1859-1889 (1890), by the Grand Master of the Knights of Labor and partic larly interesting on that organization; G. E. McNeill (ed.), The Labor Mr ment, the Problem of Today (1887), by one of the earliest state labor officials John Mitchell, Organized Labor (1903), by the one-time president of the Unite Mine Workers of America; and Helen Marot, American Labor Unions (1914 There are numerous studies by experts, many of which have received ther inspiration from the researches and training of J. R. Commons. Among best are J. R. Commons, Trade Unionism and Labor Problems, First Seri (1905) and Second Series (1921), collections of readings; J. R. Commons, La and Administration (1913); T. S. Adams and H. L. Sumner, Labor Problem. (1905); J. R. Commons and J. B. Andrews, Principles of Labor Legislatio (1916); W. Jett Lauck and Edgar Syndenstricker, Conditions of Labor a American Industries (1917); D. D. Lescohier, The Labor Market (1919) Hayes Robins, The Labor Movement and the Farmer (1922); and Dane Bloomfield, Employment Management (1920), a source book.

On the labor of women and children, there is now a large amount of materia Pioneer government work was done in the Report on Condition of Woman an Child Wage-Earners in the United States (19 vols., 1910-12), published by th United States Department of Labor, Sixty-first Congress, Second Sessio Senate Documents, vols. 86-104, and subsequent reports by the Women's Burea and Children's Bureau of the Department of Labor. A recent study is that c Adelaide M. Anderson, Women in the Factory (1922). On the horrible conditic of child labor in the early mills, see Helen L. Sumner's work in J. R. Commer et al., History of Labour in the United States (1918), Vol. I, p. 169 ƒjƒ. A earlier work by John Spargo, The Bitter Cry of the Children (1906), is st valuable.

On the more radical developments, the books of P. F. Brissenden, Tk: I. W. W., a Study of American Syndicalism (1919), Vol. LXXXIII, Columbia University Studies, and J. G. Brooks, American Syndicalism: The I. W. W (1913), the latter emphasizing the philosophy of the movement and its international aspect, will be found valuable. Carleton H. Parker, The Casus Laborer and other Essays (1920), and John Spargo, Syndicalism, Industria Unionism and Socialism (1913), are illuminating. A notion of European laber movements may be gained from Paul U. Kellogg and Arthur H. Gleason British Labor and the War: Reconstructors for a New World (1919); and Louis Levine, Syndicalism in France, Columbia University Studies in History, Economics and Public Law, Vol. 46, No. 3 (1914).

The immigration problem may be studied in J. R. Commons, Races and Immigrants in America (1907), a succulent survey; J. W. Jenks and W. J. Lauck The Immigration Problem (1917), a scholarly presentation; I. A. Hourwich Immigration and Labor (1922); Philip Davis and Bertha Schwartz, compilers and editors, Immigration and Americanization (1920), a book of selected readings; John P. Gavit, Americans by Choice (1922); F. J. Warne, The Tide of Immigration (1916); Grace Abbott, The Immigrant and the Community (1917); J. Drachsler, Democracy and Assimilation (1920); S. P. Orth, Our Foreigners. Chronicles of America Series (1920); National Industrial Conference Board, Immigration Problems in the United States (1923). For statistics, see the Report of the Immigration Committee, containing Statistical Review of Immi

kration, 1820-1910, and Distribution of Immigrants, 1850-1900, Sixty-first Conress, Third Session, Senate Document No. 756, Vol. 20 (1911).

Three very significant reports on specific strikes are the Report to the Presient on the Anthracite Coal Strike of May-October, 1902, by the Anthracite Coal Commission (1903); Report of Strike of Textile Workers in Lawrence, Massachusetts (1912), Sixty-second Congress, Second Session, No. 870; Report of the Steel Strike of 1919 by the Commission of Inquiry of the Interchurch World Movement.

SELECTED READINGS

CARLTON, F. T., History and Problems of Organized Labor, Chaps. IV-VII. WATKINS, G. S., An Introduction to the Study of Labor Problems, Chaps. IIIXIV, et al.

3rissenden, P. F., The I. W. W., a Study in American Syndicalism, Chaps. I-V.

COMMONS, J. R., Races and Immigrants in America.

COMMONS, J. R. (ed.), Trade Unionism and Labor Problems, 2d series, Chap. II. COMMONS, J. R., and ANDREWS, J. B., Principles of Labor Legislation, Chaps. I-III, et al.

CHAPTER XXV

WORLD TRADE AND THE NEW IMPERIALISM

The Old Imperialism.-Imperialism, that national policy which tends toward the extension of political, economic, and irtellectual dominion over regions geographically situated beyond the national boundaries, is a phenomenon discernible from the earliest times in nations which have progressed to a position of wealth and power. In modern times the world has witnessed two distinct waves or outbursts of imperialism. The first of these, which we may designate as the Old Imperialism, commenced with the discovery of new trade routes to the East at the close of the fifteenth century and lasted until 1815, the end of the Second Hundred Years' War between France and England. Then ensued a lull in imperialistic activity, during which statesmen were little interested in extending their foreign dominions. The last third of the century, however, witnessed a renewed interest and activity in foreign expansion on the part of many nations, a period inaugurated by Disraeli (1874-80) in England and by the embarkation of France and Germany after 1880 upon new imperial efforts.

The Old Imperialism was influenced by mercantilism. It looked toward the founding of foreign settlements of colonists from the home country, who were to set up little Spains, little Englands and little Hollands throughout the world to serve as sources of raw materials and markets for home products. Under the impetus of the Old Imperialism, North and South America and Siberia were conquered and peopled by Europeans, while settlements and trading posts were established in South Africa, in India, in the East Indies, in Australia and elsewhere.

If the Old Imperialism is defined as the acquisition of land which is actually settled by those who acquire it, American imperialism up to 1898 may be largely considered as such. The area of the United States in 1800 was 892,135 square miles,

sufficient in the belief of most men to accommodate for an indefinite period the needs of our population. But the restless, land-hungry pioneer spirit had so entered into the blood of large groups of the people that it was only three years later that the Louisiana Purchase of 885,000 square miles was consummated. Florida, containing 59,600 square miles, was purchased from Spain in 1819; Texas, a region of 389,000 square miles, was annexed in 1845; and the Oregon territory (285,000 square miles) was secured by treaty in 1845. The Mexican War, instigated for apparently no purpose but to confirm the annexation of Texas and to extend our boundaries to the Pacific, added 529,000 square miles, augmented in 1853 by the Gadsden Purchase of 30,000 square miles. In the case of Florida, Texas, and Oregon, settlers had gone ahead of acquisition, but in general these accumulations of large stretches of land were made without any immediate expectation of use. The same was true of Alaska purchased in 1867 for $7,500,000; but in all cases white settlers speedily entered to dominate and occupy. The habit of imperialism was too easily formed. The prices paid were trivial in comparison to the value of the land; and where wars were fought they were neither sanguinary nor costly. The anti-imperialists were easily overrun by the frontiersmen or by the southern slaveholders so generally in control of the national government before the Civil War. The Indian inhabitants were ruthlessly brushed aside or were overpowered by a superior civilization. For such an imperialism a strong case can be presented. An inferior civilization in a sparsely occupied region had to give way to an aggressive people possessed with energy and numbers to conquer, and resources to develop the land.

The New Imperialism.-The new wave of imperialism which has swept over the world since 1870 has brought in its wake results more far-reaching than any other human event since the Industrial Revolution ushered in modern times. In fact, the New Imperialism is a direct result of the Industrial Revolution. Its causes are principally economic. (1) The new inventions in machinery increased production so enormously that new markets had to be developed to dispose of the surplus production and the

vast population of Africa and Asia came to be considered as potential customers. Improvements in transportation and communication by land and sea were of inestimable value in speeding up this search for new markets. (2) As the Industrial Revolution. increased the population and hence the markets at home, and new markets were discovered abroad, it was necessary to develop new sources of raw material. Those interested in manufacturing and commerce professed to believe that such sources of supply were safer when controlled by the home government. (3) In addition to these economic factors came a third equally important. With the tremendous increase in manufacturing and transportation, there followed accumulations of capital seeking investment. As the surplus of capital increased in Europe, interest rates declined and financiers were forced to go far afield for profitable investments. As a result we find European capital invested heavily abroad. British investments abroad in 1914 were estimated by Sir George Paish at about $20,000,000,000, approximately 23 per cent of the total capital investments of the nation.1 British investments in India amounted to nearly £378,776,000 and before the recent war, close to £754,617,000 in the United States. In 1912 France was estimated to have loaned abroad over $8,000,000,000 amounting to 37 per cent of the total personal securities of the French, chiefly in the Near East and Russia: while Germany had between $7,500,000,000 and $8,500,000,000 invested abroad at the beginning of the war. This money invested in factories, mines, oil wells, railroads, and traction companies, or loaned to foreign governments, must be protected; it continually directed the eyes of capitalists and governments to foreign fields and served to weaken the independence of smaller powers as the more wealthy nations gained economic control. It gave the tone to the New Imperialism, which was in reality financial imperialism. As in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the homeland sent out settlers to conquer and occupy, so now the capitalists of the nineteenth century sent out manufactured products and money. They were not interested in settle

1 Bogart, E. L., War Costs and Their Financing, pp. 14-16.

t