The Nation-Wide Campaign 5 Wif (Sonitni0gion on ttif (SlrorrH anil Social Sfrblro REV. JOSIAH STRONG, CHAIRMAN OF THE 3fffbfral (Ununrtl of (fliurrijPH of Qli|rt 0 t to Amfrira PROF. SHAILER MATHEWS. President REV. CHARLES S. MACFARLAND. SECRETARY Continuous Toil and Continuous Toilers OR One Day in Seven for Industrial Workers? PUBLISHING DEPARTMENT Federal Conncil of the Churches of Christ in America 612 United Charities Building lOS East 22d Street, New York City Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2017 with funding from Columbia University Libraries https;//archive.org/details/continuoustoilOOfede Continuous Toil and Continuous Toilers OR One Day in Seven for Industrial Workers? Slje National (Campaign BY ©Ijv (Eommtaaion on tlja Olljnrrlf anb €>orial ^orntro OF THE Jffpbwal ffionnril of tl}o QHjnrrlfpa of Cflljriat in Atttprira “Six days shall thou labor.” Our modern industry has repudiated the commandment, while modern society has given its consent. In December, 1908, the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America, in session at Philadelphia, declared that “the churches must stand — for a release from employment one day in seven.” This was an effort to bring society up to a serious reconsideration of one of the ten commandments which, when ob- served, had vindicated its inestimable economic and moral value to the social order for several thousand years. The campaign of the churches began with an investigation by this Commission in the steel industry in the early part of 1910. It was not intended that the report of this investi- gation should be in any way invidious. It was simply presented as a concrete illustration to make clear a generally increasing and alarm- ing situation. During the past two years the Commission, acting through the denominational social serv- ice secretaries and departments, has organized a committee, distributed among the various states, numbering in all about six hundred church leaders and social leaders, and entered into arrangements with the American Associa- tion for Labor Legislation, which was arrang- ing to prepare legislative measures for the various states, the Committee of the Com- mission on the Church and Social Service caring for the moral forces of the campaign, the legislative aspects being left to the Associa- tion for Labor Legislation. A moral awakening on the question has, in varying measure, been produced or deepened by the various state committees. In several communities Federations of Churches and local Social Service Committees have taken up their local situations, with ef- fectiveness according to their measure of ear- nestness. In a considerable number of instances em- ployers of labor have been known to take vol- untary action reducing or abolishing seven day labor, and since the report of the Commission relative to the steel industry a considerable and increasing improvement has taken place in that industry. The following review, however, indicates that the situation was far more serious than was realized and that this evil has as yet been only slightly mitigated, although it would ap- pear that the previous reckless increase in seven day labor has been halted by the cam- paign. 4 The American Federation of Labor, at At- lanta, November, 1911, passed the fojlowing resolution, introduced by John B. Lennon, a member of this Commission : “Whereas, The Federal Council Commission on the Church and Social Service is undertaking a nation-wide campaign to secure for all indus- trial workers one day’s rest in seven; and Whereas, The American Federation of Labor is unqualifiedly on record for the same for many years, and has been efficiently working to that end; therefore, be it Resolved, That we heartily appreciate the co- operation of the “Commission on the Church and Social Service” to the end of securing the one day’s rest in seven, and pledge to the Commis- sion, and to all others who may assist in this work, our hearty and earnest assistance.” The organizations of labor are to be credited with the initiation of this great moral reform in industry and with great influence in cre- ating sentiment long before this Commission was appointed. The Commission has worked with them on this as on other matters of mutual concern and interest. At the same Convention, Rev. Charles S. Macfarland received and addressing the Con- vention as a fraternal delegate from the Fed- eral Council, also held a conference with the leading representatives of Unions, including the Steel Workers, Bakers, Restaurant Work- ers, Trolley men. Postal Service employes, and about twenty other bodies affected by seven day labor, and the plans of the Com- mission were heartily endorsed by these repre- sentatives on behalf of hundreds of thousands of workers. 5 At the beginning of the campaign no state in the Union had effective laws requiring one day’s cessation of labor in seven, but since that time New York and Massachusetts have passed measures which promise effectiveness, and other legislatures seem to promise favor- ably. The following is a statement prepared by John A. Fitch, formerly of the Pittsburgh Survey, author of “The Steel Workers.” THE SEVEN-DAY WEEK FORTOILERS There are only two conceivable explana- tions for the existence of seven day labor. One is that its advance has been so gradual and insidious that the public has not realized its growth, and the other is that in some strange and unaccountable way the mind and conscience of the public has become atrophied with respect to that particular problem. We may accept the first hypothesis as the correct one — although there is surely some basis for the second — for there exists a most lamentable ignorance regarding the extent of the con- tinuous industries with their attendant evils. Before we can properly give them considera- tion, we must marshal such statistical data as is available. The very scarcity of such data reveals both ignorance and unconcern. THE FACTS IN THE CASE In a report by the Federal Bureau of Labor, based on an investigation conducted in 1910 and covering 173,000 employes in blast fur- naces, steel works and rolling mills in the United States, it was stated that 50,000 men, : ^ 29 per cent, of the whole number considered, were working seven days a week. Twenty per cent, worked not only seven days a week but twelve hours each day, and 43 per cent, worked twelve hours a day for six days a week or more. The amount of seven day work has been modified considerably since that report was made, but the 12-hour day remains un- changed. These figures did not include the Bethlehem Steel Company, which had been the subject of a separate investigation earlier in 1910. The figures published in that report applied to January, 1910. Out of 9,184 men on the pay- roll, 2,628 worked seven days a week. Of these, 79 men worked over 13 hours a day, three worked just 13 hours, three worked twelve hours and 45 minutes, and 2,322 worked twelve hours a day. In addition to these, 2,233 men worked twelve hours a day for six days in the week and there was a total of 4,725 men, 51 per cent, of the entire pay- roll, who worked twelve hours a day six or seven days a week. These were the regular schedules. Overtime applied, however, with regard to a large number of the employes, so that when all were included who were work- ing seven days a week in that month, the total reached 4,041, 43 per cent, of the entire pay- roll. No other continuous industry has been studied so carefully as steel. But there are figures, although of a more general nature, which throw considerable light upon the ex- tent of such industries. In 1907 a special committee of the Massachusetts legislature 7 made an investigation in order to determine the number of persons engaged in seven-day labor. They did not take an industrial census and they did not include factories, but after a considerable amount of investigation they esti- mated that there were 221,985 persons work- ing seven days a week in the State of Massa- chusetts. This represented over seven per cent, of the total population of the state. In the state of New York an inquiry was sent out by the State Department of Labor in 1910 to the secretaries of trade unions ask- ing them to report the amount of seven-day labor among their members. Replies were re- ceived from unions having an aggregate mem- ; bership of over 300,000 which is over 26 per cent, of the wage-earners of the state. Of this number it was reported that 35,742 worked at their regular employment seven days in the week. This, it will be noted, is nearly 12 per cent. If such a percentage ob- tains as to union labor, it is natural to presume that a much higher percentage would apply in the case of non-union labor. In 1910 the Minnesota State Bureau of Labor reported that in various trades, occupa- tions and industries in that state there were 98,558 people engaged in seven-day labor. This was about five per cent, of the population of the state. In Massachusetts the estimated percentage, excluding factory labor, was over nine per cent. It is not surprising that the more densely populated state of Massachu- setts, with its larger cities and greater mile- age of steam and electric railroads, should have a larger percentage of seven-day labo’’ i than semi-agricultural Minnesota. It would i 8 be fair to assume that that percentage would be nearer the correct one for the manufact- uring states than Minnesota’s figure. If, however, we take five per cent, as the propor- tion for the entire country, industrial as well as non-industrial centers, we should have a total of over 4,500,000 people engaged in seven-day labor. WHAT IS A CONTINUOUS INDUSTRY? That indicates something as to the enormity of this evil. It ought not to require further demonstration that there is need not only of a study of this problem but of immediate relief. It should be kept in mind that there are two forms of continuous industries. Those that for any reason are operated seven days a week, whether day and night or not, and those that are operated day and night, whether for seven days a week or not. In other words, there are many continuous industries oper- ating 24 hours a day for six days and shutting down over Sunday. That is, properly speak- ing, a continuous industry. There are other industries operating only in the day time but not closing on Sundays. These also are con- tinuous industries. It is, of course, unneces- sary to add that there are also industries oper- ating day and night and seven days a week. It is possible to solve the problem of the con- tinuous industries so far as their working schedules now afford hardship and injustice. That solution involves not only one day of rest in seven for the continuous seven-day in- dustries but an eight-hour day for the con- 9 tinuous day and night industries. We cannot regard either one of these reforms as more than a half solution standing by itself. THE ATTITUDE OF OTHER NATIONS— ENGLAND We may well consider what foreign coun- tries have done in the way of meeting this same problem which exists not less in Europe than in America. England, beyond passing a law requiring a weekly half-holiday for mer- cantile establishments, has done very little in the way of legislation to provide for periods of rest. Yet the principle of rest periods is more firmly entrenched in England, probably, than in any other country in the world. This in- volves not Sunday rest alone, but a Saturday afternoon half-holiday as well. To what ex- tent this may be due to the labor unions which in some of the continuous industries in Great Britain are very strong we are not informed. That they have had a great influence in the proper solution of the question of the con- tinuous industries, however, there is no doubt. THE EIGHT-HOUR DAY The continuous industry problem cannot possibly be solved until two adjustments have been made. There must be one day of rest in seven, but where an industry operates day and night, as well as seven days a week, there must also be three shifts of workers in the 24 hours, giving a period of employment of eight hours each. In the steel industry of Great Britain, which is one of the most im- lO portant of their continuous industries, just as is the case in the United States, union agree- ments have been so worked out that a full half of the steel workers of the United Kingdom are to-day working in three shifts of eight hours each. Practically all of the blast fur- naces of the North of England are on the eight-hour basis. The tin industry has en- tirely gone to the three shift principle and the open-hearth steel furnaces of South Wales and to some extent of the North of England also, are to-day, on account of union agree- ments, working eight hours. GERMANY In Germany neither the unions nor the law have come to any great extent to the defense of the workers in the steel industry. In fact, the situation with them is very similar to that in the United States. The workmen in the steel mills are on duty twelve hours a day and in the departments continuous through the week through technical necessity, such as blast furnaces, the workmen are employed seven days a week. The law, however, in Germany requires that in any work-day of twelve hours there shall be at least two hours rest for meals, so the actual labor period is not over ten hours. Some agitation has arisen in Germany for a law requiring an eight-hour day, but as yet no serious consideration has been given to it by the legislative bodies. FOREIGN COUNTRIES WHERE RELIEF HAS BEEN GAINED In other countries, however, legislation has been resorted to definitely with the idea of af- fording some relief to the workers in the con- tinuous seven-day industries. In France and Italy these laws are the most complete. In those countries the law requires that Sunday shall be the day of rest. It then proceeds to enumerate by very careful definitions the in- dustries which are for one reason or another necessarily continuous. It permits those in- dustries to operate seven days a week but re- quires that the working force shall be so ad- justed that no employe shall be required to work more than six days in any week. In order to make this effective, the law provides that the employer may grant a rest day at any time during the week and allow his employes a day off by rotation. While this law is farthest reaching and broadest in these two countries, the same prin- ciple has been enacted into law in a dozen dif- ferent states of Europe. The simple principle is that for the requirement of labor on Sunday there shall be some compensating period of rest. Laws embodying this principle have been put upon the statute books of countries not only in Europe but in all parts of the world. These countries include Argentine Republic, Austria, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Bel- gium, British India, Canada, Cape of Good Hope, Chili, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Roumania, Spain, the federal government of Switzerland and seven cantons of Switzerland. FORWARD MOVEMENTS IN THE UNITED STATES In the United States several things have happened which may lend some encourage- ment to those who hope to see a solution of the continuous industry problem on the right lines. No legislation on this subject can be so effective or so desirable as voluntary action on the part of the people involved in those in- dustries. No statutory regulation is so likely to be enforced as a regulation agreed upon by operators or in conference between operators and employes. So it is a cheerful sign that the lead smelters of Colorado, Montana, Ne- vada and Utah, almost without exception, con- tinuous seven-day industries as they are, oper- ate with three shifts of men working eight hours each. That is a long step forward, even though they do not as yet provide for one day of rest in seven. The vast majority of the paper mills of New York and New England have adopted the eight-hour day. The Sharon Steel Hoop Company of Sharon, Pennsylvania, since 1904 has had an eight- hour day on its rolling mills. The Cambria Steel Company of Johnstown, Pennsylvania, has an eight-hour day in many of its depart- ments which are operated continuously day and night for six days. In Granite City, Illinois, the Commonwealth Steel Company, operating a large steel foundry, has adopted, with results satisfactory to itself and to the men, an eight-hour day in its open hearth department. For more than a year the United States Steel Corporation has had a standing rule that there shall be a day of rest for every man in the employ of the Corporation. This has been made possible by increasing the working force in the company’s seven-day departments so that there shall be enough workers to man the plant, while 1/6 of the force on each day of the 13 week is idle. The same rule, with modifica- tions, has been adopted by the Lackawanna Steel Company and some of the other inde- pendent companies. The American Telegraph and Telephone Company has had this rule in force for half a dozen years with most satis- factory results. INDUSTRIES YET ALMOST UNTOUCHED These are the encouraging things but they are only the beginning and the number of men affected is as a drop in the bucket in com- parison with those who are still working in the various continuous industries of this country and have no hope of relief in either of the ways suggested, through a rest day or through an eight-hour shift. The railroads have made no movement in the direction of providing a rest day for their employes and the street car companies have done so only in so far as they have been compelled by con- tracts with the union. In addition to these great industries employing hundreds of thou- sands of men seven days in every week there are a countless number of smaller industries and occupations not usually called industries, such as restaurants and hotels, barber shops, dairies and ice companies, where the employes are regularly on duty without a day of rest and whose members in the aggregate reach many hundreds of thousands. LEGISLATION SEEMS BOTH NECESSARY AND PRACTICABLE, THOUGH SOME- TIMES DIFFICULT So, however desirable voluntary action may be, however preferable to legislation the wil- lingness of employers to make voluntary agreement or voluntarily to olfer to their em- ployes relief from the depressing and burden- some effects of continuous toil, it has not been sufficient to justify the hope that the problem will settle itself in that way. The only recourse that a humane and socially- minded public can have in such- a case is to the law making body. It is desirable and necessary that laws shall be enacted requiring an eight-hour shift in the industries continu- ous day and night and requiring one day of rest in seven for the industries operating seven days in the week. For however desir- able continuous industries may be — and they are not only desirable but absolutely essential to the comfort and even the very existence of many thousands of people — we cannot have continuous workmen. Neither can we have good citizens unless we see to it that they have opportunity to rest during a sufficiently long period and with a sufficient degree of frequency as to enable them to maintain the strength and vigor of their bodies. Said the Court of Appeals of the state of New York in People vs. Havnor (149 New York 195) : “It is to the interest of the state to have strong, robust, healthy citizens, capable of support, of bearing arms, and of adding to the resources of the country. Laws to effect this purpose by protecting the citizen from overwork, and requiring a general day of rest to restore his strength and preserve his health have an obvious connection with the public welfare.” So far as the eight-hour day is concerned, there are practical difficulties in the way, for the courts have held that the hours of labor 15 of adult males may not be regulated by law unless there is some special and compelling reason for interfering in such a manner with their freedom of contract. To be sure, the courts have ruled that under certain circum- stances the hours of labor of grown men may be regulated ; for example, in railway employ- ment. But the reason for this restriction upon the liberty of the citizen is in order to pro- tect the public from the danger of accident that might ensue if overworked and overtired men were permitted to control the operation of the trains. Again, the courts have held that laws regu- lating hours of labor in mines and smelters were valid laws on account of the peculiar risk incurred by the employe in breathing danger- ous fumes and gases. Those industries were held to be sufficiently dangerous so as to make it permissible for the legislature to limit hours of labor in order to protect the health of the employes. On the other hand, it is scarcely necessary to call attention to the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Lochner vs. New York held that it was not competent for the legislature of New York to regulate the hours of labor of bakers. Yet we may be fairly sanguine as to the attitude that the courts might take if a law were passed requiring that in the continuous industries a man should not be permitted to work more than eight hours a day. It is evi- dent from the opinion of the court in Holden vs. Hardy that it was made clear in arguments and briefs submitted in that case that there is a danger attendant upon underground mining and the operation of smelters. The court i6 was so impressed by the evidence presented that they felt that the legislature was justified in making an exception of the employes in those industries and giving them the protec- tion that they needed. Apparently it was not made equally clear in the bakers’ case that there was peculiar danger to the health in that industry. For when the Court of Appeals of the state of New York by a majority of one, rendered a decision in favor of the law, one of the dissenting judges took occasion to remark that it would indeed cause surprise among the housewives of the nation to learn that the baking of bread, an industry that they and their mothers and grandmothers had been carrying on in their kitchens, had suddenly become a dangerous industry requiring the protection of the law. Apparently it could not have been made clear to this judge that a modern bake shop such as found in our great cities to-day — often in cellars with no means of ventilation and where the heat is intense, where men are required to work often seven days a week and long hours of labor every day — that the baking of bread under such circumstances is a different thing from the baking done by the average housewife in her kitchen. The courts were not inclined to view with favor laws regulating hours of labor for women until briefs were submitted that really discussed the merits of the case instead of citing precedents and legal opinions of a former generation. The Supreme Court of the state of Illinois, in 1894, held that the hours of labor of women could not legally be regulated, but in 1910, when the experience 17 of the world regarding women in industry was placed before the court, and it was given an opportunity to see what the hygienic reasons are for demanding such legislation, it reversed its earlier opinion and held that it was a wise, humanitarian and necessary measure to place a limit upon the number of hours per day that women in the state of Illinois may be per- mitted to work. WHAT WE MAY HOPE With these facts before us, is it too great a stretch of the imagination to hope that we may place upon the statute books of our states laws requiring that the men employed in industries which operate day and night, twenty-four hours in the day, shall not be per- mitted to work more than eight in the twenty- four? Is it too much to expect when we go before a court to argue that such a limitation is reasonable and just under the police power of the state in order to protect its citizens from the debasing effects of twelve hours a day labor, that we shall be able to convince the court of the reasonableness of our claim? Is there not justice in a classification which separates the men working in the continuous industries from those industries which are not continuous and which, therefore, may be so adjusted as to limit the hours of labor without endangering the process or the product b)' stopping the plant? When the difference is made clear between the conditions in the in- dustries which operate only by day and so may be limited to ten hours, eight hours or even six at the will of those engaged in it and the i8 continuous industries where the operation of the plant cannot be limited at all — we may reasonably expect that the courts of our land will not be inclined to resort to petty quibbles over freedom of contract any more than they have been in the case of workers in mines and smelters. Already the legislative bodies have begun to recognize the necessity of such regulation. Montana has a law requiring an eight-hour day for hoisting engineers at mines, but not for all such hoisting engineers. This limita- tion is to apply only where the mine is oper- ated 16 hours or more per day. When that is the case, the engineers shall not be required to work more than eight hours in twenty-four. The principle has been recognized by Con- gress in the case of railroad telegraphers. The federal law fixes a maximum of 13 hours a day for railroad telegraphers employed in offices open only in the day time, evidently recognizing that since the office is to be closed for the night anyway, it is conceivable that it may be closed at such a time as to give the operators even less than a thirteen-hour day. But the maximum is nine hours in offices open day and night. In spite of these encouraging signs, how- ever, we recognize that the difficulties to be surmounted before it shall become judicially recognized that it is permissible to regulate hours of labor for men are very great. The other regulation which must be made before the problem of the continuous industry may be solved is fortunately of a simpler nature. From the year 1811 to 1909, inclusive, there were at least 71 cases brought before supreme IQ courts of the states and of the United States where the question of the constitutionality of Sunday legislation was an issue. The Sunday laws, of course, were enacted at an early day before our industries had grown so great as to require protection for labor, and they were designed by religiously minded people to pro- tect the Sabbath from desecration. In all of these 71 cases, except one, the constitutionality of the Sunday laws was affirmed. But the grounds upon which this decision was made are of vital significance. From 1866 to 1909, 46 such cases were decided. The grounds of the approval of those laws as given by the courts were not the protection of the Sabbath, they were not the prevention of the desecration of the day, they were not the protection of religious institutions ; but with a unanimity almost complete they rest their decisions as to the validity of those laws upon the power and duty of the state to protect its citizens from overwork. Again and again, in the strongest of terms, the courts have declared their abhorrence of the idea that men may be permitted to work without a day of rest. Con- sequently, it seems fair to assume that if laws were enacted requiring one day of rest in seven the courts would still recognize, as they have before, the necessity of a day of rest and will not be deterred from approving the law on the ground that the rest day may not happen always to fall on the Christian Sab- bath. This is fairly clear and it seems also a reasonable thing that the courts which have in such explicit terms expressed their abhor- rence of the lack of an adequate weekly rest period will, when the facts are fully placed be- 20 fore them, find that the lack of an adequate daily rest period is equally abhorrent. The time, then, appears to be ripe to secure legislation that will protect these continuous workers. On account of the comparatively simpler problem that is involved in the secur- ing of a day of rest, that is the first thing to be taken up and fought for. But immedi- ately after having gotten that under way, we should be false to the principles for which we profess to stand if we should not also take up the other line of action and work steadily and consistently for a legal limit of eight hours in the continuous industries. iFpJifral ©ounrtl ©ottimtHHion ON ®l|p (!ll|urrl]f attb hartal Rev. Josiah Strong, Chairman Prof. George W. Richards, Recording Secretary SECRETARIAL COUNCIL Rev. Henry A. Atkinson Rev. Frank M. Crouch Rev. Samuel Z. Batten Rev. Charles O. Gill Rev. Harry F. Ward Rev. Charles S. Macfarland COMMITTEE OF DIRECTION Prof. Edward T. Devine Rev. Henry A. Atkinson Rev. Samuel Z. Batten William F. Cochran Rev. Frank M. Crouch Miss Grace H. Dodge Shelby M. Harrison Miss Louise Holmquist Rev. J. Howard Melish Rev. Frank Mason North William B. Patterson Gifford Pinchot Rev. Josiah Strong Rev. Charles L. Thompson Charles R. Towson Rev. Harry F. Ward MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION Rev. Ernest H. Abbott Rt. Rev. C. P. Anderson Roger W. Babson Mrs. O. Shepard Barnum Bishop S. C. Breyfogel Pres. Franklin E. Brooke Pres. George C. Chase Rev. Orrin G. Cocks George W. Coleman Harris R. Cooley William K. Cooper Pres. Boothe C. Davis Rev. E. Heyl Delk John J. Eagan Prof. Edwin L. Earp Richard H. Edwards Pres. H. L. Elderdice H. D. W. English Prof. Daniel Evans Homer Folks Rev. W. R. Funk Rev. Samuel M. Gibson Rev. Washington Gladden John M. Glenn Prof. Thomas C. Hall Prof. C. R. Henderson Prof. James R. Howerton Prof. Rufus M. Jones Rev. O. F. Jordan Paul U. Kellogg Howard A. Kelly, M. D. Rev. J. H. Kendall Rev. William E. Lampe John B. Lennon Owen R. Lovejoy Prof. F. E. Lumley Bishop Francis J. McConnell Rev. J. E. McCulloch Miss Mary E. McDowell A. J. McKelway Pres. David McKinney Rev. H. H. McNeill Rev. H. H. Marlin Rev. J. W. Messinger Rev. Alfred E. Meyer James Alexander Miller, M.D. Pres. S. K. Mosiman Rev. C. J. Musser Rev. John P. Peters Rev. O. W. Powers Pres. H. F. Rail Prof. Walter Rauschenbusch Rev. John A. Rice Rev. Peter Roberts Mrs. Raymond Robins Miss Helen J. Sanborn A. M. Scales Rev. Doremus Scudder Miss Florence Simms Willard L. Small Rev. James F. Rev. Samuel G. Smith Prof. Edward A. Steiner Rev. Charles Stelzle Chancellor D. S. Stephens Rev. Paul M. Strayer Rev. Carlyle Summerbell Very Rev. W. T. Sumner Rev. E. Guy Talbott Fred E. Tasker Prof. A. W. Taylor Prof. Graham Taylor Rev. John A. Thurston Rev. Worth M. Tippy Rev. A. J. Turkle Rev. Samuel Tyler Bishop Alexander Walters Rev. George T. Webb Rev. A. E. Webster Pres. Herbert Welch Rev. G. Frederick Wells Rev. Leighton Williams Rev. Edward S. Wolle Miss Carolena M. Wood Rev. E. S. Woodring Zwemer COMMITTEE ON CHURCH AND COUNTRY LIFE Gifford Pinchot Rev. William I. Haven Pres. Kenyon L. Butterfield Henry Wallace Prof. Thomas N. Carver Rev. Warren H. Wilson Rev. Charles O. Gill Field Investigator Rev. Charles S. Macfarland, Secretary 105 East 22d Street, New York (The Committee of the American Association for Labor Legislation consists of John A. Fitch, Charles S. Macfar- land, Charles M. Cabot, Louis D. Brandeis, Ernst Freund, and William D. Mahon.) NO. 48 23 . M littmfi .voM K-ittiKiO-jW ?i i|orl^iII ■» tcii'unr) .vj^l ah^rttpiS .y. .fl if'lfwiiWO ‘ .If liiij'J .vuVl I .vjX TJiininS .T .V/ .V3» x'-'V JtdfUr.'J’ yiil) .3 .vjS'I loI'iiiT .7/ ./. .loi'J.U. nVmlliiUjK .H'.l ^ 'T^A I.'Wr.d . jjj .H .11 iitlitt/.H.Il'vjH '3 .7/ .1, rjX'sU .il .i^tlil^ T.jtxn eMiiiJ, mjsiltiO .Ho'l iioUiuilT ./ nili’l. .vjJI .17 ifVioV/ .vjM ',i4iirr .1 .A .voH Tolx’r I jtlOlcJ', .T-jJI eiillnW -jiliiif/ il/v <)rf*»V/ .’I .vnH .vaSI KlljW ilai .O .vsJl vtru-.iHiV7 /iriJ/laii-1 .V-..M alloV/ .R tiirwliH .v»^I IiudV/ .17 r.ii'ilmn'.) »eil7 jjitnliooV/ .R .Jl .vaH TSiiii (••X llliOlUflil/l .H .?. '>'j,=-?ijl/ .1. .^1 .vaM hiil'/l .'1 rid'il. .v'lir ; .77 .11 .V'jM ■>: IIb'/I .'■! .11 .aa'i'l rf j .(f> ■lilitiii jR j!ijm ‘ii.M .viM . FCliini?, aafi'jaol'l iWiili? ll/anR . I InB'lIi 77 •.'•1 eamnX .v,i!4 5171.1 YMTKilU'J ClkA IDMUin Y.O 5i;i'mT/UU'J n-.iv/.ir .1 iiir.llliV/ .v.>H ■ -iaBlilrV/ xi"'>ll iio/li // .H-iiamiV/ .V »H JiioTlil) l)lvitialii)ll . 1 .Mi‘1 ■toviaCl .K erniortT .loi'J IliO .O ssalijirn .vaH lp)B»)l?avnl I)!'/)'! , .. . YXo ,in51 .=>JaI'fu;’'Il *.C(' eiifOil '‘.Jt'OV.O .14 yalitH'l. .tirihl (.tn)i!t;.t4 .(I niiiiII,iV7 Imr.