readable groups. We have obviated this difficulty to a certain extent by placing parallel rules beneath the firm name and also between the business and address. Furthermore, we would suggest placing the line 780 Eastern Avenue' at the outer left end of the rules and also placing the line Harris, Ind.,' at the right end of the rules. This will give you one square group of matter, which is infinitely preferable to too many different measures. The small matter at either side of this central group is too widely spaced between lines. In this design, we would prefer to see panels used, as everything seems to be squared up to a certain extent. As a final suggestion, we would prefer to see the last line of the right-hand panel centered on the measure, SO as to avoid the hyphens and also to afford a more symmetrical appearance to the group. Note our placement of the date line, and in future work do not set the line in this position. "Taking up the design for Southworth & Robinson, we find that you have separated the firm name from the business too widely. We would suggest dropping the firm name down about a pica and inserting the added space above. To avoid the hyphens and give a more squared-up appearance to the design, we would suggest that you center the line 'Commercial Printing' on the measure you have employed for the preceding line, placing parallel rules beneath this line and setting the words 'embossing, engraving, designing,' small, directly beneath these parallel rules. We would also suggest that the line 'sold to' be flush with the left-hand margin. In ruled writing lines you should endeavor to obtain a symmetrical appear ance, and in this instance we would suggest setting two ruled lines, breaking them in the center of the page, as we have indicated on your proof. "The billhead for the Graham Journal is too broken up. That is, there are too many forces of attraction to the design. To obviate this confused appearance, we would suggest that the letter M be set in the margin, as also the word "To' and 'Dr.' By placing the parallel rule underneath the firm name and setting the words 'Daily, SemiWeekly and Sunday editions' larger and flush to the margins, you connect these two important features closely. "Furthermore, we would suggest that the matter which is at the outside and bottom of the designs should set flush with the margin, allowing them to break uneven at the front. "By following these corrections, you give the design a squared-up appearance and do away with the too many measures and utter lack of graceful contour. "The Pittsburg Foundry Machinery Company design contains the same error that is noticeable in your rearrangement of the John Wainwright design, namely, that of setting the business much larger than the firm name. Our idea for this job would be to set the line 'foundry machinery of every description' smaller and underscore it by the use of parallel one-point rules. By placing the line 'Our specialty, etc.,' below these paral lel rules, you give a depth and size to the central group without detracting from the legibility of the firm and business. In order to balance properly when in this position, it would be well to set the names of the officers of the firm small and on a line with the date. If necessary, the words 'Presi dent, Vice-President,' etc., can be abbreviated so as to go in the proper measure. too "Summing up your failings, we might caution you as follows: Don't attempt to display your matter too much; don't separate your matter widely, but keep it in as few groups as possible; pay more attention to the order of who, what and where; pay more attention to the contour of your groups of matter, also to the relation of the groups to the page as a whole; pay more attention to the placing of your ruled lines; don't crowd your central group of matter too close to the ruled line, as this renders the writing illegible." If a student is not satisfied with the advice tendered him, it is his prerogative to ask for more explicit information or instructions or send in more work of that class, until he and the instructor are satisfied. If necessary, the instruction department will write a dozen letters like the foregoing to a student. OUT OF THE HONEY JAR. More than 800 students are now enrolled. A student working in a town where there is no union writes: "The I. T. U. Course is the best investment I ever made. The lessons are a great help to me in everyday work, and any printer who will make use of what he learns from this course can not but improve the appearance and quality of his work. In substantiating the claim that it is the best investment I ever made, let me explain that I received an increase in salary last monththe check calls for $18, where formerly it was $16.50. Taking this as an investment, which I made a year ago, of $20, it is drawing an exceedingly high rate of interest." A Brooklyn student says: "Over twenty years of observation and study-undirected-has not advanced me as much as the short experience I have had in the I. T. U. Course. I take this opportunity of thanking you for your interest in me and for the benefits every one must appreciate who has advanced but a short way under your guidance. The young men of today are very fortunate in having such an easy stepping stone as the I. T. U. Course." A Delaware graduate, in bidding goodby to the commission, wrote: "When I started the course in printing I had no experience whatever in lettering and a very limited knowledge of designing, but under your direction I have obtained in a very easy and pleasant manner a knowledge of the subjects which can not help but be a source of benefit to me in the future. The lessons were easy to understand and interesting to execute, but received the greatest benefit from your criticism of my work, which pointed out my errors in a way that led me to perceive and correct the faults myself as I progressed." Miscellaneous Topics EVILS OF THE PRIORITY LAW. I never have favored the priority law. It is a measure which can not be rigidly enforced. It seems to me like an attempt to make water run uphill. The main motive for its enactment, I take it, was to equalize opportunities for work. But this can not be accomplished in this way. Preference should be given to the man of superior ability or aptitude. The theory of the priority law applied to business in general would paralyze industry. In all lines the most efficient are those who produce greatest results, and, by reason of this, are the first to be promoted. No great manufacturing, mercantile or financial institution could be conducted on any other basis. If the "situations belong to the union, and not to the individuals," as a meeting of disgruntled, out-ofwork printers, here in Chicago, resolved thirty years ago, there might be some justification in the union attempting to give them out in rotation; but even in that event such action would be evidence of lack of business acumen. The employer is looking for the most efficient labor; the superior workman is looking for the highest compensation. This is natural and right. The scale of the union is an agreement on behalf of the employer that he will pay not less than a stated minimum wage, and on behalf of the workers that they will not work for less. It does not prevent either party from paying or accepting more. To do so, would be an intolerable interference with individual liberty. The better workman is entitled to higher pay. This is a self-evident proposition; everybody admits it. He is also entitled to preference in securing work. Some of us may not like to admit this, but down in the bottom of our hearts we know it to be true. Were we employers we would unhesitatingly act upon it. There is rivalry among offices to secure first-class men. "Crackerjacks" are always in demand. What would be thought of a law debarring a man from securing an increase in pay? The enforcement of the priority law would prevent one leaving a situation to take another more remunerative. Thus it has a tendency to keep down wages. Another evil effect is that men hesitate to forfeit priority by taking temporary work in other offices. It also tends to make men content with the bare qualification for eligibility. In the government civil service, the eligibles with the highest percentages are placed at the top of the list, and the entire list expires at the end of a This assures the selection of the best quali year. fied; as a rule, those near the bottom of the list stand no show for appointment. The union priority law makes length of waiting primary and capacity secondary. The upholders of the law assert that it has compelled ill-conditioned and tyrannical foremen to be upright and honorable in giving out situations. They seem to be afflicted with "foremanphobia," and base their arguments upon the assumption that foremen in general are very bad fellows. It may sound like a bold assertion, but I doubt if the law has accomplished an iota of the things claimed for it. It may occasionally have kept some one, personally distasteful to the foreman, in a situation for a time, where the man was willing to remain under such strained relations, but the foreman was continually looking for "a hair in the soup"-and he eventually found it. Foremen average up about like the rest of mankind. They seek to secure the best force they can with the means at their disposal. The cry of "favoritism," "pull," "drag," etc., has been greatly overworked. It is not true that prior to the law the subservient, the fawning, the Uriah Heeps, were generally favored. Of course, mighty mean men sometimes become foremen, and their position brings their small traits out in bas-relief, so to speak. But I venture to assert that, in nine cases out of ten, the foreman secured the place because he had shown himself fitted for it, and that nine situations out of ten given out by him were upon merit, reliability and character, as well as workmanship, being considered. The notoriously unfair foreman usually works his own undoing. He is not a permanent fixture. The law providing that the reason for dismissal be given in writing, when requested, is just and reasonable, and is, to my mind, all the union ought to require of the foreman in choosing his force. The law works an injury to the inferior workmen. The foreman will tolerate these as substitutes and extras, though he be loath to give them situations. In the handset days there was always a goodly number of men making a fair living in the large newspaper offices who knew they were not in line for cases. Under priority the foreman is compelled, in self-protection, to debar this class. In the job offices there is no pretense made of observing the law. There is no way of estabWhen there is a rush of work lishing priority. the force is increased. When the rush is over the force is reduced, and the laid-off men seek work elsewhere. I doubt if the law is as largely responsible for the tenacious holding on to situations as its opponents claim. Statistics on this point are apt to be misleading. The disparity in the wages of news and job men has a tendency to make men cling closer to newspaper situations than they did in years past. There is less changing from one branch to the other. And the business depression of the past two years has not been conducive to seeking new fields. The idea of being held in a situation in defiance of the powers that be is repugnant to me. When "fired," I take my medicine as gracefully as possible. I reason that the world is wide and that one door never closes without another opening. I have been "jumped over" others and others have been "jumped over" me. Only once did I kick. After working in a book office nine months, half a dozen of us were laid off, and some later arrivals retained. I went to work in another office, and in a couple of weeks the foreman attempted to make me a regular, ignoring the priority law. The chapel sat down on him. Thereupon I wrote a letter to the union, reciting the circumstances and asking why the law was not generally enforced, so that a man would not be fish in one office and flesh in another. Shortly thereafter, I met the foreman who had laid me off out of rotation, and he gave me a fierce roasting. He was as mad as a wet hen. He would not view my action otherwise than as a personal affront, and declared I was forever debarred from working in his office. Some of the upholders of the law seem to think that it is the duty of the union to provide its members with work. This is not its function, nor does it lie within its power. It should constantly strive to unionize plants, and in this way enlarge the members' field for employment. This it must do if it would maintain its usefulness. But, if every printshop and every printer in the country were unionized, there would still, at times, be men without situations. The realization that the union can not insure to all members steady employment called forth the demand that situations be given out in rotation. Wouldn't the end sought, "the equalizing of opportunities for work," be better accomplished by enacting a law that the entire office force be rotated, say once in every two or three months, the subs and extras going on as regulars for that time, and vice versa? As an "equalizer," this scheme would beat the priority law to a frazzle. Suppose we offer it as a substitute. The "swifts," "freaks," "crackerjacks" and "chaps with situations in their pockets or up their sleeves" are not so numerous as to require muzzling. In any event, the average men will constitute the bulk of the force. But the inferior workman is entitled to some consideration also. He should be permitted to do extra and substitute work, and thus given opportunity to improve. He is a brother member, pays dues, helps us fight our battles, and in the "striving for equal opportunities," etc., ought not to be sacrificed. Those who argue that there is a humanitarian side to the issue seem utterly to lose sight of him. The plea for the humanitarian side may be dismissed with the truism, that injustice never makes for progress or happiness. Even were our industrial regulations such that the laborer actually received all that belonged to him, i. e., the full product of his toil, the most expert and intelligent (consequently the most productive) worker would still have the most. It would be his against the world, because he produced it by his labor. To prevent him from doing his best would be an injustice which could find no place in a system based on equity. Independence does not arise from feeling secure in a situation. Permanency of position is only relative at best. Even great newspapers and old publishing houses sometimes go under. The most independent workman is not the one tied to a job, but the one whose field for securing work is wide; whose services are in demand-the one who least dreads discharge. The chattel slave was assured of a steady, lifelong situation, in which he was amply protected by law, yet he was never accused of independence. "On the humanitarian side" it was argued that slavery was a good thing. The prevalent idea, that what is beneficial to commerce may be injurious to humanity, causing the viewing of industrial questions from "the commercial side" as opposed to "the humanitarian side," is utterly fallacious. Production and exchange, the components of commerce, are the harbingers of civilization. Whatever makes for their upbuilding is for the betterment of humanity. They make possible education, refinement and the arts. Savages take their first upward step when they begin to produce and exchange products-to engage in commerce. Into benighted lands the trader opens the way for the missionary and the teacher. Any measure that checks production or interferes with freedom of trade, no matter under what specious plea, is detrimental to humanity's welfare. It is the reverse of humanitarianism. The logic which upholds the priority law seems to me akin to that which fought against the use of improved machinery, claiming that it did away with work; which insists on a "flat scale," above which no one should be paid, or that the output of the speedy be restricted to that of the average; which demands that articles not used be produced simply that men may be employed. Never having worked where the law was enforced, I may not be qualified to discuss it. I confess that I have read but little upon the subject, and that mainly from its upholders. My opposition is based upon fundamental, economic and business principles. I have assumed that certain undesirable results must follow from the enforcement of a law which contravenes these principles. The arising opposition to it seems to denote that I was not mistaken. However, good can come from a thorough discussion. I shall read with interest whatever is said, pro and con. As the law can be enforced in newspaper offices only, it seems to me it ought to be amended, if retained, so as to apply to them solely. From my viewpoint, the fate of the law should be left in the hands of the men affected by it, who know its merits and demerits from practical experience; and in case its emendation or abolition is submitted to referendum, they (that is, the newspaper men) only should vote upon it. Chicago, Ill. CHARLES H. KOHLMAN. PUBLIC PRINTING. Now and then articles detrimental to the gov ernment printing office are sent out from Washington the latest about the condemning of accumulated publications. Reports with hidden motives emanate in that city, to be copied by the press without thought of purpose. There are few commercial printing concerns so systematically and economically conducted as is the government printing office-the greatest on earth, the compiler and publisher of scientific information for the greatest nation of readers on earth. Of course, all the publications are not of value to all the people-the subject of land irrigation might be considered of little import by a Pittsburg brewer, or treatises on fish culture of small concern by a gold miner of the Nevada desert. But if any publications are unused, the cause should be laid to the distributers-senators and congressmen derelict to interested constituents. The opportunity for graft is almost impossi ble; from public printer down salaries or wages are normal, hardly equaling private concerns of New York or Pittsburg; and a situation is not the one long summer picnic many who have pulled political legs to land have sadly discovered, for a system of average (called "acreage") keeps the worker from other trouble. The government printing office is a good thing for state governments to study. Oregon, California and Nevada own state printing plants, with state printer elected by direct vote of the people. Previous to such condition the letting of state printing was a continuous graft scandal, as it now is in some states. So long as we have politics, public work and civil service will be tainted by partisanship. But if the job is thought worth it, change of political affiliation is apparently not a hard matter. Pittsburg, Pa. HERBERT STEELE. NEED FOR A HIGHER GRADE OF COMPE TENCY. In the course of recent articles on priority, William Mounce, of New York, has advanced as a cure for existing conditions the project of closing all union offices to apprentices for a term of years, and also a more rigid examination of applicants for admission to membership, and now comes Mr. McCandless with a stronger proposition, to close the doors on applications for membership entirely for a time. The first proposition seems to me thoroughly impracticable. Aside from the fact that the International Typographical Union does not control "all the avenues leading to a knowledge of the printing business," such a proposition would be placing a weapon in the hands of the enemies of the trade union movement which they would seize upon with avidity. The justifiable restrictions on the number of apprentices which our laws already demand have at all times been used as one of the most specious arguments of the open shop brigade, and to propose the total abolition of apprentices for the purpose of curtailing the supply is something we can not afford to do. The proposal for a more rigid examination of appli cants is something with which I entirely agree, and I would go further even than that. I believe the time has come when the International Typographical Union should fairly face the fact that at present the possession of a union card is not always a guarantee of proficiency, and the further fact that it would be greatly to our advantage if it were. Every local should have proper examination of boys before they enter upon their apprenticeship, but this does not meet the whole case. The boys of the present day are not less intelligent than we were ourselves, though the present school system does not seem to give such a solid groundwork in the essentials of grammar, spelling and good language as formerly. It is true that present conditions have aided materially in the increase of incompetents, especially in the newspaper branch, and it is here that the various schemes of priority and overtime laws have been evolved in the attempt to do justice to both employer and employe. Where formerly the boy's ambition centered upon learning to set type fast and clean and setting an ad in a manner which would bring forth favorable comment, his whole ambition now is to learn to operate a keyboard as fast as possible, with the result that many finish their apprenticeship with lit tle more than a knowledge of the lay of the case, gained by distributing heads, and sometimes not that, as was seen recently on one daily, when a so-called operator, when called on to set a head, actually did not know how to hold a composing stick. Now, the system in many offices and the recognition of departments by many unions, tends continuously to intensify this state of affairs, and boys are not to blame if they come to the conclusion that a card awaits them at the end of their four years, whatever measure of ability they may show. If the members have taken President Lynch's advice and carefully read Mr. Ridder's criticisms in the address published in the January JOURNAL, they can be in no doubt as to the position of the publishers on this subject. Much that he said can not justly apply to the International Typographical Union, and, of course, his whole argument was of an ex parte nature, but straws show how the wind blows and what we may expect when the question of renewing our arbitration agreement comes up. President Lynch instances the I. T. U. Course in Printing, which has been designed to promote the efficiency of our members, but until the weight of the International Typographical Union stands behind the graduate in his attempt to coin that efficiency into dollars and cents, its fullest benefits will not be realized. Our scales are made on the theory of equality of all, and the fallacy of the theory is evidenced by the numerous schemes of bonuses, preferred situations, etc., which exist in all cities, with the consequent cry of favoritism, the result of the attempt of the more capable to obtain individually what he considers a just reward for his ability. In former times the piece system, whatever its faults, at least gave to each proportionate reward for the work done. The argument is usually made now that nothing prevents the good man from getting more than the scale if he can, but it should not be left to the individual to force that recognition of his ability; he should be in a position to demand it, with the support of his union behind him. In other words, the union itself, or in conjunction with the employers, should establish a graded system, with the scale as a minimum base, and all members, after proper examination, should be classified in accordance with that system and paid accordingly. The constitution of No. 13 provides that "a member unable to earn the regular scale of prices through age or other disability, may apply to the executive committee, which is empowered to fix a rate at which such member may work." What greater disability could there be than the recognized incompetence of a young man who has been discharged from successive offices, and drifts from one to the other until he finally acquires sufficient experience to "get by" in some place, and there settles down, without ambition, content so long as the foreman will tolerate him? Yet I am sure no executive committee would allow him to work below the scale. If you place alongside him the ambitious man who has, for instance, taken the I. T. U. Course, and increased his value to his employer, what reward does he get? Under our laws he does not even have a better chance for permanent employment, but must take his turn with the other man. We have just had a free discussion of the pri ority law, which is an attempt to correct conditions arising from alleged favoritism, and back of that is just this desire of the individual to get what he thinks is a fair reward for his superiority. If the union recognized that superiority and stood behind him in his demands, would you need a priority. law? If each man were graded according to his ability, could any foreman give class A pay to a class D man, just because he wanted to, and expect the business end of the concern to be ignorant of it long? I do not believe that any foreman takes pleasure in branding any man as incompetent; rather, experience shows that many resort to subterfuges to allow men to remain at work and still keep them outside the priority list when situations are to be given out, or give some other reason for discharging them. Such being the case, don't you think they would be glad of an honest grading of workmen which would allow them to choose good men if they were willing to pay for them, and which at the same time would act as a spur to those inclined to make their membership in the union the sole claim they have upon a situation. I do not want to preach, nor do I think I know it all, but, when the daily press is filled with assertions of the comparative incompetence of the American workman, when we consider the numerous schemes for industrial schools, all with a possibility of exploitation by unscrupulous employers; when the barring of men from offices has become so common that it has ceased to be commented on; when the president of the American Newspaper Publishers' Association has shown his hand, with this very claim as one of the trump cards he thinks he holds against us, is it not time for us to look over our own hand and see what we have to play against it? The argument for the admission of many to our ranks is usually based upon expediency and self-protection, but if we can place the employers on record as demanding primarily the competent man, and then come forward with a guarantee of the ability of every member in vary ing degree, would not our position have a stronger foundation than if it rested solely upon the fact that we have gathered in every one who offered himself, good, bad and indifferent? There is now established in New York and in Boston the Printers' League of America, which is endeavoring to establish branches in other cities, with the avowed purpose of working in harmony with the International Typographical Union. The American Newspaper Publishers' Association, through the arbitration agreement, has found it to its advantage to do the same in the newspaper branch. Here you have ready to hand the mechanism to place in operation a system of classification according to ability, after proper examination by representatives of both union and employers, which would make the union card and the union label recognized as the hall mark of good workmanship throughout our jurisdiction. The I. T. U. Course is a long step in the right direction, but if you stop there and continue to place on the same level the man who has taken advantage of it, or who already has the ability it gives, and the man who is content to remain a barnacle on the ship of progress, it will fall short of full fruition. We can not close our ranks with the avowed purpose of establishing a monopoly; we can and should demand that they be closed to the incompetent. Boston, Mass. JOHN MITCHELL. LIFE INSURANCE. From the tone of the editorial in the April JourNAL, it would seem the executive council is seriously considering the life insurance proposition. In fact, it seems quite certain the executive council really intends to offer a law on the subject to the next convention, which will meet next August in St. Joseph, Mo. Life insurance is one of the best investments of our modern civilization, but it should not be undertaken by a labor organization. We have a sufficient number of problems to deal with at present without introducing one of the most complex that organized society has ever dealt with. The tax at present levied on the members of the International Typographical Union is certainly high enough, and should not be increased by the addition of this "life insurance for all at cost" proposition. Many of our members already possess policies, either in fraternal beneficial societies or regular life insurance companies, and to compel these members to take more insurance would be not only a mistake but an outrage. Labor organizations were not formed for the purpose of conducting life insurance. In fact, there has already been injected into many labor organizations features that depart entirely from the cardinal principles of true labor unionism. The sooner they get back to the true principles upon which they were founded the better they will be. Life insurance has only been a success where the finances have been carefully handled and the entire attention of the company or society devoted to one great cause-life insurance. Observe the history of the many fraternal beneficial societies that attempted to give sick benefits along with in |