
 to represent its own interests at the places of work, in the community, 
 in the state and nation. 
 
 "2. National and international labor unions are in a position to 
 exert a great influence upon production, to regulate the conditions and 
 hours of labor and the system of apprenticeship, and to assist their 
 members in all circumstances of life. 
 
 "3. The struggles which they have to wage against organized 
 capital lead them to recognize that the separate unions must unite into 
 one great federation; the solidarity of the interests of all is pro- 
 claimed, mutual support is practiced. Soon it will be recognized that 
 the whole system of production rests upon the shoulders of the work- 
 ing class, and that when this class so wills, it can introduce another and 
 a juster system. 
 
 "Opposed to the conscious power of capital with its following 
 is the conscious power of labor. 
 
 "4. No power is great enough to cross the will of this conscious 
 majority; without halting it will advance towards its goal. Natural 
 right is on its side. The earth with all its riches belongs to all men. 
 All the achievements of civilization have been gained by the work 
 
The Brewery Workmen and the Political Struggle 251 
 
 of all the peoples during thousands of years. The results belong to all 
 in common. The organized working class will come to realize these 
 principles and to bring about a state of affairs in which everyone 
 will be able to enjoy the product of his labor. 
 
 "The- emancipation of the working people can take place only 
 when the economic and the political movement go hand in hand." 
 
 These are the poHtical principles which the brewery 
 workers' organization has taken as its guide, and they 
 have always been followed by its national officers, its press 
 organ, and its conventions. Has this been the case with 
 the masses of the membership? This question, unfortun- 
 ately, has to be answered with a No. Members of the 
 organization, frequently whole local unions, hav^e not 
 recognized that the independent political labor movement 
 is a necessary complement of the industrial movement. 
 And if they have recognized, they have too rarely acted up 
 to the principle. 
 
 The reasons for this are manifold. Where, as in the, 
 larger cities, a stronger socialistic political labor movement ' 
 had developed, the brewery workers held more firmly to 
 their political class organization. But the socialist move- 
 ment has grown to great importance only in the larger 
 cities. Furthermore, it has not always strongly enough 
 taken the part of the industrial movement, more especially 
 it has frequently not done enough for its enlightenment. 
 In addition to this, in smaller places the political power 
 of the brewery owners has had a greater influence upon 
 the workingmen. But above all there is one cause that 
 has hindered the political development of the brewery 
 workers. This is the prohibition question and the political \ 
 battles connected with it. To this fact it is due that the 
 brewers have not played by any means as important a part , 
 in the political battle for the emancipation of labor as they / 
 have in the industrial labor struggles of this country. / 
 
252 Labor Union and Political Organization. 
 
 4. THE BREWERY WORKMEN AND CAPITALIST 
 POLITICS. 
 
 In a report which the then editor of the "Brauer- 
 Zeitung" presented to the convention of the National 
 Union, held at Cincinnati in 1903, attention was drawn to 
 the evil which results from the natural connection of the 
 brewing industry with capitalist politics. 
 
 It was demonstrated that the brewing industry is one 
 of the chief sources of corruption in the municipalities and 
 in the states. The prohibition question is frequently taken 
 up by the brewery capitalists, who in order to protect their 
 interests seek connection with all the bourgeois political 
 parties, merely as a pretext to get the labor organizations 
 to work with them. Under the motto : "Fight for personal 
 liberty," brewery workers are drawn into capitalistic 
 politics, only to find again and again that they have been 
 betrayed. The political battles which are connected with 
 the prohibition question and the Sunday laws are used 
 by the great capitalists in the brewery industry, partly in 
 order to use their workingmen for their special political 
 purposes, and partly in order to strengthen their influence 
 upon the saloon business, so that the saloonkeepers become 
 mere agents of the brewery owners. 
 
 To the conditions here portrayed it is really due that 
 the brewery workers, who occupy such a progressive 
 position in the industrial movement, have not developed 
 in a progressive manner in the political movement. 
 
 In another part of this work we treat fully the question 
 of prohibition and Sunday laws and the position of the 
 workingmen thereto. We recognize readily that the 
 brewery workers are in a peculiar position as regards these 
 questions, but they have to learn that even in regard to 
 these questions the political ways of the brewery owners 
 cannot be their ways. 
 
 Even where, as in the struggles against prohibition and 
 
The Brewery Workmen and Capitalist Politics. 253 
 
 the Sunday laws, the interests of the brewery capitaUsts 
 and those of the brewery workers seem to be identical, in 
 reality their interests are different. This was shown, for 
 example, at one of the first conventions of the United 
 Brewery Workmen, when it was proposed in all serious- 
 ness that the brewery workers should support prohibition 
 laws as a means of compelling the brewery capitalists to 
 recognize the union and the labor demands it made. 
 
 In the struggle again prohibition and what is con- 
 nected therewith, the brewery workers have to go their 
 own ways. The sort of policy which it would be possible 
 for them to follow in unison with the brewery capitalists 
 would not solve the question in a manner favorable to their 
 interests. To reach such a favorable solution, they will 
 have to fight side by side with the entire working class, 
 and it will come simultaneously with the conquest of 
 political power by the workers. Every support tendered 
 the brewery capitalists, however, delays the moment when 
 political power will pass into the hands of the workingmen. 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 
 Hygienic Conditions of the Brewery Workmen. 
 1. DISEASES OF THE TRADE. 
 
 THE life of the workingman is shorter than that of the 
 capitalist. Sickness and epidemics are more prevalent 
 in the quarters inhabited by workingmen than in the 
 palaces of the rich. It is not only due to the privations, 
 the insufficient nourishment, the unhealthful surroundings, 
 that the ranks of the workingmen are reduced more than 
 the ranks of the possessing class. The workingmen of each 
 trade have in addition their special diseases, their special 
 sufiferings, their special fatalities. The kind of employ- 
 ment and the unfavorable efJfect of this employment upon 
 the body, brings to the workingmen in each trade special 
 diseases or develops in them general diseases to a special 
 extent, to which large numbers of them fall victims. 
 
 It is well known that workmen who have to work in 
 an atmosphere which is filled with particles of dust of 
 various kinds — metal grinders, stone cutters, stone polish- 
 ers and similar trades — are particularly susceptible to 
 diseases of the lungs. In other trades, again, workmen 
 who have to handle poisonous substances suffer from 
 special diseases resulting from the introduction of these 
 poisons into the body. In short, almost every trade which 
 is not specially protected has certain diseases from which 
 the workingmen of the trade particularly suffer. 
 
 The brewery workers also have their special trade 
 diseases. Their trade likewise involves such conditions 
 that they are more exposed to certain diseases than are 
 other people, and their longevity is strongly influenced by 
 their daily occupation. 
 
 Unfortunately social statistics are as yet so little de- 
 veloped in the United States that no material is at our 
 
Diseases of the Trade. 255 
 
 disposal to show the influence which work in the breweries 
 of this country has upon the health and duration of life 
 of the brewery workers. We are compelled, therefore, in 
 considering this subject to use foreign material. It must 
 be noted that the evils which grow out of the occupations 
 of the workingmen are for many reasons greater here in 
 the United States than in Europe. 
 
 A German scientist who has paid special attention to 
 trade diseases declares: "Numerous statistics have shown 
 that sickness, as well as the death rate, are very high 
 among brewers, maltsters, etc." Indeed, Westergaard 
 comes to the conclusion "that such high rates are otherwise 
 reached only where there are extraordinary conditions, 
 such as lead-poisoning and dust-inhalation."* 
 
 The special trade diseases of the brewery workmen are 
 rheumatic affections and diseases of the breathing organs. 
 Over one-fifth of all the sickness among brewery workmen 
 — to be exact, 21.69 per cent — consists according to Chajes 
 in rheumatism and weakening of the organs of locomotion. 
 One-sixth of all the sick brewers — precisely 16.33 per cent 
 — suffer from diseases of the breathing organs, tuberculosis, 
 etc. How much more prevalent are rheumatic diseases 
 among brewers than elsewhere is shown by the fact that 
 on the average only 15.5 per cent of all diseases are of a 
 rheumatic nature, while among brewers these constitute 
 21.69 per cent. 
 
 Dr. Chajes observes that in this calculation only those 
 cases were considered which were so serious as to compel 
 the victims to give up work. A large proportion of lighter 
 ailments, where those affected were able to continue work, 
 are not here taken into account. This does not apply to 
 the rheumatic cases merely. "A large part of the diseases," 
 says Chajes, "especially those of the heart, kidneys, and 
 
 *Dr. B. Chajes, "Die Krankheiten der Brauerei-Arbeiter ;" Ver- 
 lag von G. Fischer, Jena. 
 
256 Hygienic Conditions of the Brewery Workmen. 
 
 digestive organs, do not at first cause disability for work 
 and still are due to bad trade conditions." 
 
 Out of every 100 deaths among the members of the 
 Berlin beer-brewers' sick benefit society, 52.4 were caused 
 by diseases of the respiratory organs, of which 47.2 were 
 tuberculosis of the lungs. 
 
 In England, according to statistical tables, out of every 
 1,000 persons of the general population, 7.67 die between 
 the ages of 25 and 35 years ; among the brewers the pro- 
 portion is 10.83. Between 35 and 45 years there die among 
 each 1,000 of the general population 13.01 persons ; among 
 the brewers, 19.04. Between 45 and 55 years, the propor- 
 tion for the general population is 21.37; among the 
 brewers it is 30.79. Between 55 and 65 years, the pro- 
 portion is 30.01 among the general population ; 54.44 among 
 the brewers. 
 
 As against 1,000 deaths in the general population there 
 are 1,427 among the brewers. 
 
 An English physician, Tatham, says in regard to this 
 great death rate among the brewers : "The excessively high 
 mortality among the brewers is partly due to phthisis and 
 diseases of the respiratory system; from these diseases 
 518 die, as against 416 of the general population ; in addi- 
 tion to this brewers are affected to a high degree by 
 diseases of the digestive system and diseases of the urinary 
 system (including Bright's disease). This can be traced 
 to the influence of alcoholic beverages." 
 
 A German physician, Weihrauch, who considered con- 
 ditions in Munich more especially, as cited by Chajes, 
 traces the cause of death among the brewery workers in 
 36.4 per cent of the cases to tuberculosis and in 19.7 per 
 cent to diseases of the heart. 
 
 All this shows that the occupation of the brewer is not 
 exempt from special trade diseases. Like almost all wage 
 
, Accidents 257 
 
 earners, the brewer too has to pay for his work with early- 
 death and increased sufferings. 
 
 2. ACCIDENTS. 
 
 Besides trade diseases we have to consider the accidents 
 with which the workingmen meet as they earn their living, 
 and which as is well known not only impair their capacity 
 for work, but frequently make them entirely unfit for work 
 or even cause their death. 
 
 As for trade diseases, so for trade accidents, we have 
 to go to other countries for our statistics. It is true that 
 the Bureau of Labor in Washington some time ago pub- 
 lished some accident statistics ;. but these do not contain 
 anything on the subject now before us — that of trade 
 accidents among the brewers. 
 
 For the German Empire the following figures are given 
 for the year 1902 : 
 
 Out of "119,319 fully employed workingmen who were 
 insured in the brewers' and maltsters' trade societies, 1,418 
 met with accidents in that year. Out of every 1,000 
 brewery workmen, 11.9 were injured in the course of the 
 year ; and it must be noted that only those cases were con- 
 sidered which caused a disability for work for at least 
 thirteen weeks. The average of all trade associations 
 shows that out of every 1,000 workingmen, 9.2 meet with 
 accidents ; the brewery workers have 11.9. The number of 
 accidents in the breweries of Germany, therefore exceeds 
 by 29.4 per cent the average for all trades ; it must be noted 
 that in this average figure the most dangerous trades . 
 are included.* 
 
 Out of the 1,418 accidents in the year 1902, thirty-seven 
 caused permanent total disability to work, and 112 resulted 
 in death. 
 
 Dr. Weihrauch, who has already been mentioned, even 
 
 *Dr. B. Chajes, "Die Krankheiten der Brauerei-Arbeiter," p. 439. 
 
258 Hygienic Conditions of the Brewery Workmen. 
 
 traces 11.1 per cent of all deaths among brewery workers 
 in Munich to accidents. According to the calculations o£ 
 Chajes, 30.4 per cent of all the cases of sickness among 
 brewery workers in Berlin are due to accidents; but here 
 accidents occurring outside of the trade are reckoned in. 
 The actual number of all accidents among brewery workers 
 is naturally far greater. According to the report of the 
 brewers' and maltsters' trade society, the number of 
 insured workingmen in 1906 was 111,684 and in 1907 this 
 had decreased to 110,167. In spite of this the number of 
 accidents increased, probably on account of the higher 
 speeding of machinery. In the year 1906 there were 14,248 
 accidents, and in the following year 14,341. For every 
 1,000 insured brewery workers in 1907 there were on the 
 average 131 accidents. The highest accident rate is in 
 Berlin, with 187 to every 1,000 workingmen, and the lowest 
 in Strassburg, with 66 to every 1,000. 
 
 Considering the inadequacy of accident statistics in the 
 United States and the unreliability of the official figures, 
 it would be highly advisable for the United Brewery 
 Workmen to undertake the task of collecting statistics of 
 all accidents in breweries and bringing them before the 
 public. A general system of labor statistics conducted by 
 the labor unions would in most cases be preferable to the 
 official figures, which in our country are too frequently 
 distorted against the cause of the workers. 
 
 As in many other respects, so in this the brewery 
 workers' union could set a good example to the other 
 labor organizations. 
 
 3. CAUSES AND REMEDY. 
 
 What are the causes of the large prevalance of trade 
 diseases among the brewers, and what can be done to 
 remedy them? 
 
 Dr. B. Chajes, who has been quoted several times, says: 
 
Causes and Remedy. 259 
 
 ''As the two main causes of the trade diseases may be 
 mentioned the great variations in temperature to which 
 the workingmen are exposed and the use of alcohol." 
 
 The injury from the great variation in temperature is 
 apparent, when one considers that the temperature in the 
 brewhouse is from 15° to 20° Celsius, while in the cooling 
 rooms it is from 3° to 5°, and in the malt kiln rooms from 
 70° to 80° on the average. In addition to this, the air in 
 all these rooms contains a great deal of moisture, so that 
 at times it is like a hot-house. In the ante-rooms, even 
 the closing and opening of the doors causes a strong draft, 
 so that the maltster, particularly if he is overheated when 
 leaving the room, is exposed to great danger of taking 
 cold. Those workingmen who are employed for outside 
 work in connection with the breweries, such as the drivers, 
 etc., instead of being exposed to these changes of tempera- 
 ture, are exposed to all kinds of weather, and this has 
 injurious effects, as shown by the diseases of brewers' 
 helpers. 
 
 This opinion of Dr. Chajes is shared by an officer of 
 the brewers' trade society, who says in his report for 1907 : 
 
 "In small mixed establishments, that is, in such as do their own 
 malting as well as the brewing — there is a great danger to the health 
 of the workingmen employed, as they have to work in the kiln room 
 at a temperature of 40° to 60° and soon afterwards have to go into 
 the cellar or even work in the open so that they are exposed, partic- 
 ularly in winter, to a change in temperature of from 60° to 80°." 
 
 The second evil from which the brewery workers suffer 
 Chajes characterizes as the excessive use of alcohol. The 
 excessive drinking which the free beer system involves 
 in certain places is bound to be detrimental. According to 
 investigations made in Switzerland, the number of 
 accidents to brewers is considerably increased by the 
 excessive use of alcohol. 
 
 Compared with these evils — difference in temperature 
 
260 Hygienic Conditions of the Brewery Workmen, 
 
 and excessive use of alcohol — the deterioriation of the air 
 by carbonic acid, sulphuric acid, and other substances, 
 takes second place, especially as the workingmen are 
 less frequently exposed to these evils owing to technical 
 progress.* 
 
 Emanuel Wurm, the chemist and Socialist member 
 of the Reichstag, is inclined to think that the effects 
 ascribed to the use of alcohol are exaggerated. In his 
 speech on the use of alcohol at the Social-Democratic 
 Party Congress at Essen in 1907, he says in regard to 
 the brewery workmen: 
 
 "Furthermore, it is inaccurate to attribute the prevalence of 
 tuberculosis among the brewers solely to the use of alcohol. The 
 frequent changes of temperature to which the brewers are exposed 
 is the chief consideration, together with physical exhaustion due to 
 excessively long working hours in impure air laden with carbonic acid 
 and also to working overtime and night work. 
 
 "But when a workingman, poisoned with dust, heat, and vapor 
 and with over-exertion, can no longer use his body, neither is he in a 
 condition to perform any intellectual activity — to read a book or 
 newspaper, to listen to a lecture, or anjrthing of the sort — ^but he is 
 just able to drowse into the next day by the aid of alcohol, especially 
 if he can find no other center of sociability but the saloon, where the 
 selline of alcoholic drinks is a business."** 
 
 This, by the way, is a hint for those who reproach the 
 brewery workmen on account of their slight intellectual 
 activity. 
 
 What, then, is necessary from a medical point of view 
 in order to counteract the trade diseases of the brewery 
 workmen and to better their sanitary conditions ? 
 
 First of all a change in the matter of furnishing free 
 beer is required ; the physicians would like to see this con- 
 siderably reduced. In addition to this, it is necessary that 
 
 *Dr. B. Chajes, ibid 42. 
 
 **Emanuel Wurm, "Alkoholfrage und Socialdemokratie ;" Buch- 
 handlung Vorwarts, Berlin, 1908, p. 17. 
 
Free Beer. 261 
 
 the bodies of the brewers be strengthened by proper 
 arrangements in the breweries so that they may acquire 
 greater power of resisting disease. 
 
 Dr. Chajes, for instance, calls for the installation in all 
 breweries of adequate shower baths and douches in order to 
 make it possible for the workingmen "to strengthen their 
 resistance against colds, rheumatism, etc., by appropriate 
 care of the body." 
 
 He also would have leaflets posted and distributed 
 which would point out the danger of excessive beer drink- 
 ing and give instruction for the detection of disease in its 
 early stages and rules of conduct for such cases. 
 
 In Germany the brewery workers have succeeded here i 
 and there in having certain sanitary appliances provided in 
 the breweries ; especially baths, douches, etc., are beginning 
 to be introduced, as well as certain sanitary conveniences 
 such as water closets, clothes lockers, and also an oppor- 
 tunity is being given for the change of clothing. But here 
 in the United States conditions are still in most cases very 
 bad in the matter of sanitary appliances. Here a great 
 field still offers itself for the activity of the organization, 
 a field which deserves to be considered for the sake of the 
 well being of the brewery workmen. 
 
 4. FREE BEER. 
 
 "Free beer" has frequently been referred to, and the 
 discussion of this subject belongs here, for it cannot be 
 denied that the excessive use of beer is injurious. 
 
 Chajes, who has already been mentioned, says: "One 
 does not by any means have to be a total abstainer to 
 realize that the large amount of beer which is at the disposal 
 of every workmen employed in the beer industry is exceed- 
 ingly injurious. This allowance amounts in Northern 
 Germany to three of four liters a day and in several brew- 
 eries of Southern Germany it reaches as much as eight 
 
262 Hygienic Conditions of the Brewery Workmen. 
 
 liters a day. Moreover, the control in some breweries 
 is not very strict, and in reality the workmenvget as much 
 as they want." 
 
 Chajes recommends a stricter control of the free beer, 
 and suggests that every brewery workman be permitted 
 to take something else in place of the beer. According to 
 him, this could be arranged by having the worldngmen 
 receive money instead of the free beer, or checks, which 
 could be exchanged at the brewery canteen for vichy, 
 coffee, milk, etc. 
 
 The possibly increased expense to the brewery owners 
 would be worth while, "as they could keep their trained 
 workmen in their factories in a healthy condition for a 
 longer period and thus have an advantage after all." 
 
 Emanuel Wurm also, in his speech quoted above, ex- 
 presses an opinion on this question of free beer. He too 
 declares the free beer a nuisance, and points out in praise 
 of the German brewery workmen that they themselves 
 fight with all their energy against the free-beer system. 
 These workmen say: Give us better working conditions 
 and an increase in wages instead of the free beer. In some 
 of the breweries of Germany this has been carried into 
 effect. The workingmen there get beer checks which they 
 can use or not as they wish, and for the unused ones they 
 get money. A large part of the breweries, however, are 
 opposed to the abolition of the free-beer sytem ; the 
 brewery owners' trade society has even opposed the de- 
 mand of the German State Insurance Department for the 
 abolition of free beer, and with such success that the 
 Insurance Department no longer advocates the abolition 
 of free beer with its former energy.* 
 
 A memoir on "The Restriction of Free Drink," pubhshed 
 by the German brewers' and maltsters' trade society, de- 
 
 *Enmnuel Wurm ; ibid., p. 17. 
 
Free Beer. 263 
 
 scribes fully the Frankfurt system of free beer. According 
 to this' every workman receives a number of checks cor- 
 responding to the quantity of drink at his disposal ; these 
 checks bear a number and are good for half a liter each. 
 The checks change in color daily — yellow, white and red — 
 and have to be obtained daily in the morning. The checks 
 which have not been used for beer must be returned the 
 following morning, otherwise they are not redeemed. In 
 addition each workman is given a book, in which the num- 
 ber of unused checks is entered each time. The payment 
 in redemption of the unused checks takes place weekly, 
 along with the payment of wages. 
 
 This Frankfurt system has already spread widely. In 
 regard to its success the administration of a Berlin brewery 
 reports as follows: "Undesirable conditions, such as fre- 
 quent excessive use of alcohol and cases of drunkeness 
 and intemperance, have been entirely removed. The 
 regular and moderate consumption of beer on the part of 
 the workingmen is beneficial to their health, and in some 
 cases increases their capacity for work, but above all it 
 largely prevents the absolutely injurious use of whisky." 
 
 In some other places in Germany, free beer has been 
 entirely abolished. Thus, for instance, the scale established 
 by the Munich brewery workmen led to the "entire aboli- 
 tion of free beer, with a corresponding increase in wages." 
 
 The memoir points out that where the greatest quanti- 
 ties of free beer are allowed, the workmen clamor most 
 for its abolition. For where much free beer is permitted, 
 there wages are the lowest.* 
 
 *Emanuel Wurm; ibid., p. 45. 
 
CHAPTER X. 
 
 Achievements and Prospects. 
 
 1. CONDITION OF THE ORGANIZED BREWERY 
 WORKMEN. 
 
 AT the convention of the United Brewery Workmen 
 ^^held in 'New York in 1908, it was reported that the 
 number of brewery workmen brought together in the 
 organization had grown to 42,570. This imposing army 
 of labor was distributed into 373 local unions and 180 
 branches. The number of members of the organization 
 increased meanwhile to 45,233, which are distributed in 
 366 local unions and 187 branches. It may be mentioned 
 that among the branch organizations there are some com- 
 posed entirely of women, the members of which are 
 mostly employed in the bottled-beer industry. 
 
 The largest number of members in any one city is in 
 Greater New York. The number of brewery workmen 
 organized there is about 5,000, of whom 1,900 are brewers 
 properly so called, belonging to Local Unions No. 1, No. 
 59, and No. 69. The beer drivers and stablemen are 
 organized in Local Unions No. 23 and No. 24, and num- 
 ber about 1,960 men. Next come the bottled-beer workers 
 and bottled-beer drivers, who number about 900 in Local 
 Unions No. 343 and No. 347. Then follow the maltsters 
 and other auxiliary workers of the brewing industry, who 
 have weaker organizations. 
 
 The wages of the brewers proper, according to the 
 present contract, are from $16 to $18 a week, with a 
 working day of nine hours. The maltsters get $16 a 
 week and work nine and a half hours. Beer drivers and 
 stablemen have a ten-hour day and get from $15 to $18, 
 and the workmen in the bottled-beer industry have also a 
 ten-hour day and receive from $12 to $16 a week. 
 
Conditions of the Organised Brewery Workmen. 266 
 
 The brewery unions of New York had the nine-hour 
 day granted them in 1905, after long negotiations with 
 the brewery capitalists, but not without an interruption 
 of the negotiations, which at one time were entirely broken 
 off. On October 1, 1905, the nine-hour day went into 
 effect for the brewers proper in New York, and when 
 this contract expired in 1908, it was renewed for another 
 three years, also on the basis of a nine-hour day. 
 
 This settlement was a disappointment for many mem- 
 bers of Local Union No. 1 in New York. It had been 
 hoped that it would be possible to introduce into the 
 brewery industry of New York the eight-hour day, which 
 as we have seen was pretty generally prevalent in the 
 West. The failure of this hope gave rise to a rather 
 deep-seated dissatisfaction, which sought expression in 
 internal disputes. 
 
 In the neighboring city of Newark, N. J., where a 
 comparatively large brewing industry has developed, the 
 material conditions of the workingmen in the industry 
 are in the main the same as those prevailing in New York. 
 But the brewers there have succeeded in obtaining the 
 eight-hour day. The number of organized workingmen 
 in this industry in Newark is about 1,100, of whom 4B0 
 are in Local Union No. 2, 450 in the beer drivers' and 
 stablemen's union No. 148, and 180 in the union of bottled- 
 beer workers. The wages of the brewers are about the 
 same as those in New York ; the maltsters get $16 to $18, 
 the beer drivers and stablemen $13 to $19 a week with a 
 ten-hour day, and the bottled-beer workers receive $10 
 to $16, also working ten hours. 
 
 St. Louis and Milwaukee come next to New York in 
 respect to the number of members in the organization. In 
 each of these cities there are about 3,000 organized brew- 
 ery workmen, among whom the bottled-beer workers have 
 the strongest local unions. The bottled-beer workers- of 
 
266 Achievements and Prospects. 
 
 Milwaukee are organized in Local Union No. 213, with 
 1,240 members ; those of St. Louis in Local Union No. 
 187, with a membership of about 1,200. The brewers' 
 union proper in Milwaukee, Union No. 9, has 930 mem- 
 bers, and No. 6 in St. Louis has 790. The union of drivers 
 and stablemen in Milwaukee has 400 members and that 
 in St. Louis 650, and besides these there are the maltsters, 
 engineers, firemen, and yardmen. 
 
 In Milwaukee the eight-hour day has with slight ex- 
 ception been introduced into the entire brewing industry. 
 Only the beer drivers there work nine hours. In St. Louis 
 the brewers, engineers, and firemen have the eight-hour 
 day; the maltsters, bottled-beer workers, and yardmen 
 work nine hours, and the beer drivers and stablemen ten 
 hours a day. In Milwaukee the wages are from $14 to 
 $16 a week for brewers, $15.50 for maltsters, $14.50 to 
 $16.50 for beer drivers and stablemen, $8.40 to $16.50 for 
 bottled-beer workers, $16 to $18 for engineers and fire- 
 men, and $13.50 for yardmen. Wages in St. Louis do not 
 differ much from those in Milwaukee, but the engineers 
 and firemen there get from $15 to $25 a week. 
 
 Among the other important centers of the organization 
 Chicago, San Francisco and Cincinnati must be mentioned. 
 
 The local unions in Chicago have about 1,500 mem- 
 bers. This does not include the beer drivers and stable- 
 men, because in that city these do not belong to the 
 United Brewery Workmen, but to the organization of 
 teamsters. The number of brewers who belong to Local 
 Union No. 18 in Chicago is, in round numbers, 700, the 
 number in the maltsters' union 200, and in the bottled- 
 beer workers' union 620. The brewers of Chicago have 
 a workday of eight hours, the maltsters work eight to ten 
 hours, and the bottled-beer workers nine hours. The 
 wages for the brewers are $18, for' maltsters $16.50 to 
 $18, for the bottled-beer workers $12 to $13.50 a week. 
 
Conditions of the Organised Brewery Workmen. 267 
 
 San Francisco and Cincinnati have each about 1,200 
 organized brewery workers. Local Union No. 7 in San 
 Francisco has 425 members, the beer drivers' union 350, and 
 the union of bottled-beer workers 520. In Cincinnati, Local 
 Union No. 12 of the brewers has 480 members, the beer 
 drivers' union No. 175 has 470, and the bottled-beer workers' 
 union 260. In San Francisco the eight-hour day prevails 
 in the brewery industry except for the beer drivers, who 
 still have to work eleven hours a day — about the longest 
 hours of any members of the organization. In Cincinnati 
 the eight-hour day has been gained for the Whole brew- 
 ery industry, with the exception of the beer drivers, who 
 work eight and one-half hours. The wages in San Fran- 
 cisco are $21 and $24 a week for the brewers, $20 to $25 
 for the beer drivers, and $13.50 to $16.50 for the bottled- 
 beer workers. These are the highest wages paid to any 
 members of United Brewery Workmen, but the high cost 
 of living on the Pacific Coast must be taken into con- 
 sideration. Cincinnati has comparatively low wages. 
 There the brewers receive $15 to $16 a week, the beer 
 drivers $13 to $15.50, and the bottled-beer workers 
 $11.50 to $15. 
 
 Taking all in all, the men in the brewery industry with 
 their hard work cannot lead a heavenly existence. Yet 
 what a difference compared with the times before the or- 
 ganization, when the eighteen hour day was rather the 
 rule than the exception, when Sunday work was a fixed 
 institution, and a wage of $40 to $60 a month prevailed. 
 
 Thanks to the organization, the brewery workers have 
 won for themselves a position which compares favorably 
 as far as working conditions are concerned with that of 
 any other branch of industry. But the tremendous advan- 
 tages which the brewery workmen have gained through 
 their labor organization are more striking than in other 
 trades, because of the great difference which existed a 
 
268 Achievements and Prospects. 
 
 quarter of a century ago between the condition of the 
 brewery workmen and the average condition of the whole 
 working class. At that time the condition of the work- 
 men in the breweries was very far below the average of 
 general labor conditions. Indeed, they were not, properly 
 speaking, industrial workers, who to a certain degree can 
 dispose of themselves. They were serfs rather than wage- 
 workers. Through hard struggles which have extended 
 over long years, they have had to win for themselves a 
 material existence which, although it still leaves much 
 to be desired, has become equal to that of the general 
 labor world. 
 
 The International Union of United Brewery Work- 
 men has accomplished a work of civilization, has raised 
 tens of thousands of serfs to the status of men. No other 
 union furnishes so instructive an example of what organi- 
 zation can do, what the labor movement accomplishes, 
 as does the activity of the United Brewery Workmen. 
 
 And in elevating their material condition, the organi- 
 zation has also raised the workingmen of the brewery 
 industry intellectually. 
 
 Not that much could not yet be improved in this re- 
 spect. The fact is that the brewery workers of today are 
 entirely different from those of twenty-five years ago. It 
 is true that even today very frequently in the meetings 
 and other assemblies of brewery workers a rough, uncouth 
 tone prevails and that they try to settle their disputes in 
 a language which is not the language of average society. 
 But compared with the language, manners and attitude 
 which prevailed in the same circles a quarter of a century 
 ago, the tremendous progress is evident which organiza- 
 tion has brought about in this respect also. The heavy 
 drinking of former times is considerably checked. Par- 
 liamentary order is to be found at every meeting, where 
 in the beginning absolute incompetence and lack of judg- 
 
Conditions of the Organised Brewery Workmen. 269 
 
 merit prevailed. The intelligence of a large number of 
 the brewery workers has been awakened by the organi- 
 zation, so that now thy can themselves fill all their offices 
 and committees, which formerly they too often had to 
 entrust to declassed "intellectuals," who as a rule proved 
 unreliable and abused the confidence placed in them. And 
 many of the brewery workmen, even if not so many as 
 could be wished, have used the leisure gained by the 
 shortening of the workday to continue their intellectual 
 education, to study the problems of the labor movement, 
 and have devoted themselves to the more far-reaching 
 principles of the struggle for the emancipation of the 
 working class. They have learned that the labor-union 
 movement, much as it is able to accomplish, as shown 
 by the organization of the brewery workers, yet cannot 
 alone raise the working class out of the slavery in which 
 it now lives. They have become Socialists and their in- 
 fluence upon their union has been great enough to put it 
 at the head of the American labor movement in the exer- 
 cise of that most purely proletarian virtue, solidarity on 
 behalf of the comrades of their class, and in other ways 
 they have acted in a progressive spirit. 
 
 If not all members of the organization have taken part 
 in this forward development, if there is still a large num- 
 ber of organized brewery workmen who lack a clear under- 
 standing of the larger aims of the labor movement, who 
 will not realize that the great advantages which the labor 
 union has brought them' can be maintained and carried 
 on only if the labor movement is extended beyond the 
 trade-union field, if the labor union movement is supple- 
 mented by the general Socialist movement — if, as we 
 have said, not all members of the organization have be- 
 come convinced of this, the fault does not lie with the 
 "Brauer-Zdtung," the organ of the United Brewery Workmen. , 
 
 The "Brauer-Zeitung" has been one of the few craft 
 
270 Achievements and Prospects. 
 
 journals in the United States which have never forgotten 
 to emphasize that the independent political movement of 
 the working class is at least as important as the trade 
 organization. It has always been a fighting organ, no 
 matter who conducted the editorial department, and not 
 merely in the field of unionism, but also politically, and 
 has always propagated socialistic ideas in its columns. 
 
 That it has not achieved greater success, is surely 
 not its fault. It may be that the hard toil of the brewery 
 workman makes it difficult for him to develop intellectual 
 alertness, makes it difficult to arouse his interest in any- 
 thing which is not directly related to his every-day affairs. 
 It is also possible that his union journal and its contents 
 do not get the attention they deserve because he gets it 
 without paying for it directly. But whatever the reason, 
 here is a field to which the administration of the union 
 ought to give its attention. If it succeeds in making the 
 mass of the members of its organization into conscious 
 fighters in the class struggle it acquires irresistible force. 
 Only then will the achievements of the last twenty-five 
 years be made certain. The task is a difficult one. It 
 requires long and patient work. Nevertheless, it must 
 be performed. 
 
 2. POSSIBILITIES OF EXPANSION OF THE 
 ORGANIZATION. 
 
 The expansion of the International Union of United 
 Brewery Workmen is, of course, limited by the number 
 of workmen who are employed in the industry. It can 
 be enlarged if the organization is extended into related 
 branches of trade or if it is extended to the North and 
 the South beyond the boundaries of this country and in- 
 cludes Canada and Mexico in its field of organization. 
 
 In Canada this has already been done and there are 
 a number of local unions on British- American territory. 
 
Possibilities of Expansion of the Organization. 271 
 
 Attention has early been directed to the extension of the 
 organization into related trade branches. As has already- 
 been pointed out, the bottled-beer workers have for sev- 
 eral years formed a considerable fraction of the United 
 Brewery Workmen, and lately the organization has also 
 been extended to the distilleries of the country. As for 
 this latter step, its practical value for the organization 
 has yet to be proved. 
 
 Of more importance, of course, than the extension into 
 related industries and neighboring countries is, for the 
 present, the drawing into the organization of all the brew- 
 ery workers of this country, so that it may include all 
 workers who are employed in the beer breweries and in 
 connection with them. 
 
 The number of these workers can be approximately, 
 although not quite definitely stated. The official census 
 reports furnish some data, but the figures given there 
 appear too low, if only for the reason that they give only 
 the average number of workmen employed. Those work- 
 men who are not employed, the so-called industrial reserve 
 army, is therefore not included in the census figures. In 
 reality, therefore, the number of brewery workers in the 
 United States is greater than that given by the census. 
 In addition to this, the figures of the census leave much 
 to be desired; but at any rate they give some idea as to 
 the progress of the industry in question. 
 
 The total number of all wage-workers in the United 
 States who were employed in making beverages of all 
 kinds was 55,392 in 1900. Five years later, in 1905, this 
 number had grown to 68,340; it had increased in this 
 short space of time by 13,000. In these figures are in- 
 cluded the brewers, maltsters, distillery workmen, wine 
 workers, and workers in mineral water and soda water 
 factories. The bottled-beer workers in independent con- 
 cerns are not included, but they have to be taken into 
 
272 Achievements and Prospects. 
 
 consideration because they belong to the United Brewery 
 Workmen. 
 
 The number of workingmen in the mineral water fac- 
 tories was 8,985 in 1900, and by 1905 it had grown to 
 10,879. The workers in the wine industry play an in- 
 ferior role; they numbered 1,193 in 1900 and 1,913 in 
 1905. These two categories can here be disregarded, as 
 for the present they have nothing to do with the brewery 
 workers' organization, although they no doubt represent 
 related trades. 
 
 For the year 1900 the census gives the number of 
 workers employed in the breweries as 39,532; by 1905 
 this number had grown to 48,139. This includes workers 
 of all kinds employed in the brewery establishments — ^that 
 is, it includes also maltsters and bottled-beer workers in 
 so far as these are not employed in independent concerns, 
 malteries, bottling houses, etc. In 1900 there were said 
 to be 504 women and 643 children employed in the brew- 
 eries, and the figures for 1905 give 643 women and 510 
 children. Since then the employment of women has in- 
 creased, on account of the considerable increase in the 
 bottled-beer industry, which is constantly growing in 
 the breweries. 
 
 The number of workers employed in independent 
 malteries in 1900 was 1,990, and in 1905 it was 2,054. 
 
 In the distilleries in 1905 there were 5,355 wage- 
 workers employed in 805 establishments, among whom 
 there were 270 women and seventeen children. 
 
 In regard to the bottled-beer industry, it must be 
 mentioned that the census for th« year 1900 gives 7,680 
 workers, distributed over 2,064 establishments. For the 
 year 1905 there are no figures given in the census report 
 as to the number of workers employed' in this industry, 
 but it is stated that the number of establishments had 
 increased by 641 — 11.2 per cent — while the production 
 
Possibilities of Expansion of the Organization. 273 
 
 had increased by 30.9 per cent. We cannot be far wrong, 
 therefore, if we assume that the number of workers in 
 the independent bottled-beer establishments, who are to be 
 considered in connection with the organization of United 
 Brewery Workmen, was at least nine or ten thousand 
 in 1905. 
 
 According to this there would be — including brewers, 
 maltsters, bottled-beer workers, and distillery workers — 
 in round numbers, 65,000 persons, which number must 
 have increased by the present time — counting in the re- 
 serve army of the unemployed (not reckoned above) and 
 the increase of the workers employed since 1905 — to at 
 least 75,000. Still a wide field for the work of organiza- 
 tion of the United Brewery Workmen. 
 
 There is yet another category of employees in the 
 brewery establishments which must be mentioned here, 
 although they are hardly to be considered in connection 
 with organization work of the International Union. This 
 is the army of office workers, foremen, superintendents, 
 salesmen, etc., which has increased tremendously in al- 
 most all industries in the last few decades. 
 
 In 1900 there were in the brewery industry 7,153 such 
 officials, and by 1905 this number had grown to 9,055. 
 During the same period the number of brewery workmen 
 grew from 39,532 to 48,139. The total amount of salaries 
 paid during the year 1900 to these brewery officials was 
 $13,046,540; in 1905 it was $19,315,707— an increase of 
 $6,269,167. The wages paid during the year 1900 to all 
 the brewery workmen amounted, according to the census 
 statistics, to $25,826,211, and in the year 1905 to $34,- 
 542,897— an increase of $8,716,686. While, then, the 
 officials with an increase in number of only 1,902 showed 
 an increase in salaries of $6,269,167, the wage-workers in 
 the brewery industry, with an increase in their number 
 
274" Achievements and Prospects. 
 
 of 8,607, showed an increase in wages of only $8,716,686. 
 Something to compare! 
 
 According to the census statistics, which are, how- 
 ever, far too high, because it is assumed that the worker 
 is employed every working day during the year — which, 
 of course, is not the case, as unemployment, sickness, 
 etc., play an important part in the workingman's life — 
 according to these statistics the average yearly wage of 
 the workers in the breweries was $653 in 1900, and $717 
 in 1905. The average salary of the officials in the same 
 industry amounted for the year 1900 to $1,823 ; in 1905, 
 to $1,912. The salaries of the officials, as a rule, are paid 
 for the entire year; for the workingmen the days of un- 
 employment or inability to work must be considered, as 
 they are usually not paid. 
 
 It may be pointed out in addition, that the average 
 wage of the maltsters, as given in the census for 1905, 
 was on the average $710. 
 
 The situation of the distillery workers is far worse. 
 These received during 1905 an average yearly wage of 
 only $496 ; that is not quite ten dollars per week. 
 
 And the reason for this? Well, the brewery workers 
 and maltsters have been organized for years ; the organi- 
 zation of the distillery workers has just begun. Hence a 
 difference in wages amounting to more than four dollars 
 a week. 
 
 This ought to stimulate thought! 
 
 3. THE NEED FOR ENLIGHTENMENT. 
 
 The history of the organization of the brewery work- 
 ers of America would not be complete, many of the 
 phenomena of this history would not be made clear, if 
 we did not mention one point which is of even greater 
 importance for the future of the organization than for 
 its past. 
 
The Need for Enlightenment. 276 
 
 To everyone who knows the organization of the brew- 
 ery workers, it is clear that a large part of its members 
 have joined not from any inner impulse, but because of 
 pressure from without. "Obeying the call of need, not an 
 inner impulse" ("Der Not gehorchend, nicht dem eigenen 
 Triebe") a considerable number of brewery workers were 
 driven into the union of their industry. And very often 
 indeed it was the brewery owner who compelled his work- 
 men to join the union of their craft. 
 
 The brewery owner certainly did not do this out of 
 love for the organization of the workmen of his industry. 
 On the contrary, as a rule he hated the union with all his 
 heart. But he also acted under the influence of pressure 
 from without. The nature of the brewing industry and 
 the consumption of its product by the masses of the popu- 
 lation brings it about that in the struggles of the brewery 
 workers with brewery capitalists, the decision rests far 
 less with the brewery workmen themselves than with the 
 attitude of the mass of the working people. If these 
 masses, because of a feeling of solidarity with the strug- 
 gling workers, refuse to buy the product of the brewery 
 in question, then as a rule there is nothing left for the 
 owner, even if his plant is well supplied with workmen, 
 but to force the men in his employ to join the union ; 
 he is compelled to strengthen his own enemy. There are 
 numerous cases where the workers were thus forced by 
 the brewery owners to join the union. Indeed, at the 
 beginning of organization, it even happened that workers 
 were disciplined by the brewery capitalists because they 
 did not obey the order to join the union. 
 
 This compulsion by which numerous workingmen 
 were driven into their union is the weak point of the 
 brewery workers' organization of this country. How 
 many members of the United Brewery Workmen would 
 be members, if they were not exposed to this compulsion 
 
276 Achievements and Prospects. 
 
 and if the brewery owner did not fear a boycott against 
 his product on the part of the general labor movement? 
 And it is well known how the ruling class, especially in 
 America, is fighting tooth and nail to take the weapon of 
 the boycott out of the hands of the workers. 
 
 It is an exceedingly important question for the organi- 
 zation to make the brewery workers members, not be- 
 cause there is a pressure from without, not because the 
 capitalist is forced to become a union brewer, but from 
 a realization by the workman himself of the fact that the 
 union is a necessity and that it is in his own interest to 
 belong to it under any circumstances, whether his em- 
 ployer wishes it or not — indeed, especially against the 
 employer's will. 
 
 In regard to this question, as well as to the aims and 
 principles of the general labor movement, clear ideas have 
 to be established within the brewery workers' organiza- 
 tion. The union must establish such a state of affairs 
 that it can be sure of each of its members under any cir- 
 cumstances, and not by means of outward pressure, but 
 because of a clear understanding. 
 
 And to attain this end a systematic work of enlighten- 
 ment is necessary, which can best be done by agitators 
 and lecturers who make this kind of work their specialty. 
 This may involve expense, but it will be worth while if 
 it is successful in making the mass of the members think 
 and if it causes them to read their own union organ and 
 the labor press in general. 
 
 Moreover, the future of the brewery workers' organi- 
 zation depends upon the further extension of the indus- 
 trial form of organization and its connection with the 
 most progressive part of the labor movement. The at- 
 tempt has already been made to get into closer connection 
 with the other unions of the food trades, for the present 
 without result. These attempts ought to be repeated. 
 
The Need for Enlightenment. 277 
 
 The political organization of the working class, the So- 
 cialist movement, must be supported and promoted by 
 the brewery workers -ivith all their might in the interest 
 of their own organization and in the interest of the final 
 goal of the entire labor movement, the annihilation of 
 wage slavery, the ending of class rule. The brewery 
 worker must raise himself to the recognition of the fact 
 that his struggle is only a part of that general struggle 
 which is waged by the working class of all countries 
 and which has as its aim the complete emancipation of 
 labor. He must realize that this general struggle is his 
 struggle also, that it must end in victory if the prole- 
 tarians are not forever to remain proletarians. 
 
PART III. 
 
 Obstacles to the Development of the 
 Brewing Industry. 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 Prohibition and Sunday Closing. 
 1. THE PURITANS. 
 
 WITH the history of the brewing industry in the 
 United States and the record of the struggles of 
 the brewery workers in this country, is intimately con- 
 nected a movement which in many respects affects the 
 development of that industry and of those struggles, and 
 which therefore cannot be left out of account in this work. 
 This movement, which is in part directed against the 
 abuse of alcoholic drinks, is the temperance and prohibi- 
 tion movement and the attempt to maintain and enforce 
 a legal regulation of the observance of Sunday, in opposi- 
 tion to the needs created by modern development. 
 
 In order to understand the origin of this movement it 
 is necessary to turn our eyes to the population which 
 first settled the Northern portion of the United States, 
 and to acquaint ourselves with their point of view and 
 their customs and thus to explain the laws which they 
 not only made for themselves, but which they also later 
 imposed upon many other states of the Union through 
 the influence which they exercised in the further settle- 
 ment of this country. 
 
 The Puritans who, beginning in 1620, settled the New 
 England States, came from England, where they had 
 formed the Protestant opposition against the State Church 
 which had been established there by the Reformation. 
 The Puritans were not a single definite sect, but repre- 
 sented a general tendency to carry further the opposition 
 to the Catholic Church and "papistry," holding that the 
 English state church still retained too much of the Roman 
 customs and institutions, and seeking to clear and purify 
 
282 Prohibition and Sunday Closing. 
 
 religion from all traces of the pompous Roman Catholic 
 ritual. Hand in hand with this purification of religion 
 went the purification of their own ways of life. The ele- 
 ment of joy in life which appeared here and there in the 
 service of the Catholic church was almost entirely ex- 
 cluded from their religion, and as this religion completely 
 dominated their public life, it was also banished from the 
 lives of the Puritans. Their gloomy religion gave them 
 also a gloomy view of life, which destroyed everything 
 beautiful, joyous, and glad. 
 
 In contrast to the Southern colonies, where conditions 
 of soil and climate as well as the origin of the colonists 
 led to the existence of large landed property, to the plan- 
 tation system, small property prevailed in New England. 
 This forced the people to mutual dependence and led to 
 more combined activities than was the case in regions 
 where large property prevailed, where the plantation 
 formed an economic unit in itself. Townships formed 
 themselves in New England, in which the "meeting" be- 
 came the expression of the religious and family life and 
 in which a representative democratic "town meeting" 
 regulated public affairs. The original townships of New 
 England governed themselves. 
 
 The town meetings, however, were completely domi- 
 nated by the leading personages of the religious "meeting." 
 Religion and the regulation and discharge of public func- 
 tions were intimately connected. Attendance at church 
 service was compulsory, and — at least such was the case 
 in Massachusetts and Connecticut — no one could vote 
 who was not a member of the church. 
 
 The preachers and pastors who gave the tone to the 
 church meeting also played the most important part in 
 the town meeting. The town levied taxes for the main- 
 tenance of the church and the payment of the preachers. 
 Considering the religious views of the settlers, it was 
 
The Puritans. 283 
 
 inevitable that "the meeting" — ^that is, the church meet- 
 ing — should entirely rule the public and social life of the 
 community and determine the direction in which it was 
 to develop. 
 
 The whole public life of the New England colonies 
 was influenced by the teachings of the Bible — or rather, 
 by the interpretation given to those teachings by the 
 pastors and elders of the church. Religious conceptions 
 dominated the decrees of the town meetings, the decisions 
 of judges, and general legislation. The church life was 
 the main thing, although they managed very well to co- 
 ordinate it with the possessions of the goods of this 
 world. Gaiety and cheerfulness were suppressed as far 
 as possible and every effort was made to transfer the 
 gloomy view of puritanical religion into the private life 
 of the people. All private and public activity was regu- 
 lated by law and decree in accordance with religious con- 
 ceptions. A fine of five shillings was imposed upon any- 
 one who did not go to church, who used an oath, or who 
 laughed during church service. In Plymouth it was en- 
 acted that no unmarried single man might live alone. 
 Even married persons were warned against "improper 
 conduct" at night. Single women or women whose hus- 
 bands were away from home were not permitted to have 
 men lodgers, on account of the "temptation to sin." Med- 
 dlers who carried gossip from house to house were pun- 
 ished with heavy fines. Even as late as 1750 the General 
 Court of Massachusetts prohibited all theatrical enter- 
 tainments. The first theater in Boston was opened in 
 1794, and in Maine no dancing schools were permitted 
 until 1798. 
 
 In Connecticut, where the "Blue Laws" — the religious- 
 social laws of early colonial times — remained in force 
 longer than elsewhere, it was forbidden to give food or 
 lodging to an unbeliever, a Quaker, or other heretic. 
 
284 Prohibition and Sunday Closing. 
 
 Anyone who brought cards into the colony had to pay a 
 fine of five pounds. The use of tobacco was forbidden 
 or regulated by numberless decrees. No one under twenty- 
 one years of age was permitted to use tobacco without a 
 doctor's certificate. According to another regulation, no 
 one was allowed to indulge in the use of tobacco unless 
 he was on a journey of at least ten miles. Games of all 
 kinds — bowling, for instance — were prohibited. Plymouth 
 forbade men and women to dance together, and Massa- 
 chusetts forbade dancing at weddings, which were held in 
 taverns.* It may be mentioned in passing that there were 
 ordinances to regulate dress — ^which, by the way, accen- 
 tuated differences in social standing. The Puritans were, 
 by the way, not the only ones who had these ordinances. 
 
 The reader will see that the Puritans sought to regu- 
 late every detail not only of the social life, but also the 
 entire private life of individuals, by laws and decrees 
 which all had their root in gloomy religious traditions. 
 The people were so subject to these religious influences 
 that the compulsory laws were really unnecessary for 
 carrying out the effect of the "meeting house," which domi- 
 nated every detail of life. Even the provision of school 
 instruction was furthered by religious motives. As the 
 whole of life was based on the Bible and its interpreta- 
 tion, it was necessary that everyone should be able to 
 read and understand "the Scriptures," and therefore every- 
 one had to have a certain amount of school training,** 
 and this accounts for a certain promotion of the school 
 system just in the most fanatically religious colonies of 
 New England. 
 
 The religious compulsory laws which emanated from 
 
 * William B. Weeden, Economic and Social History of New 
 England. Boston and New York. P. 223, etc. 
 
 ** Frank Tracy Carlton, Economic Influences upon Educational 
 Progress. Madison, Wis., 1908. P. 13. 
 
The Puritans. 285 
 
 the "meeting house," and which were confirmed and en- 
 forced by the town meeting, showed also in other respects 
 a spirit of tyranny and of the dominance of the spiritual 
 and worldly leaders of the community, so that "democ- 
 racy" was not very strong in the community. All men 
 were declared free and equal and in possession of. their 
 "natural" rights to life, liberty, and happiness. But in 
 spite of these well-sounding phrases, men who could not 
 pay their debts were thrown into prison, and the right to. 
 vote was by no means extended to all the adult males of 
 the community. Intolerable restrictions burdened the life 
 of the ordinary man. The qualification to vote did not 
 consist in being a man, but in tax-receipts, church mem- 
 bership, and a white skin. The man without land could 
 not be trusted. The man without piety could have no 
 political power.* 
 
 The rule of preachers and pastors, elders and magis- 
 trates was particularly oppressive for the workingmen 
 and servants. There was a scarcity of laborers and me- 
 chanics, and as a rule they were bound by some compul- 
 sory contract to their masters. The workingmen stood 
 very low in the social scale and were despised. Servants 
 were ill-treated. Disobedience and breach of contract was 
 punished with whippings, imprisonment, and fines. The 
 different colonies mutually agreed to return runaway 
 servants. The lack of workers finally led to Negro and 
 Indian slavery, even in pious New England. , 
 
 Like all ruling classes, the Puritan colonists had a real 
 abhorrence of high wages — that is, if they had to pay 
 them. The "court" decided what the wage was to be. 
 Originally it was two shillings a day for artisans. In the 
 beginning both parties were legally punished if higher 
 wages than those prescribed- were paid. Later a law was 
 passed in Massachusetts according to which only he who 
 
 * Carlton, Ibid., p. 10. 
 
286 Prohibition and Sunday Closing. 
 
 received higher wages — that is, the workingman — was to 
 be fined ten shillings. 
 
 In 1645 a law was enacted, also in Massachusetts, 
 according to which workingmen might not be required 
 to accept their wages in the form of wine ; later this law 
 was made more strict and the payment of wages in wine 
 was entirely forbidden. The preamble to this law did 
 not state that it was an injustice to pay workmen other- 
 wise than in current coin, or that drunkenness would be 
 promoted by this custom — although this was incidentally 
 mentioned — ^but the reason given was that "the pressure 
 of extraordinarily high wages would be heightened by 
 this custom." Because laborers were scarce, they were 
 everywhere driven to work. Tavern-keepers were for- 
 bidden to install games in their places, because "valuable 
 time would thus be wasted." And in the year 1675 
 constables were employed who had to see that there 
 was no one in any house or family "who spent his time 
 in idleness." 
 
 In this social environment, thoroughly impregnated 
 with biblical and religious vapors, those laws, ordinances, 
 and customs came into being which throughout almost 
 the entire Union have made the American Sunday un- 
 pleasant for so many, and which have not even been 
 removed today, after centuries of struggle. 
 
 2. THE SALOON AND SUNDAY LEGISLATION. 
 
 It is evident that in a society where religious views 
 dominated the public and private life as they did in the 
 colonies of New England, special emphasis would be laid 
 upon the observance of "the Lord's Day," or Sunday. 
 
 In fact, innumerable enactments and decrees were at 
 that time issued in New England in order to enforce the 
 holiness of the Sabbath, and a large part of the laws in 
 regard to Sunday observance which are still in force were 
 
The Saloon and Sunday Legislation. 287 
 
 established in that period. Indeed, many of the most 
 rigorous of these old laws are still to be found in our 
 statute books; while in general no one ventures to call 
 them into action, yet they still have the force of. law and 
 may occasionally be used by some fanatical judge. 
 
 The religious sense of the community during colonial 
 times, of course, forbade any business to be transacted 
 on Sunday — for example, no ship was permitted to leave 
 port on that day. But beyond this, there were regulations 
 which today seem so ridiculous as to be almost incredible ; 
 and yet many of them are still laws in some parts of 
 the country. 
 
 In Connecticut no one was allowed to run or walk 
 around on Sunday, not even in his own garden. Only 
 upon one route might anyone travel, and that was to 
 church or "meeting house" and back. In Providence a 
 man was fined twenty shillings as late as 1715 because he 
 had gone out riding on a Sunday. In 1760 a number of 
 young men and girls were brought into court because 
 they had assembled on Sunday, "the Lord's Day," and 
 had walked on the street together, without this exercise 
 serving any religious purpose. One was not permitted to 
 travel on a Sunday, to cook vegetables or make the beds, 
 to sweep the house, cut the hair or shave. No woman 
 was permitted to kiss her child on the Sabbath, to say 
 nothing of kissing her husband. This prohibition has 
 legal force in Connecticut even today. In October, 1908, 
 in the city of Waterbury, a man was brought before the 
 court because he had kissed his wife in public on a Sun- 
 day. The judge had the good taste not to bring forth 
 the law against kissing on Sundays to sanction him in 
 punishing the man, but he fined him twenty dollars for 
 "disorderly conduct." 
 
 The Sunday laws are closely connected with the laws 
 against the drinking and the sale of alcoholic beverages. 
 
288 Prohibition and Sunday Closing. ' 
 
 In part the sale of these beverages was entirely forbidden, 
 partly it was permitted under special conditions, generally 
 under a special license. The drinking of healths was for- 
 bidden, and the Massachusetts law against this practice 
 was not repealed until 1645. In 1647 Connecticut as well 
 as Rhode Island issued ordinances to regulate the sale of 
 alcoholic drinks. As often as attempts were made in the 
 early times to forbid the sale of intoxicating liquors 
 altogether, these attempts always failed. Their failure 
 was inevitable, because economic reasons compelled the 
 colonists and their religious leaders to sacrifice their 
 religious scruples did they not want to injure the colo- 
 nies economically. 
 
 The colonies were compelled to exchange their respec- 
 tive products with each other. Soon after the founding 
 of the colonies a lively communication then ensued by 
 horse and wagon for the conduct of business. The Indian 
 footpaths were transformed into roads. Lodgings had to 
 be provided for the travelers who frequented these roads. 
 Thus inns, hotels, and taverns became an economic 
 necessity. 
 
 Permission to keep an inn always had to be sought 
 from the town meeting, which was entirely dominated 
 by the church elders and preachers. Nevertheless, they 
 were forced to grant permits for the establishment of 
 inns. Under the pressure of necessity, Rhode Island re- 
 pealed its former license law in 1654 and instructed each 
 community to pick out one or two houses in which trav- 
 elers could be . served. Legislation and public opinion, 
 which were entirely dependent on and influenced by the 
 clergy and the prevailing religious views, made the exist- 
 ence of the inns and the drinking customs connected with 
 them a difficult one. But the necessities of public life 
 developed the inns and taverns and drove them to strug- 
 gle against the legislation and the tendencies in the town 
 
The Saloon and Sunday Legislation. 289 
 
 meetings dictated by the clergy. Taverns and inns be- 
 came a social 'institution, whose functions can easily be 
 understood if one considers that there were no railroads 
 and that all traffic — extending from New England by way 
 of New Amsterdam (New York) as far as Virginia — 
 had to be conducted by horse and wagon. 
 
 In the beginning if a traveler wanted something to 
 drink in any inn in Massachusetts, he could not be served, 
 for the General Court had prohibited the serving of liquor 
 and saw to it very sharply that only such persons as ob- 
 served the law were granted permits as innkeepers. If a 
 traveler wanted to vary the monotony of his plain meals 
 during his trip and ordered some cake or a bun, that was 
 again not a simple matter, for the town court had for- 
 bidden indulgence in such articles of luxury except at 
 weddings and funerals. The brewers were not permitted 
 to sell in the inns any beer that was stronger than eight 
 shillings a barrel. On the other hand, innkeepers 'were 
 commanded to serve as plain meals as were ordered and 
 not force "poor people" to have dishes which cost twelve 
 pence and more.* 
 
 In spite of the opposition of the clergy and the church 
 elders, even two decades after the arrival of the Pilgrim 
 Fathers there were inns all over New England. 
 
 In 1637 John Holgrave erected an inn in Salem, "in 
 response to the urgent demand of the community," for 
 the purpose of sheltering strangers. 
 
 In the same year Dorchester and Newbury got their 
 first inns. In the following year similar houses were 
 established in Charlestown and Duxbury. Rhode Island 
 also got its first inn in Portsmouth in 1638, which was 
 at the same time a brewery and a grocery store. In 1641 
 inns were established in Roxbury, Lynn, and Ipswich. 
 
 To what an extent inns were an economic necessity 
 
 ^Weeden, Ibid., pp. 112, 113. 
 
290 Prohibition and Sunday Closing. 
 
 can be seen from the fact that in 1642 the Hollanders 
 built a large stone inn on the East River in New Amster- 
 dam for the special use of "the numerous strangers who 
 passed through New Amsterdam on their way from New 
 England to Virginia." 
 
 The growing traffic between the dififerent settlements 
 and colonies necessitated the extension of the system of 
 roads and thereby created a further need for the erection 
 of inns to shelter and feed travelers. A law which had 
 been passed in Massachusetts in 1637 and which strictly 
 forbade the serving of spirituous drinks, could not be 
 enforced in the face of the growing traffic and its require- 
 ments, and in the very next year it was found necessary 
 to grant licenses for that purpose. At that time especially 
 licenses began to be granted for the serving of wine, which 
 then began to be imported from Madeira. But there was 
 also such a thing as the withdrawal of licenses, as John 
 Charles, of New Haven, found out, whose wine license 
 was taken away because there was much "disorder" in 
 his tavern. 
 
 The antagonism which the town meeting, under the 
 control of the church, showed to the inns and taverns 
 and the annoyance caused them and their customers by 
 supervision of all kinds, which was carried out with 
 religious fervor, naturally heightened the already exist- 
 ing opposition between the meeting on the one hand and 
 the tavern interests on the other. The travelers who 
 frequented the inns, by reason of their intercourse and 
 business interests outgrew the narrow views of the meet- 
 ing house and on account of their material interests began 
 to look upon the strict religious regulations with a certain 
 disdain. , In addition to this those elements of the popula- 
 tion who on account of some rebellious tendencies did 
 not feel quite at home in the meeting house, or had per- 
 haps been excluded from the communion of the pious 
 
The Saloon and Sunday Legislation. 291 
 
 on account of some of the many things which were looked 
 upon as sins, found their refuge in the inn. Here at least 
 one could escape a little from the narrow restrictions which 
 encircled the social life of this extremely religious com- 
 munity. Here one could get news from distant parts 
 which the travelers brought with them — almost the only 
 kind of information obtainable in that time before the 
 advent of the newspaper. The innkeeper came to have 
 an important position in public life. He was an influential 
 man. The common-room of the inn gradually developed 
 into a center not only of the social, but also of the political 
 life, in whose atmosphere also that gaiety and joy of life 
 could be freely expanded which were systematically sup- 
 pressed in the meeting house and the town meeting. The 
 inn and its owner came to be the center of opposition 
 against a legislation and a social sentiment which sought 
 to banish all mirth from the life of the people. The strug- 
 gle began between tavern and legislation. It has con- 
 tinued ever since, and is not yet at an end. 
 
 The preachers and the religious element of the com- 
 munity naturally saw in the tavern — and rightly, too, 
 from their point of view — an institution which must be 
 fought with all their power. There those people assem- 
 bled who did not want to submit to their influence, or 
 whom they had even expelled from their midst. The in- 
 terests of the host, and therefore also his opinions, were 
 on the side of his customers, and he naturally met at- 
 tempts at restricting his trade both by personal and col- 
 lective resistance. 
 
 The restricting decrees and the supervising activity of 
 the representatives of the dominant element resulted in 
 the opposition between the tavern and the public power 
 being dragged on for a couple of centuries, down to our 
 own times, when it became possible to establish a con- 
 nection between them, to create mutual interests for both 
 
292 Prohibition and Sunday Closing. 
 
 which hold them together and unite them — namely, capi- 
 talistic corruption. 
 
 3. SUNDAY LAWS AND PROFESSIONAL POLITICIANS. 
 
 The "Blue Laws" of New England and the legal re- 
 strictions which were aimed against a free and joyous 
 Sunday spread with the spread of the New Englanders 
 over the entire North and West of the Union. The de- 
 velopment of economic relations and the necessities of 
 daily life did away with many of these laws, put them out 
 of use without, however, bringing about their entire repeal. 
 Even less in America than elsewhere have men under- 
 stood the importance of Buckle's saying, that the best 
 legislation consists in repealing old laws. Thus a great 
 number of antiquated enactments still vegetate in our 
 statute books, and occasionally some pious soul upon the 
 judicial bench attempts to rescue them from oblivion by 
 calling them again into use. But as a rule the disre- 
 spectful laughter of the public causes the use of the old 
 provision to be abandoned and it is again relegated to its 
 obscure resting place. 
 
 This is true in general. But it is not the case with 
 regard to the Sunday laws. 
 
 From colonial times down to the present day, a strug- 
 gle has gone on between the masses who do not want 
 their hours of recreation and enjoyment on Sunday taken 
 from them and the religious forces who try by all means 
 to make Sunday a Sabbath, a "day of the Lord," a 
 religious holiday and not a day of pleasure and recrea- 
 tion. The interests of the clergy and church leaders on 
 the one side and the interests of the saloonkeepers and 
 their friends on the other are opposed to each other in a 
 struggle for domination over the masses on Sunday, as 
 much today as they were two or three centuries ago. 
 
Sunday Laws and Professional Politicians. 293 
 
 However, this struggle has in the course of years as- 
 sumed a heightened form. 
 
 First of all, the opposition between Sunday fanatics 
 and the population was strengthened by the arrival of 
 masses of immigrants from countries in which the puri- 
 tanical spirit had never dominated and where even relig- 
 ious views were not a contradiction to the enjoyment of 
 life, or where liberal opinions prevailed in regard to re- 
 ligion and matters connected therewith. Especially the 
 German immigrants took part from the very beginnmg 
 in the fight against the opposition to a free and open ob- 
 servance of Sunday in American circles in which the spirit 
 of the Puritans had been maintained. Particularly in 
 the large cities where the German element gathered, has 
 this struggle against Sunday restriction gained greater 
 strength ; though it cannot be said that the Germans in 
 America have won much for their manner of celebrat- 
 ing Sunday. 
 
 Another reason for the increase in the opposition be- 
 tween church and saloon interests lies in the development 
 of industry, which has created a class of wage laborers 
 who are interested in having one day in the week when 
 by a stimulating sociability they can recuperate from the 
 intense work of the other six days. 
 
 The puritanical spirit, however, which survives in the 
 descendants of the New England people, would not alone 
 be sufficient to keep up the strict laws of their forefathers 
 for the regulation of the Sunday celebration, if another 
 element had not come to their assistance, which originally 
 was completely opposed to their view of life, but had an 
 economic interest in the maintenance of the Sunday laws. 
 
 This element of the population, which is peculiar to 
 America, consists of the professional politicians, who have 
 far greater influence in the local than in the national poli- 
 tics of the country. 
 
' 294 Prohibition and Sunday Closing. 
 
 In industrial regions the Sunday laws would long ago 
 have succumbed to the opposition of the masses, if these 
 professional politicians had not prevented it. 
 
 In many states the Sunday laws have become the lever 
 with which the professional politicians lead the masses 
 into certain political directions. 
 
 The Sunday laws are maintained for the purpose of 
 being violated. The transgression of the Sunday law 
 forms the connecting link between the saloonkeeper and 
 the police and politicians, who are paid for these viola- 
 tions of law. If the saloonkeeper dogs not contribute to 
 the corruption fund, he is prosecuted on the basis of the 
 law and his business is ruined. The saloonkeeper is en- 
 tirely in the hands of the poHce and politicians, who in 
 turn, on account of his dependence upon them, force him 
 to do their political dirty work. The Sunday laws have 
 made the saloonkeepers into political agents for the capi- 
 talist parties. In the large cities they have become the 
 mightiest weapon by which the politicians maintain the 
 dominance of their party. The "struggle for Sunday lib- 
 erty" is artificially agitated, whenever the politicians have 
 no other question at hand by means of which they can 
 interest the masses in their campaigns. All capitalist par- 
 ties therefore have an interest in the maintenance of the 
 Sunday laws, not to enforce them, but to permit them to 
 be violated. In many cases the party which during the 
 election campaign has declared in favor of the repeal of the 
 Sunday laws does not keep its promise when it gets into 
 power, although it would be an easy matter for it to do so. 
 They do not repeal these laws because they need them 
 very much in their professional politics, indeed, because 
 such laws are just the means by which they can keep up 
 their rule in the large cities. 
 
 The political history of every large city in America is 
 the same in regard to the Sunday question and the fight 
 
Sunday Laws and Professional Poliiicians. 295 
 
 for Sunday liberty. Everywhere do these laws exist, 
 mitigated by corruption, and it has been shown every- 
 where that it is absolutely futile to expect a final solution 
 of the question from the professional politicians. Again 
 and again they have shown that they have not the least 
 intention to give up the power which the existence of the 
 Sunday laws places in their hands. 
 
 It is therefore a very ridiculous proceeding when the 
 German "Spiessbiirgerthum" of our country is again and 
 again caught by the silly phrases of "personal liberty," 
 of "Sunday freedom," and the like, which the German 
 professional politicians use in order to catch them and in 
 due time to convert their influence into cash money. Sun- 
 day freedom will not be gained in America as long aS 
 politics is conducted as a business for the benefit of profes- 
 sional politicians, as long as the brewer element itself, with 
 its great material means and its great political influence, 
 does not strive for a free Sunday, so long as the industrial 
 districts with their population of wage-workers do not 
 show greater political independence from the country dis- 
 tricts than heretofore. Not until our whole life has under- 
 gone a thorough reform will the capitalist political element, 
 permit the Sunday laws to be donfe away with, which they 
 know how to use as the best weapon in their struggle for 
 power and possession. 
 
 4. THE PROHIBITION MOVEMENT. 
 
 Since colonial times the idea that the evils resulting 
 from drunkenness can best be combated by prohibiting 
 the preparation and sale of alcoholic drinks has, in one 
 form or another, found its representatives, and these have 
 striven in proportion to their power to carry this idea 
 into effect. 
 
 In this matter religious organizations have acted hand 
 in hand with various reform elements. All kinds of means 
 
296 Prohibition and Sunday Closing. 
 
 have been tried in the state and in the community from 
 which a restriction or total abolition of the consumption 
 of alcoholic beverages was expected. Even before the 
 Civil War there were everywhere state temperance unions 
 which tried to influence legislation, and in a number of 
 states the temperance people succeeded in carrying prohi- 
 bition laws, license legislation, or other regulations which 
 made the preparation and sale of intoxicating liquors 
 more difficult. 
 
 Maine was the first state to enact a prohibition law, 
 in 1846. Then followed Illinois and Ohio in 1851, in the 
 following year Massachusetts and Rhode Island, and then 
 Connecticut in 1854. In several states of the West, such 
 as Wisconsin, Nebraska, and Indiana, prohibition laws 
 were enacted in 1855, also in New York and New Hamp- 
 shire. The New York and Indiana laws, however, were 
 declared unconstitutional. Vermont established a prohi- 
 bition law in 1856. Of all the states which enacted 
 prohibition laws before the Civil War, only Maine has 
 adhered to them ; there they have been in force uninter- 
 ruptedly since 1846, with the exception of the two years, 
 1856 and 1857. All the other states repealed these laws. 
 
 The Civil War pushed the question of prohibition into 
 the background for the time, and during the war little 
 was heard of the temperance movement. But the war 
 caused a great increase in the consumption of liquor. It 
 had also brought about the internal revenue on alcoholic 
 drinks, and on account of the large income which this 
 taxation gave to the government, the distillers and brew- 
 ers with their economic interests had acquired a political 
 importance which they knew well how to use. In those 
 states where there were legal restrictions upon the sale 
 of liquor, political campaigns were inaugurated against 
 these laws with all the corrupt means which in such 
 cases are used in America by persons who have almost 
 
The Prohibition Movement. 297 
 
 inexhaustible funds at their disposal for the purpose. In 
 some states these campaigns had the desired effect. The 
 temperance people were defeated ; and under the influence 
 of this defeat and in consideration of the means which, 
 their opponents had employed, they decided to form a 
 national organization and to further their ends on the 
 political field by independent political action. 
 
 The organizing convention for the founding of a pro- 
 hibition party assembled in Chicago on the first of Septem- 
 ber, 1869. It declared itself in favor of the most far- 
 reaching compulsory measures and demanded the prohi- 
 bition of the manufacture and sale of alcoholic liquors 
 except for technical and medicinal purposes. It was 
 pointed out that drunkenness increases poverty and mis- 
 ery and in part causes it. Besides the church element 
 who from religious motives wished to annihilate "the 
 demon Rum," a reform element played a part in the pro- 
 hibition movement, who saw in the sale of drinks a social 
 evil against which it was necessary to take action. They 
 attacked an outgrowth of capitalism without recognizing 
 its causes. 
 
 The Prohibition party has since its foundation taken 
 part independently in all national elections. It has regu- 
 larly put up its own Presidential candidates, but has so 
 far never mustered any considerable number of votes. In 
 1872 its Presidential candidate got only 5,607 votes, which 
 number increased by 1880 to 9,678; but in 1884 it made 
 a sudden jump to 150,626. In 1892 the Prohibition candi- 
 date got 270,710 votes, which number decreased in the 
 next election to 130,617. In 1904 the national vote of the 
 Prohibitionists amounted to 258,788, and at the last elec- 
 tion to 241,252. 
 
 National elections do not give a correct idea of the 
 strength of the Prohibitionists. Their adherents are in- 
 fluential in many local circles and within both capitalist 
 
298 Prohibition and Sunday Closing. 
 
 parties, and they act far more on the quiet than in the 
 open — and with success, as the last few years have proved. 
 
 The question how far a state can go against an in- 
 dustry in order to restrict this industry or even to forbid 
 it, has been decided by the United States Supreme Court 
 in 1887. The decision was a complete victory for the 
 Prohibitionists. The Court declared that in order to 
 maintain public health, security, and morals, the state 
 had the right to destroy property even if doing so in- 
 fringed on personal property rights. This decision was a 
 heavy blow to the brewing and distillery interests. 
 
 In recent times the prohibition movement has unques- 
 tionably had great success. In a number of states even 
 now total prohibition prevails, and it must not be for- 
 gotten that also in many counties and townships in a 
 large number of other states the Prohibitionists have won 
 great successes. 
 
 Of course, this success is due more to the propagation 
 of the idea of "local option" — that is, the independent 
 decision by certain districts whether they want to have 
 saloons within their limits or not — than to the spread of 
 the idea of prohibition itself. 
 
 The question of local option is raised wherever the 
 agitation for absolute prohibition by the state has no 
 chance of success. The leaders of the National Anti- 
 Saloon League, the society which carries on the local option 
 movement, demand laws according to which each county 
 or municipality is given the right to decide for itself 
 whether or not it will permit the existence of saloons 
 within its limits. These societies have very great means 
 at their disposal which they get from rich persons — es- 
 pecially from parties interested in the candy industry — 
 and from church organizations. The decision in most 
 cases under local option is influenced much more by prop- 
 erty considerations than by temperance principles. No one 
 
The Prohibition Movement. ' 299 
 
 likes to have a saloon in his neighborhood, whose exist- 
 ence generally lowers the value of adjacent property. 
 Therefore people vote for local option and against the 
 granting of saloon licenses. Of course, there are a num- 
 ber of other reasons why the local option movement is 
 growing, but it is certain that material considerations play 
 an important part. 
 
 The Prohibition party in its convention preceding the 
 last Presidential election, adopted a platform which in- 
 cluded the following principal planks: 
 
 The submission by Congress to the various states of a 
 constitutional amendment forbidding the preparation, sale, im- 
 port, export and transportation of alcoholic liquors for drinking 
 purposes. 
 
 The immediate prohibition of the trade in alcoholic liquors 
 for drinking purposes in the District of Columbia, in the terri- 
 tories, and in all places in which the Federal Government has 
 jurisdiction; the repeal of the internal revenue tax on alcoholic 
 drinks; and the prohibition of interstate commerce in such 
 beverages. 
 
 Election of United States Senators by direct vote of the 
 people. 
 
 Progressive income and inheritance taxes. 
 
 Establishment of postal savings banks and guaranty of 
 bank deposits. 
 
 Regulation of all corporations which do interstate business. 
 
 Establishment of a permanent tariff commission. 
 
 Strict enforcement of the law instead of toleration and 
 licensing of the social evil in many of the larger cities. 
 
 Uniform marriage and divorce laws. 
 
 An adequate and constitutional employers' liability law. 
 
 Judicial investigation of the postal decisions. 
 
 Prohibition of child labor in mines, workshops and factories. 
 
 Legislation which will make the right to vote dependent 
 upon ability to read and write the English language. 
 
 Conservation of the mineral and forest resources of the 
 country and improvement of roads and waterways^ 
 It will be seen from the above that, besides the pro- 
 hibition measures desired, the platform contains a number' 
 
300 Prohibition and Sunday Closing. 
 
 of progressive demands which can be supported even from 
 the labor standpoint — as, for instance, the abolition of 
 child labor, a national employers' liability law, etc. But 
 then again the reactionary character of the prohibition 
 movement expresses itself in the attempt to restrict the 
 suffrage and make it more difficult for the immigrants 
 who come to this country to become voters. From the 
 point of view of the workingman this movement has to 
 be opposed, if only for the reason that it seeks to make 
 Sunday, the only day of recreation for the masses, into 
 a day for retirement and solemn meditation instead of a 
 day of recreation and enjoyment. 
 
 5. THE BREWING INDUSTRY AND PROHIBITION. 
 
 It is only natural that the brewery capitalists should 
 try with all the means at their disposal to resist the pro- 
 hibition movement and the laws which are directed against 
 the manufacture and sale of alcoholic liquors. 
 
 The brewers wished to extend their product to create 
 new markets for their beer, to introduce it where until 
 now it had not been used. Their material interests de- 
 manded that they sell as large quantities as possible so 
 as to get as great a profit as possible out of their business. 
 
 To this material advantage the prohibition movement 
 was opposed; it injured the brewery capitalists and they 
 tried to protect themselves. They put their great powers 
 into operation in order to work against prohibition. Pub- 
 lic opinion was influenced by pointing out the danger to 
 "personal liberty," "morality," and other things which in 
 reality have nothing to do with the matter. 
 
 At the first convention of the Brewers' Association 
 at which the question of prohibition was taken up as a 
 political factor — at St. Louis in 1866 — a resolution was 
 adopted which declared that "the" fanatics, while pretend- 
 ing to support Sunday and temperance laws, in reality 
 
The Brewing Industry and Prohibition. 301 
 
 seek to destroy the self-respect and independence of the 
 people and the freedom of conscience and action." 
 
 High-sounding phrases of this sort were used so fre- 
 quently in German bourgeois circles of our country in the 
 fight for "beer liberty," that those who use them have 
 gradually become ridiculous, and so the whole movement 
 against prohibition laws and restrictive Sunday legislation 
 has suffered very much. 
 
 In reality there is behind these fine phrases only the 
 interest of the beer brewer, who does not want his busi- 
 ness spoiled. 
 
 Now, there would be nothing to say against this if the 
 brewers always used only honorable methods in their de- 
 fensive warfare against the Prohibitionists. 
 
 But this has not always been the case. 
 
 With the prohibition laws which have been overthrown 
 by corrupt and by honest means, a number of laws have 
 also been destroyed which would have well served the 
 interests of the public, but which on the other hand would 
 have brought about a supervision of the brewery industry. 
 Thus, laws for the inspection of beer and laws against the 
 adulteration of foods and drinks have been done away 
 with by the brewers' political tools, under the pretense 
 that these were laws which restricted "personal liberty," 
 etc., and that they were "in direct opposition to the prin- 
 ciple of individual freedom and political equality upon 
 which our American Union is founded." 
 
 And in addition to this fight under false colors — the 
 clearly personal interest being disguised as a question of 
 general warfare — means were used to promote the devel- 
 opment of the beer industry and to gain advantages from 
 this development, which made the fight against the beer 
 industry a thoroughly justified one. 
 
 Without consideration of the health of the consumers, 
 beer was sold in the preparation of which injurious materials 
 
302 Prohibition and Sunday Closing. 
 
 of all kinds were used. Such worthless beer was brewed 
 — one only needs to think of the sort of beer which as a 
 rule is served to the masses at labor festivals — that its 
 sale was a direct robbery of the workmen. Adulterations 
 of all kinds — which, of course, are not considered adul- 
 terations by the brewers — ^were and are still used, so that 
 a strict control by the state is very much to be desired. 
 
 While the brewery capitalists thus worked into the 
 hands of the prohibition movement, their objections and 
 arguments against that movement were of a deceptive 
 nature. They pointed out that their industry had to pro- 
 vide in the form of taxes a large part of the expenses of 
 the state, but they were silent about the fact that this 
 tax was shifted to the masses of the population, the con- 
 sumers of beer.' They declared that they worked against 
 the use of whisky by replacing it with beer. This is 
 strictly true, for while the consumption of whisky has 
 remained the same for the last forty years, or has even 
 decreased a little, the average consumption of beer has 
 grown from five to twenty-two gallons per capita of the 
 population. And if it could be proved that the use of 
 beer and the beer industry are really so harmful, and bring 
 in their wake such misfortunes and evils as the Prohibi- 
 tionists assert, then the fact that so and so many thou- 
 sands earn their living by that industry would not count 
 in favor of its maintenance, and even less the fact that 
 so and so many hundred millions of capital are invested 
 in the industry. Whatever is harmful and dangerous to 
 the community must be abolished. Then the interest of 
 the individual does not count, not even the interest of 
 whole sections. The welfare of the community is the 
 highest law. 
 
 But this harmfulness of the use of beer, of which the 
 Prohibitionists speak, has not been proved. In the same 
 way as the brewery capitalists, the Prohibitionists fight 
 
The Brewing Industry and Prohibition. 303 
 
 with specious arguments, with proofs which are no proofs. 
 Drunkenness is not, as has been asserted, the chief cause 
 of poverty and crime, although it cannot be denied that 
 it often brings great misery in its wake; but it is much 
 more the result of poverty than its cause. The statistics 
 which are brought into the controversy by both sides 
 prove nothing, for the figures are arranged differently 
 and interpreted differently according as they are needed. 
 The argument that the workingmen would have "saved" 
 so and so many millions of dollars if they had done with- 
 out alcoholic drinks is a false conclusion ; and another false 
 conclusion is the argument offered that poor-houses, in- 
 sane asylums, and prisons would not be needed if there 
 were no saloons and no alcoholic liquors were sold. 
 
 The fight between the beer capitalists and the Pro- 
 hibitionists is a conflict of interests. With the brewers 
 it is a question of business advantage. In the Prohibition 
 movement religious and material interests are at work 
 which see their advantage in the prohibition of the sale 
 of liquors. The workingmen, however, have their own 
 interests as against both the beer capitalists and the Pro- 
 hibitionists, and the protection of their own interests de- 
 termines the position which they have to take in regard 
 to this question. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 Workingmen and Prohibition. 
 
 1. THE SOCIAL ASPECT OF THE ALCOHOL 
 QUESTION. 
 
 FOR other reasons than those given by the brewery 
 capitalists workingmen have to oppose the prohibition 
 movement, and for other reasons than those offered by 
 the Prohibitionists the working class defends the propo- 
 sition that an excessive indulgence in alcoholic drinks is 
 an evil. They have to use means different from those 
 used by either of the others in opposition to the efforts 
 of the beer and whisky capitalists to impose their drinks 
 upon the people, as well as to oppose the compulsory laws 
 advocated by the Prohibitionists, who would forbid even 
 the harmless indulgence in drinks and restrict the enjoy- 
 ments of the masses. 
 
 The different position which the workingmen take in 
 the prohibition question in contrast to the beer capitalists 
 and the beer Philistines who constitute their following 
 on the one hand, and to the Prohibitionists on the other 
 hand, rests on the fact that the use and misuse of alco- 
 holic liquors have their social aspect ; that they are closely 
 connected with the existing conditions in society, and 
 that by the social side of the question the working class 
 is most affected. 
 
 We have already seen that the development of modern 
 industry in the United States goes hand in hand with 
 an increase in the consumption of beer — an increase which 
 may be described as enormous, even though it must be 
 conceded that in this respect the United States does not 
 stand at the head of the "civilized" world. The consump- 
 tion of beer increases with the increased industrializing 
 of the country, so closely connected with the capitalistic 
 
The Social Aspect of the Alcohol Question. 305 
 
 development. And just as the use of alcoholic drinks 
 has increased as a consequence to this development, so, 
 too, has their abuse. 
 
 The crowding together of people in the factories, as 
 is furthered by the development of industry, the terrible 
 haste, the strenuous life and nervous exhaustion to which 
 the industrial worker is exposed — all this demands and 
 promotes the use of stimulants. And from use to abuse 
 is but one step. The tired workman comes home. Only 
 too frequently he finds in his tenement dwelling a place 
 which offers to his tired body, suffering from lack of light 
 and air, even less recreation than does the fictory itself. 
 He needs stimulus and excitement. The intense work 
 at the machine, which during the long hours has used 
 up not only all his bodily strength, but also his brain 
 strength, has put him in a condition of mental fatigue 
 which forbids every kind of intellectual amusement. He 
 takes no interest in anything. He goes to the saloon. 
 He drinks, and often drinks more than he can stand in 
 his condition of bodily and mental exhaustion. Thus 
 many workmen fall victims to the vice of drunkenness 
 from the pressure of social conditions. 
 
 But other social causes, too, which all have the same 
 source, tend mightily to force the mass of workingmen 
 from the use to the abuse of alcoholic drinks. Long 
 working hours and low wages promote drunkenness. 
 Need, which results from the inadequate wages of labor, 
 drives thousands into the arms of drink, for insufficient 
 nourishment leads to the use and abuse of alcohol. The 
 shortening of working hours in any trade has always 
 produced a decrease in the use of alcohol among the 
 workmen affected. Special conditions in particular trades 
 also promote the use of intoxicating drinks. The dust 
 produced in working with wood, stone, many metals, and 
 in E'l the textile industries; the lack of ventilation; the 
 
306 Workingmen and Prohibition. 
 
 intense heat in which men work before the glowing fur- 
 naces of the foundry and the glassworks; the discomfort 
 of weather conditions in the building trades, the heat in 
 the summer, the damp and cold in winter; the necessity 
 of eating in the saloon, which leads directly to the 
 necessity of drinking — all these are causes that create 
 thirst which must be quenched and which too frequently 
 lead to the use and then to the abuse of intoxicating 
 drinks. 
 
 The practice of drinking while at work is much 
 preached against. But as can be seen, the conditions of 
 work create thirst, and the employers but too rarely see 
 that adequate beverages for quenching thirst are at 
 hand. Water rarely drives away the feeling of thirst; 
 indeed, in great artificial or natural heat it makes one feel 
 weak, makes the workingman unfit to work. Modern 
 labor conditions force the workmen to drink. Drunken- 
 ness has its root in the excessive exploitation of work- 
 ingmen by capitalism. Every improvement in the con- 
 dition of the workingmen brings about a diminution in 
 drunkenness. This is a fact which shows more plainly 
 than anything else the method that must be used in com- 
 bating this evil. To fight against the causes of the abuse 
 of alcohol is to fight against their efifect. The hours of 
 labor must be shortened in order to prevent the bodily 
 and mental exhaustion of the workingmen ; wages must 
 be raised in order to make proper nourishment possible; 
 good housing conditions and wholesome surroundings in 
 the places of employment must be provided — in general, 
 improved conditions of the workingmen in every direc- 
 tion will cause the excessive use of alcoholic liquors to 
 disappear, as far as it can disappear under the present 
 system. 
 
 But the bourgeois world, which lives from the exploita- 
 tion of labor, which indeed owes its entire existence to 
 
The Social Aspect of the Alcohol Question. 307 
 
 that, will oppose with all its might the improvement of 
 the condition of the workers; and even the Prohibitionist 
 who honestly battles against the "Rum Devil" may well 
 consider whether to continue his fight, when this must 
 be done on the basis of fighting the entire existing social 
 order. He must, then, develop from reformer to revolu- 
 tionist, from Prohibitionist to Socialist. But then he 
 will not feel the need for fighting drunkenness alone; he 
 will have come to the conclusion that the destruction of 
 the cause is far more important, far more sensible, than 
 mere fighting against effects. He will ascribe to the 
 trade-union movement, which seeks to improve the pres- 
 ent condition of the workingmen, a greater role than to 
 his prohibitionist organization. He will see in the So- 
 cialist movement, which strives to do away entirely with 
 capitalistic exploitation and thus entirely to remove the 
 causes of drunkenness, a civilizing factor which far ex- 
 ceeds in importance his prohibition movement, and which 
 makes the latter unnecessary. He will recognize, together 
 with the enlightened working class, that the battle against 
 drunkenness can best be waged in the general class strug- 
 gle of the workingmen and in the organizations which 
 this class struggle produces. 
 
 2. THE POSITION OF THE WORKINGMEN WITH 
 REGARD TO PROHIBITION. 
 
 From the preceding, the attitude which the working- 
 men ought to take in regard to prohibition can be inferred 
 in general. 
 
 They oppose prohibition because it does not go to 
 the heart of the matter, because its fight is not directed 
 against the causes of drunkenness, because it does not 
 attack the evil at its root. 
 
 Who would deny that drunkenness is a fearful evil? 
 But also, who can deny that, for instance, the use of 
 
308 Workingmen and Prohibition. 
 
 beer, which is a light alcoholic drink, has contributed 
 much to prevent the excessive consumption of whisky? 
 That the average consumption of distilled spirituous liquors 
 in the United States has remained stationary during the 
 last forty years, that in spite of the development of in- 
 dustry it has not increased, is undoubtedly due to the 
 extension of the use of beer, the consumption of which 
 has in fact increased enormously. In comparison to an 
 increase in the consumption of whisky, which would un- 
 doubtedly have taken place if the use of beer had not 
 prevented it, the present condition is undoubtedly to be 
 preferred. 
 
 The Prohibitionists, however, make no distinction be- 
 tween strong and weak alcoholic drinks. They do not 
 ask whether every kind of alcoholic beverage is injurious, 
 whether total abstinence is necessary or whether simple 
 moderation will suffice. Scientists are not altogether 
 agreed upon this question. It is certain, however, that 
 the use of alcoholic drinks has different effects on different 
 individuals. It is admitted that the excessive use of even 
 mild drinks, such as beer, may lead to diseases of the 
 heart, kidneys and liver; but, on the other hand, it is 
 asserted that not all use of alcohol is injurious, but only 
 when carried beyond a certain limit, and that the limit 
 is not the same for all persons. The Prohibitionists assert 
 that wherever prohibition has been introduced it has never 
 yet been a failure. The other side contradicts this. The 
 president of the distillery trust declared some time ago 
 that the only thing that the prohibition laws change is 
 the manner in which whisky reaches the consumers. It 
 is an old experience that the prohibition of the liquor 
 traffic promotes smuggling of alcoholic drinks, and be- 
 cause a small quantity of whisky is more easily smuggled 
 in than the same amount of alcohol in the form of beer, 
 the use of whisky is thus increased. The man who has 
 
The Position of Workingmen with Regard to Prohibition. 309 
 
 money can get all the intoxicating drinks he wants, even 
 in prohibition states, and the prohibition affects only the 
 poor man. And it affects him only in the direction that 
 it makes the procuring of spirituous liquors more difficult 
 for him, and especially that it compels him to take the 
 worst possible kinds of beverages, actual poisons, which 
 make a beast of him. In many places in Maine, where 
 prohibition has prevailed the longest, obscure and dingy 
 whisky holes can be found where workingmen seek their 
 recreation. These dens are supposed to be secret places, 
 but everyone knows about them. Those who frequent 
 them are despised even by their own families, and as a 
 matter of fact, hardly anywhere are such degraded people 
 to be found as in these secret whisky dens. In spite of 
 this degradation of the people as a consequence of the 
 prohibition laws in Maine, and in spite of the destruction 
 of the family by these laws, the Prohibitionists declare 
 that their laws against drunkenness are successful. They 
 consider it a success that they have driven the drinking 
 of the rich from public places into the privacy of their 
 homes. The fact that they have brought the workingmen 
 to the most degraded kind of drinking does not give them 
 any concern. The workingmen do not count as belonging 
 to the people. 
 
 In addition, it is asserted, and from official sources, 
 that wherever prohibition prevails, the use of opium in- 
 creases markedly. Furthermore, the investigations of the 
 health authorities in Massachusetts have established the 
 fact that people evade the prohibition laws by the use of 
 patent medicines, which contain considerably more alcohol 
 than does either whisky or brandy. All this must be taken 
 into consideration in forming an opinion about prohibi- 
 tory legislation. It is ineffective as regards its purpose, 
 and in addition to that, it is even injurious; it puts up 
 barriers to pleasure and the enjoyment of life which are 
 
310 Workingmen and Prohibition. 
 
 unnecessary and which increase the sadness of this too 
 sad world — therefore workingmen ought to declare them- 
 selves against prohibition. 
 
 But they ought to oppose it on quite other grounds 
 from those taken by the brewing and distilling capitalists 
 and their bourgeois adherents. 
 
 Workingmen should stand for moderation in the use 
 of alcoholic beverages. They should protect themselves 
 from being given drinks of poor quality, adulterated, often 
 positively poisonous. They should demand that the laws 
 against the adulteration of foods and drinks be enforced 
 strictly, in the brewery industry as well as in others, and 
 that this industry be placed under strict state control in 
 order to prevent adultepation. The working class further- 
 more should strive through the political struggle towards 
 the end that all industries, and among them the brewing 
 industry, be taken over by the state and socialized; then 
 no one will any longer have an interest in cheating and 
 poisoning the masses with bad and adulterated beverages. 
 
 That is the course which the working class, along with 
 its general activities for the improvement of its conditions, 
 has to pursue for the special purpose of counteracting the 
 abuse of alcohol and its resultant evils. This course is 
 not the same as that taken by the capitalists of the alcohol 
 industry nor that of the bourgeois prohibitionist move- 
 ment. The workingmen's interests in regard to the ques- 
 tions of temperance and prohibition are different from 
 those of the beer and whisky capitalists, and also different 
 from those of the advocates of prohibition. On this ques- 
 tion as on every other, it is necessary that they maintain 
 their class character. In relation to prohibition and all 
 that is connected with it, as in other matters, the work- 
 ingmen are strongest when standing alone. 
 
Workingmen and the Sunday Question. 311 
 
 3. WORKINGMEN AND THE SUNDAY QUESTION. 
 
 The Sunday question, which is generally lumped to- 
 gether with the question of prohibition, is by no means 
 identical with it. The drink question is only a part of 
 the Sunday question, and by no means the most im- 
 portant part. 
 
 The legal restrictions which in America have -been im- 
 posed upon the observance of Sunday are in the main of 
 a religious character. With the keeping of Sunday as a 
 day of rest for the workers — that is, as a social regula- 
 tion — these restrictions have nothing to do. They have 
 been established for the purpose of promoting a religious 
 spirit and are carried out with religious fanaticism and 
 intolerance, in so far as they are not relaxed by means 
 of political corruption. 
 
 The drink question is, as we have said, only a part of 
 the Sunday question. The Sunday fanatics do not content 
 themselves with trying to close the saloons on Sunday; 
 they insist also that the theaters, museums, concert and 
 dance halls, picture galleries — in short, every place of art 
 and entertainment be closed. They would have Sunday 
 devoted solely to religious edification. Therefore laws are 
 enforced which date from times long since past and which 
 do not fit the present state of society — laws which may, 
 perhaps, have been adapted to the narrow views and social 
 conditions of colonial times (and even then only rela- 
 tively), but which certainly do not belong in a world like 
 ours of today, and which in spite of all legal provisions, 
 cannot be thoroughly enforced. 
 
 The workingman of today needs rest and recreation on 
 Sunday even more than did the workingman of former 
 times. The intense labor which he performs during the 
 week and the mental fatigue connected with it, as well as 
 the small number of hours which his work allows him 
 for recreation during the week, force him to concentrate 
 
312 Workingmen and Prohibition. 
 
 his recreation, his rest, and his social life upon Sunday. 
 His need for artistic enjoyment and his efiforts for educa- 
 tion can be satisfied, in general, only on Sunday. Only 
 on that day, especially in the large cities with their long 
 distances, can he come together with friends and acquaint- 
 ances and pass a few hours with them. The many work- 
 ers who have no home — or, as in most cases, such a home 
 as does not deserve the name — are deprived by the Sun- 
 day laws of every possibility for social intercourse, rest, 
 and recreation. 
 
 It will be seen that the Sunday laws are in the main 
 anti-labor laws, and in reality only the working class is 
 affected by them. The possessing classes do not feel the 
 force of these laws in their comfortably furnished homes, 
 their clubs, and their well-arranged entertainment halls, 
 which, either by special laws or by non-enforcement of 
 the law, are excepted from the effect of the Sunday legis- 
 lation. But the entertainment places of the workers, the 
 places in which the masses of the population seek enjoy- 
 ment, are subjected to the restrictions of Sunday legisla- 
 tion, in so far, as has been said before, as this legislation 
 is not modified by police corruption and political graft. 
 
 While in other countries the workingmen have to battle 
 for their day of rest on Sunday only against the capitalists, 
 in the United States and in England they have to fight 
 against the capitalists and against the church as well. In 
 the continental countries of Europe the labor organiza- 
 tions have done far more for Sunday rest than have the 
 churches ; but they have also preserved their right of Sun- 
 day enjoyment. In the United States the church and the 
 legislation influenced by it have done nothing for Sunday 
 enjoyment, but have fought it tooth and nail. For the 
 real social purpose of the observance of Sunday — that is, 
 to give the workingmen a day of rest — church and legis- 
 lation have cared little ; and if they have cared, it was for 
 
Workingmen and the Sunday Question. 313 
 
 religious and' seldom for social reasons. So it is that in 
 the United States there are over two million people who 
 follow their regular occupations even on Sunday, without 
 the interference of church or law. Of course, a part of 
 these two million have a free day during the week, but 
 only a part ; the rest work for seven days in the week. 
 
 It can be seen that the workingmen in our country 
 have to carry on their fight for a free Sunday in two direc- 
 tions — on the one side against the capitalists, on the other 
 against the religionists. It is possible that the fight for 
 Sunday as a day of rest as against the capitalists has in 
 the main been won by the aid of religious influences, 
 although the two millions of Sunday workers show that 
 there is yet much to do in that direction. But it is certain 
 that in the struggle for Sunday enjoyment almost every- 
 thing yet remains to be done, before the worker will have 
 the legal right to make his rest day also a day of pleasure 
 and enjoyment. 
 
 As we have seen, the Sunday laws are in the main 
 anti-labor laws. We have also seen that the repeal of 
 these laws by the great capitalist parties is not to be 
 expected, because these parties either use the maintenance 
 of these Sunday laws in their struggle for power in the 
 state, or they do not wish such laws abolished because 
 they need the assistance of the religious element in their 
 campaigns. The solution of the Sunday question is in 
 the main a matter for the workers, and nothing remains 
 for them but to oppose the Sunday restrictions by means 
 of the same independent political action which they must 
 use in their general social struggle — that is, as an inde- 
 pendent party. The struggle for Sunday enjoyment must 
 be carried on together with the general struggle for the 
 emancipation of labor. 
 
 It is true that a large part of the bourgeois element 
 has a strong interest in opposing Sunday laws and bring- 
 
314 Workingmen and Prohibition. 
 
 ing about a free Sunday. Here belong especially the 
 brewery capitalists and the non-political saloonkeepers, 
 together with a part of the bourgeois reformers and such 
 persons as in their native country have been accustomed 
 to a free Sunday. The saloonkeepers may be entirely dis- 
 regarded, as, at least in the large cities, they are com- 
 pletely in the hands of the local politicians to whom most 
 of them serve as agents. The other parts of this element 
 it will also be almost impossible to convince that, in the 
 interest of the solution of the Sunday question, they should 
 support the independent political party of the working- 
 men, the Socialist party, in its struggles. And still this 
 party is the only one, as we have seen, which is in a posi- 
 tion to bring about a real solution of the Sunday question 
 by removing all the legal barriers which today stand in 
 the way of the masses in their enjoyment of Sunday rest. 
 And it is the duty of this party to bring to the front the 
 demand for the abolition of the restrictive Sunday laws, 
 even more than it has done hitherto, because these enact- 
 ments are anti-labor laws. Such a demand is the more 
 practicable for the reason that great bourgeois interests 
 are afifected by it, and therefore it has good prospects of 
 success if it is solidly supported by the workingmen. If 
 this is done, then the day may not be far distant when 
 theaters and concert halls in our large cities will be at the 
 disposal of the masses on Sunday, free of charge, as is 
 the case today with our museums and picture galleries, 
 and when in our parks and other public places of recrea- 
 tion crowds of joyous workingmen can gather and spend 
 their hour of pleasure and stimulation in listening to good 
 music and some other artistic entertainment, and at the 
 same time enjoy a glass of good wine or beer. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 Taxes and the Brewing Industry. 
 1. THE BREWING INDUSTRY AND THE RULERS. 
 
 FROM the beginnings of the brewing industry, the 
 various municipal and state governments and in gen- 
 eral all the ruling powers have paid more attention to the 
 preparation of beer than to any other branch of business. 
 In no other industry do we find so many regulations and 
 enactments, so much interference by the powers of gov- 
 ernment, as in that of beer-brewing. To some extent this 
 interference, especially in former ages, was the expression 
 of the paternalistic spirit of the rulers of that time, who 
 tried to regulate and adjust every detail of the life of their 
 subjects and citizens. In the main, however, this inter- 
 ference was undertaken because it was early recognized 
 that hardly any other branch of trade offers so favorable 
 a subject for taxation as does the preparation of drinks 
 and their sale, and for many centuries cities and states 
 have derived enormous incomes from the taxation of bev- 
 erages. Especially in time of war, when armies had to 
 be sent into the field, it was always attempted to procure 
 the necessary means by increasing or introducing taxes 
 on drinks. This happened in England when armies were 
 sent to Jerusalem to fight the Turks. It happened in 
 America in colonial times in order to procure means to 
 fight the Indians. And it also happened in the last 
 Spanish-American war, when the United States under- 
 took to "free" the Cubans from the Spanish yoke. 
 
 To a certain rather limited degree, governments have 
 established laws and decrees of various kinds for the pur- 
 pose of protecting the public against imposition and fraud 
 on the part of the brewers. In former times this was done 
 
316 Taxes and the Brewing Industry. 
 
 by regulating the price of the beverage, by fixing a uni- 
 form measure, and by superintending and prescribing the 
 quality, and quantity of materials to be used for the prepa- 
 ration of beer. The modern state has given up the legal 
 regulation of price, and has also partly ceased to concern 
 itself with the materials which are used for the production 
 of the brew. In recent times, however, by means of pure 
 food laws, they have again begun to exercise a certain 
 control over the kind and quality of materials out of which 
 beer is made — though by no means on an adequate scale. 
 However, as regards the attitude of governments towards 
 the beer industry, all these matters are of minor impor- 
 tance. For the modern state, as well as for the state of 
 the past, the industry of beer brewing is a field from 
 which it can derive a rich income, and thus the attitude 
 of the ruling powers toward the brewing industry has 
 been determined by the financial advantage which they 
 could gain. 
 
 The taxes on the brewing industry were imposed in 
 various forms. The production as well as the sale of the 
 beverage was taxed — the right to brew as well as the 
 right to sell beer. Monopolies for the brewing of beer 
 were created, and these monopolies were sold as a whole 
 or in parts. In short, every imaginable method by which 
 money could be extracted from this trade was resorted to 
 in order to fill the governmental and municipal coffers. 
 
 The original beer-tax in Germany consisted in the 
 delivery to the landlords — nobles and clergy — of a certain 
 proportion of the beer produced. Then, at the beginning 
 of the twelfth century, this payment in kind was changed 
 into money payment, which in certain places has become 
 known as "Umgeld," and which affected the baking as 
 well as the brewing and milling industries. Thus a regu- 
 lar taxation of the bread and drink of the people existed 
 even at that time. With the formation of larger states 
 
• The Brewing Industry and the Rulers. 817 
 
 the beer-tax is found in France and in Lower Austria 
 since the fourteenth century, in Saxony and Brandenburg 
 since the fifteenth, and in Bohemia and Bavaria since the 
 sixteenth century. 
 
 Long before this time the cities had made regulations 
 of all kinds for the brewing of beer. As early as the year 
 1090 we hear of "Biergelden" (beer money) as a tax 
 which had to be paid to the bishops for the right to brew 
 beer. The princes and bishops, the temporal as well as 
 the clerical lords, demanded for themselves the exclusive 
 right of brewing and selling beer, and conceded that privi- 
 lege to others only in consideration of the payment of 
 large sums. The cities often acquired from princes and 
 bishops the right of brewing, and either used it themselves 
 or else conceded it to their citizens for an adequate com- 
 pensation. Often certain families acquired the right to 
 brew, and this then became a kind of monopoly which 
 was identified either with the family itSelf or with the 
 house which that family had originally occupied and which 
 could be inherited. 
 
 Frequently also this brewing right was given to mon- 
 asteries and other clerical institutions. Thus in 1146 the 
 Abbey of Weihenstephan in Bavaria received a brewing 
 concession and in 1286 a Bavarian duke gave the brew- 
 ing right to a "Hospital of the Holy Spirit." 
 
 The city of Dantzig had an ordinance from the magis- 
 trate in 1200 which read: "Everyone who brews bad 
 beer shall be thrown on the garbage-dump." In Aachen, 
 at about 1272, whoever did not pay the legal beer-tax was 
 threatened with the cutting off of the right hand and 
 was banished from the city for a period of five years. The 
 brewery in which beer was thus unlawfully made and the 
 house in which it was sold were also threatened with 
 destruction by this same ordinance. In Augsburg and 
 Ulm at this same time there were municipal ordinances 
 
318 Taxes and the Brewing Industry. 
 
 which imposed heavy punishments for the preparation of 
 bad beer or the use of fraudulent measures. Later on, 
 in places in Bavaria, whipping and even the penalty of 
 death were decreed for those persons who sold bad beer, 
 which was characterized as "a crime against Christian 
 love." In Breslau even at the end of the thirteenth cen- 
 tury there were police regulations directed against the pro- 
 duction of bad beer and the adulteration of hops. Munic- 
 ipal inspectors were appointed to control the breweries. 
 
 This control was chiefly for the benefit of the residents, 
 while the welfare of strangers was not taken so seriously. 
 In Frankfort-on-Main the magistrates issued an ordi- 
 nance in 1466 according to which beer brewers should 
 not sell to the citizens any beer that was less than three 
 weeks old. It was added, however, that beer which was 
 nAt so old might be sold to strangers. 
 
 In Munich in 1539 it was a punishable offense to brew 
 beer in the summer. From the 24th of April until the 
 29th of September all brewing kettles of the city were 
 sealed, and four municipal inspectors had to see to it that 
 these kettles were not used during that period. In 1566 
 the magistrates of the same city forbade the use of wheat 
 for brewing, because the wheat crop had turned out badly. 
 In the years from 1571 to 1580, the brewing of beer was 
 prohibited altogether in Munich, because there was a 
 shortage of barley, which grain was at that time also used 
 a great deal for the making of bread. 
 
 That the adulteration of beer at that time was just as 
 well understood as it is today, can be seen by the com- 
 plaint which was made in 1613 to the effect that in the 
 Rhine country beer was brewed which contained "too 
 little malt and too much water," in which willow leaves 
 were used instead of hops, and which was colored with 
 chimney soot. 
 
 The many regulations for the protection of beer drink- 
 
The Brewing Industry and the Rulers. 319 
 
 ers, however, were not the main reasons for the interfer- 
 ence of the rulers with the brewery trade. The principal 
 purpose, as has been said, was to raise taxes and tributes 
 to fill the municipal and state cofifers. Whoever wanted 
 to brew beer, had to pay money. In 1372 the citizens of 
 Munich received the privilege to brew their own house 
 beer. But for this they had to pay a yearly tax of six 
 guilders. About the year 1500 every Munich brewer had 
 to pay a three-fold tax. In Brandenburg, towards the 
 end of the fifteenth century, a beer tax was introduced 
 which led to open rebellion. In Stendal the guildsmen 
 besieged the city hall and compelled the magistracy to 
 abolish the tax. Strife and bloodshed and executions fol- 
 lowed. During the time of the Thirty Years' War, the 
 tax on beer became so high as to completely ruin the 
 brewing industry, which was already on the decline. In 
 the Seven Years' War also Frederick II took great pains 
 to get out of the taxation of beer the necessary means for 
 maintaining his army. Thereby he killed the goose that 
 laid the golden eggs. The industry was again destroyed 
 in Prussia. 
 
 In France and England also in early times the attempt 
 was made to regulate from above the preparation of beer. 
 As early as 1268 legal ordinances were promulgated in 
 Paris which referred to the sale of beer, the apprentice 
 system in the brewery trade, and the adulteration of the 
 product. In England the first tax on beer was introduced 
 in 1188. It was a war tax, devised to bring forth the 
 money which was needed for a new crusade against the 
 Turkish Sultan, who had besieged Jerusalem. 
 
 In England also the price and preparation of beer was 
 regulated by ordinance. Already at the beginning of the 
 fifteenth century there existed in England government 
 officials who had to superintend the production and sale 
 of the beverage. The system of licensing ale houses by 
 
320 Taxes and the Bremng Industry. 
 
 the state began in England in the year 1605, and at the 
 time of the English revolution Parliament covered the 
 increased expenses of the state by a considerable increase 
 in the beer tax. This tax which was originally levied 
 only for war purposes, became permanent and was repeat- 
 edly increased. In 1660 it amounted to fifteen pence per 
 barrel. In 1648 it was raised to two shillings three pence 
 for strong and nine pence for small beer. By 1688 the beer 
 tax was bringing the English government 666,000 pounds 
 sterling, or in round figures $3,330,000 a year — which for 
 that time was a considerable sum. In 1694 the beer tax 
 was increased to four shillings nine pence for strong and 
 one shilling three pence for small beer. The government 
 had a very convenient scheme for getting the revenue. 
 They farmed out the tax, and the contractors collected 
 the tax and paid the state a certain sum. 
 
 It has already been mentioned that in the American 
 colonies also soon after the arrival of the first settlers the 
 beer was subjected to taxation. The price of the beverage 
 also, its sale and methods of production were legally con- 
 trolled. In the colonies it was likewise prescribed how 
 much material should be used in brewing. In 1664 it was 
 determined in New Amsterdam that for the brewing of 
 each hogshead (two barrels) of beer four bushels of malt 
 should be used. Today our brewers use far less on the 
 average. The price of the beer was at the same time fixed 
 at not more than two pence per quart. 
 
 The first tax law in New Amsterdam was established 
 in 1644 by Governor William Kieft, who wanted to raise 
 money in this way for the repairs of the city fortifications 
 and the payment of the garrison. A tax of two guilders 
 per half-barrel of beer was imposed, half of which was 
 to be paid by the brewer and the other half by the tavern 
 keeper. A beer collector to gather the tax was appointed 
 by the Governor, and in this manner the well-known 
 
The Brewing Industry and the Rulers. 321 
 
 "American hand-shake" was introduced with this first tax. 
 The popular representatives opposed this law and an- 
 tagonisms arose, the development of which we have dis- 
 cussed elsewhere. 
 
 In 1655 the system of farming out the tax was intro- 
 duced into the colonies also. The City Council of New 
 Amsterdam in the year leased the contract for the drink- 
 tax for 5,030 guilders, or $2,022. At about the same time 
 this same tax was farmed out in "Beverwyck and the 
 neighboring settlements of Esopus, Katskill and Rensel- 
 laerswyck" for 2,013 guilders, or $809. 
 
 The colonial authorities also took advantage of the 
 power to grant licenses. In 1637 in Massachusetts Bay 
 a fine of 100 pounds sterling was imposed for the offense 
 of brewing beer without a Hcense. In 1647 the authori- 
 ties of Fort Amsterdam granted a brewing concession to 
 a carpenter by the name of J. La Battle, for which he had 
 to pay over to the West India Company every year six 
 "salable beaver skins." 
 
 It will be seen that the production and the sale of beer 
 were from early times used for purposes of taxation. 
 
 2. TAXATION OF BEER IN MODERN TIMES. 
 
 We have seen that with the formation of larger states 
 in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries these states took 
 over from the former rulers the practice of taxing beer 
 and found it a welcome means of filling their coffers. It 
 stands to reason that the modern state, whose tasks and 
 expenditures are constantly increasing and whose army 
 and navy equipments especially swallow up enormous 
 sums, would not abolish this convenient drink-tax, but 
 would rather extend it, and would draw and still draws 
 colossal sums from the production and use of drinks. 
 
 The capitalistic development of the breSving industry 
 and its concentration in great establishment* have made 
 
322 Taxes and the Brewing Industry. 
 
 the imposition of the beer-tax by the state very easy be- 
 cause by the watching over the production of the beverage 
 the state has the means of easily determining the quantity 
 of the product turned out and can thus collect its tax. 
 
 The beer-tax is fixed in most various forms, according 
 to whether the product is taxed in proportion to the quan- 
 tity of raw materials used or of the finished product, or 
 indirectly in proportion to the capacity of the brewing 
 vessel. 
 
 With the material-tax, the raw products which are 
 used in the preparation of beer are figured out either 
 before or at the beginning of the operation. For this form 
 of taxation, hops and malt or barley are chiefly to be 
 taken into consideration. The hop tax is not practicable, 
 because hops are very unequally used in the preparation 
 of beer; this, by the way, is also true of the malt tax. 
 The hop tax existed in England during the period of 1830 
 to 1862. Norway has a tax on barley, and there before 
 the malting the quantity of the grain which is put into 
 the barley funnel is ofificially determined and the tax reck- 
 oned accordingly. Another species of the same tax is the 
 malt tax, which is either determined in the act of grinding 
 in the mill or in the act of mashing (mash-tax). In the 
 malt tax proper an official watch is kept over the trans- 
 portation of malt to and from the mill; in the mash tax 
 the quantity of the material has to be officially determined 
 before the act of mashing. 
 
 In the mash-tub tax and the kettle tax the tax is fixed 
 according to the capacity of the works. With the former, 
 which is in vogue in Russia, Belgium, and Holland, the 
 capacity of the mash-vessel is the foundation, while in 
 the latter, which prevails in Baden and Alsace-Lorraine, 
 the capacity of the boiling kettle is the foundation for 
 figuring out the tax. In this kind of taxation the kettle 
 
Taxation of Beer in Modern Times, 323 
 
 and mash-vessel are, of course, officially watched and 
 controlled. 
 
 In the manufacture tax which prevails in the United 
 States, the tax is measured according to the number of 
 barrels of beer to be shipped, and a stamp is placed over 
 the bunghole in such a manner that it has to be destroyed 
 when the barrel is opened. This is controlled by the in- 
 spection of the brewers' books, by the accounts kept by 
 the internal revenue officers as to the materials received 
 at and sent away from the brewery, as well as by a super- 
 vision of the entire beer traffic. This form of tax is easily 
 collected and in this respect is distinguished from many 
 other forms of taxation. It is unjust, however, because 
 it does not take the quality into consideration, but only 
 the quantity. The cheap and bad beer which the poor 
 man gets is taxed just as high as the rich and good beer 
 which the well-to-do drink. The quality of beer is consid- 
 ered in the taxation of the product in Austria, Italy and 
 England, by fixing the amount of the tax according to 
 the amount of sugar in the wort. 
 
 In the bottled-beer industry, which has increased con- 
 siderably within the last few years in the United States, 
 certain regulations have been niade in order to collect the 
 government tax on beer which is sent out in bottles. The 
 quantity of beer which goes into the bottles is accurately 
 controlled, and infringements are punished with heavy 
 fines and under certain conditions with confiscation of the 
 brewery. The payment of the tax is effected, as with the 
 barrel beer, by means of stamps, which, however, have to 
 be officially destroyed and made worthless in the presence 
 of the collector and the brewer. 
 
 Tremendous sums they are which the modern states — 
 only a few of them have let beer as an object for taxation 
 escape them — derive from the beer-tax. Germany, with 
 the exception of Bavaria, Wiirttemberg, and Baden, de- 
 
324 Taxes and the Brewing Industry. 
 
 rives from its taxation of beer more than 30 million marks 
 ($7,500,000) a year, and with the recent increase in the 
 rate of taxation will in future get far more yet. This is 
 also the case with Bavaria, which has been receiving over 
 forty million marks a year from its malt tax ; Wiirttemberg 
 raises ten million and Baden seven million marks by 
 means of the malt tax. Austria, outside of Hungary, 
 draws a yearly income of seventy-six million crowns (over 
 $15,000,000) from the beer tax. Belgium raises fourteen 
 million francs ($2,800,000) ; England as much as il3,- 
 250,000, or more than $66,000,000. The United States 
 comes next to England. It collects a beer tax amount- 
 ing in round numbers to $60,000,000 a year, and in 
 some years — as, for instance, 1901 — has brought the sum 
 above $75,000,000. 
 
 The present beer tax in the United States is a child 
 of the war. When the South in the beginning of the 
 sixties declared its independence from the Union, and the 
 latter was forced to fight for its existence, besides raising 
 the necessary men for its army, it had to provide the neces- 
 sary amount of money for the maintenance of this army. 
 Among the taxes introduced as a result of this condition, 
 was that on beer; a tax of one dollar for every barrel of 
 beer brewed was imposed. Originally from September 
 1, 1862, until September 1, 1866, the tax was collected 
 in cash by the officials. From that time on, under a law 
 which was accepted upon the proposition of the united 
 brewery capitalists, the tax was collected by means of 
 stamps which the brewers had to buy from the internal 
 revenue office. 
 
 When the war ceased and the burdens of war no longer 
 pressed hard, the beer tax nevertheless seemed such an 
 acceptable source of revenue to the Federal government 
 that there was no thought of abolishing it. Until the year 
 1898 the "one dollar per barrel tax" was maintained. Then 
 
Taxation of Beer in Modern Times. 325 
 
 came a new war, and Uncle Sam quickly doubled the beer 
 tax. Instead of one dollar, two dollars per barrel were 
 now collected, until, a few years later, they returned to 
 the one dollar per barrel rate. 
 
 Since 1862 the United States has derived an income 
 of over one thousand million dollars from the tax on the 
 preparation of beer, and to this must be added consider- 
 able sums which it derived from duties on imported beer, 
 but especially from duties on the importation of raw mate- 
 rials for the breweries, such as barley and hops. 
 
 Soon after the Declaration of Independence, in the 
 tariff of 1789, a duty of five cents per gallon on ale and 
 beer was imposed, for the purpose of protecting the brew- 
 eries of New York and Philadelphia from the competition 
 of foreign countries. In 1818 the duty was raised to ten 
 and fifteen cents per gallon. In addition to this protec- 
 tive tariff, there existed at that time also a state taxation 
 of beer, ale and porter amounting to six per cent on 
 the value of the product, which brought an income of 
 $50,000 in the year 1815. In 1840 the import duty on 
 beer was still fifteen cents per gallon if the beverage 
 came in barrels, while for bottled beer a duty of twenty 
 cents per gallon prevailed. In 1846 the duty on beer was 
 raised to thirty per cent on its value, and in 1862, when 
 the war emptied the government treasury, the duty on 
 beer was increased to thirty cents per gallon in bottles, 
 and in 1864 to thirty-five cents. For beer other than in 
 bottles the duty was fixed at twenty cents a gallon. After 
 various changes, the Dingley tariff finally fixed the import 
 duty on beer in bottles at forty cents and on other beer at 
 twenty cents per gallon. 
 
 Uncle Sam derives gigantic sums out of the taxation 
 of beer, and in return for them he has paid very little 
 attention to the brewing industry and all that is connected 
 with it. He has only attended to securing the tax; how 
 
326 Taxes and the Brewing Industry. 
 
 the product looked on which he imposed duties and taxes 
 was to him a matter of indifference. He did not pay any 
 attention to see that, in addition to the hops, malt, yeast 
 and water, or harmless substitutes such as rice, maize, and 
 other unmalted grain, or in addition to hop extract and 
 brewing sugar, other materials were not used in the prepa- 
 ration of beer which are directly injurious to the con- 
 sumers and have ruined the health of many. Uncle Sam 
 has not concerned himself about this. He was satisfied 
 when he received his many millions from taxes on the 
 use of beer. He did not care, as long as it did not get 
 altogether too bad, about the health of the consumers, 
 which was only too frequently threatened by profit-greedy 
 and conscienceless brewers through the use of poisonous 
 ingredients. 
 
 And yet, who was it that paid the thousand millions 
 which the United States derived from the brewing in- 
 dustry? Was it the brewery capitalists or the consumers 
 of the taxed product? Let us see. 
 
 3. WHO PAYS THE INDIRECT TAXES? 
 
 The government of the United States costs the people 
 annually about one thousand million dollars. The greater 
 part of this huge sum is raised by internal revenues and 
 import duties. It includes also, of course, the income of 
 the postal service; but this need not be taken into con- 
 sideration, because the expenses of the operation of this 
 federal enterprise as a rule exceed its income. 
 
 The duties which are imposed upon imported goods 
 form the largest part of the federal income. Then follow 
 the internal revenues of almost an equal amount. The 
 internal revenue taxes are indirect taxes — that is, they are 
 not collected directly from the persons who have to pay 
 them, but indirectly from the goods which the people 
 consume. Not the persons are taxed, but the goods. 
 
Who Pays the Indirect Taxes? 327 
 
 This is in a large measure also true of the duties. The 
 duty, too, is added by the merchant to the selling price 
 of his goods, and the purchaser, in paying for the goods 
 he buys, pays also the duty which the importer had to 
 turn over to the government of the United States on re- 
 ceipt of the goods. 
 
 But for the sake of simplicity, we will confine ourselves 
 in our consideration to internal revenue taxes. 
 
 These internal revenue taxes are indirect taxes. They 
 are not — as is, for instance, the income tax — levied upon 
 the personal income, but they are imposed upon some of 
 the articles which the people consume, as tobacco, beer, 
 whisky, coffee, tea, etc. In the United States spirituous 
 drinks, tobacco, and beer are the most important objects 
 of this kind of taxation. According to the report of the 
 Commissioner of Internal Revenue for the fiscal year clos- 
 ing June 30, 1908, the total income from internal taxes 
 amounted to $251,665,950. Of this sum spirituous drinks 
 proper (whisky, etc.) yielded $140,158,807; fermented 
 beverages (beer, ale, etc.), $59,807,616, and tobacco, 
 $49,862,754. Of the revenue from beer, $58,747,680 came 
 from the barrel tax, which is raised by the selling of rev- 
 enue stamps. The remainder of over a million dollars is 
 divided between the special tax which the brewers have 
 to pay for the operation of their industry and the extra 
 tax on large and small beer dealers. 
 
 It can be seen what enormous sums the government 
 derives from the use of beverages. 
 
 Who, then, pays these millions? Is it the distiller or 
 the brewer who manufactures the whisky, beer, or ale, 
 upon whom the taxes are imposed? Or who is it who 
 has to provide these enormous sums? 
 
 No, indirect taxation is the means by which the capi- 
 talists in our present society transfer the burden of state 
 upon the non-possessing classes. 
 
328 Taxes and the Brewing Industry. 
 
 The sixty million dollars of taxes which the United 
 States gets from the manufacture of beer, are at first ad- 
 vanced by the brewer when he pays his taxes to the 
 government. But later he adds this tax in some form 
 to the price of his product. The saloon keeper who sells 
 the brewer's beer to the consumer adds the price of his 
 license — in the city of New York this amounts to $1,200 
 a year for each saloon — and other expenses to the price 
 of his beer. The consumer, however, insensibly pays in 
 the price of his glass of beer, not only the entire amount 
 of the beer tax, but also the saloon license, the bribes for 
 the police and politicians — in short, all the expenses which 
 the brewer and the saloon keeper seem to have in the 
 pursuit of their trade. 
 
 It has already been mentioned that the consumption 
 of beer, especially the use of lager beer, is closely con- 
 nected with industrial development. In the main it is the 
 wage-workers who use this beer, and it is they who have 
 to raise the larger part of the enormous sums which the 
 Union derives from the taxation of the beer industry. 
 
 It is evident that such a tax is unjust. The rich 
 brewer, the capitalist in general, is very little if at all 
 affected by it. The rich man, whose income is a hundred 
 or a thousand times that of the workingman, docs not 
 drink more beer, for example, than the workingman. He 
 does not therefore contribute any more to the tax than 
 the poor devil who permits himself a glass of beer. The 
 indirect tax, therefore, does not affect the individual per^ 
 son in proportion to his capital or his income, but it falls 
 in much larger proportion upon the unpropertied masses 
 — which, of course, has this advantage for the government 
 and the ruling classes, that the latter do not have to pay, 
 since the propertyless constitute the mass of the popula- 
 tion, who altogether contribute such enormous sums as 
 it would be very difficult to collect from the capitalists 
 
Who Pays the Indirect Taxes? 329 
 
 by direct taxation. And as a rule the pobr man does not 
 even realize that he is paying taxes. He does not know 
 that he pays taxes in the act of laying down his nickel for 
 his glass of beer or his package of tobacco. 
 
 So it is not the brewery capitalists, but the working- 
 men, who pay the sixty million of internal revenue which 
 Uncle Sam derives annually from the brewing industry, 
 and the same is true of the other indirect taxes. 
 
 The ruling bourgeoise, however, seeks to deny this 
 shifting of the indirect taxes upon the shoulders of the 
 working class, and seeks to make the world believe by 
 all kinds of sophistry that it is the owning class which 
 has to bear the burden of taxation. But their own 
 writers show that this is not so. The French scholar 
 Sismondi declared: 
 
 "It is a very unjust and inhuman proposition, that oft repeated 
 one to abolish all direct taxes and to raise all the income of the 
 state by indirect consumption taxes, because it practically amounts 
 to the proposition to free all the rich from all taxes and to get the 
 taxes from the poor alone. In some respects it would mean to 
 return to the feudal system, where the nobleman pays nothing; but 
 in this new way it would even mean an increase in aristocracy, 
 namely, it would be sufficient to become rich in order by this fact 
 alone to be freed from the taxes." 
 
 Since Sismondi wrote this, the capitalists have long 
 ago realized the proposition then made. But, more clever 
 than the aristocracy, they have understood how to secure 
 for themselves freedom from taxation without the mass 
 of the people finding it out. 
 
 As to the effect of the indirect tax upon the condition 
 of the workingman another writer, the Englishman, Adam 
 Smith, writes as follows: 
 
 "Taxes upon the necessary means of living have almost the 
 same effect upon the fate of the people as unproductive soil or a 
 bad climate. These taxes make provisions dearer in the same way 
 as if it took more work or expense to produce them." 
 
330 Taxes and the Brewing Industry. 
 
 It will be seen, therefore, that workingmen have every 
 reason to declare themselves against indirect taxation 
 and to demand that the expenses of the capitalistic state 
 be provided by taxes which affect the capitalists who 
 have an interest in the maintenance of this state, which 
 in the main is nothing else than an institution for keeping 
 down the workingmen. 
 
 A progressive income tax and taxation of inheritances 
 would be taxes of the kind which the rich would be un- 
 able to shift upon the poor. The larger a man's income, 
 the larger the tax should be which he has to pay on the 
 basis of this income for the maintenance of the state, and 
 the laughing heir of a large inheritance could without 
 great difficulty turn over a quarter or a half of the in- 
 herited fortune for the support of the community, until 
 finally the day comes when private incomes and private 
 inheritances are not possible. 
 
 If the brewery capitalists should point out that at 
 certain times they, too, had to bear a part of the beer tax, 
 it can be replied that beer brewing first had to win its 
 field, that it had to compete with the whisky industry. 
 If in such cases a part of the indirect tax was borne by 
 the brewers — that is, if it was paid out of the surplus 
 value which the brewery capitalists accumulated by ex- 
 ploiting the workingmen — this was only, so to speak, 
 as a business expense which was necessary in order to 
 conquer the field and to compete with other beverages. 
 It has also to be taken into consideration that the shifting 
 of the indirect taxes upon the masses does not always 
 take the form of increasing the price of the goods. By 
 deteriorating of the quality, and in the case of beer by 
 decreasing the measure, the tax is shifted by the capitalist 
 upon the masses. 
 
 We have seen that the increase in the price of pro- 
 visions and articles of consumption, by the imposition of 
 
Who Pays the Indirect Taxes? 331 
 
 an indirect tax, does not by any means bring about an 
 increase in wages. The taxes shifted upon the working- 
 men, then, mean for him a decrease in his standard of 
 living. In other words, the workingman must restrict 
 his consumption to the extent of the sum to which the 
 tax amounts. 
 
 What can be done against this? Fight! Fight for 
 higher wages, reduced working hours, improved working 
 conditions ! But besides this industrial struggle which 
 each group of industry conducts for itself, the struggle of 
 the workingman is necessary for the freeing of labor itself, 
 for the destruction of the whole capitalistic system! 
 Struggle for the formation of a human society in which 
 there will be no wage-work and no exploitation, no ruler 
 and no ruled, no capitalists and no wage-workers I The 
 industrial struggle is but a part of the great general 
 struggle of the working class for a better future — a future 
 which will be of benefit not only to the workingmen, but 
 to all humanity. 
 
 This struggle can and will be fought out by the 
 working class alone. 
 
Cornell University Library 
 HD6515.B75S3 
 
 The brewing industry and the brewery wor 
 
 3 1924 002 335 127