his statements to be taken seriously by the men. There is no member of the railroad organizations who can say truthfully that an officer of his organization forced him to vote in favor of a strike. Every time there is need for such a vote every disadvantage that can arise if a strike is permitted, if the men vote in favor of it, is explained. The officers can not order a strike unless the men declare in favor of it by secret ballot, and the officer, while not permitted to call a strike, has the power to deny the men the right to strike even after they have voted in favor of it.

In talking with representatives, operatives they used to be called, it developed that they were to report causes for dissatisfaction among the men. To use the words of one of them when asked just what was to be reported he replied, broken cattle-guards, littered yards and the like. When asked if he did not think the reporters would soon run out of stuff to report he said he did not know.

We are going to get right down to brass tacks in discussing this question. The Pennsylvania Lines East have taken a most prominent position in furthering this work. Its men more than those of any other company we know have been advised to make themselves acquainted with The Mediator's work and the statement has been made that the company was in full sympathy with the proposition.

The Mediator declares it is for the purpose of securing a square deal for the men. The argument that organization costs, through grievance committee assessments, are too high and that this plan of securing justice for the men by way of The Mediator is cheaper and will be more effective has been pretty thoroughly explained to the men. The Pennsylvania Lines have taxed the patience of their employes by delay through insisting that every case needing adjustment must travel its way through all of the officers whether they have power to make settlement or not and by weeks of postponement through one excuse or an

If The

theory to prove who is right. Mediator idea is all right and it secures results, our hat is off to it with every good wish for its success-but we don't expect to catch cold from going bareheaded. These committeemen who are going about in the pay of The Mediator telling their men that The Mediator plan will save them money and get better results than the organizations, ought to be asked immediately to make good. If they are too expensive and useless as committeemen and can get better results by way of The Mediator without cost to the men, that is the thing in decency for them to do.

If the railroad companies are so certain that their men are not being fairly treated and they are so anxious to be decent as to employ Turner to see that the men are given a square deal, let them make good.

The idea that a railroad company is so afraid that it will not treat its men fairly that it will go outside of its own business management to employ an outsider to make sure they will do it, is not to be taken seriously.

We have a couple of cases in mind where writers for The Mediator were dismissed. It appears they wrote up certain officials for that publication and were dismissed from the service "for cause" later on. They are still out.

Run through the stuff that was unloaded at the conference, from the bulldog and the parrot to the statement from Turner, "If this is detective work I am proud of it," and form your own conclusions.

Death Rate in Mining Industry.

Figures issued by the United States Bureau of Mines show a decrease of 317 in the number of lives lost last year, with a total of 2,517 compared with 2,834 for 1910. The death rate in 1910 was 3.91 men out of every 1,000 men em

and considerable dissatisfaction has resulted. Now comes this play upon that dissatisfaction, for which the company alone is to blame, and an attempt to have the men repudiate their organizations by pretending that an outside party will be able to settle their differences without cost to the men. The company is responsible for delay and heavy assessments. The men in all justice can demand quick action hereafter or if they think it worth while, force it rather than wait the pleasure of the company.

Reduced to everyday talk it means that the Pennsylvania Company confesses it has not been fair to its men but is will ing to hire an outside party to secure justice for them quicker than it has been given in the past.

It will take but one application of the

3.74.

For the first four months of the present year 768 lives were lost. If the present ratio is maintained throughout the balance of the year, 1912 will show the another substantial reduction in death rate. Pennsylvania led other States in the number of lives lost during the four months, while West Virginia was second.

Compared with 1907, the darkest year in the history of American mining, when 3,197 men lost their lives, 1911 shows a decrease of 680 in the number of men killed.

It was following the record of this year that Congress authorized the Government to begin investigations look

ing toward a reduction in the death rate, and this was supplemented in 1910 by the creation of the Bureau of Mines.

Although Pennsylvania employed almost half the total of miners for the whole country in 1911, with 299,910 out of 672,422, the death rate per 1,000 men employed was rather low. In the anthracite fields 4.52 were killed out of every 1,000, while in the bituminous fields the rate was 3.09.

Of the four leading States, the rate was lowest in Ohio, with only 2.23 killed out of every 1,000. Of the big producers, West Virginia ran highest, with a rate of 4.55 per 1,000. Including all States, Alabama showed the highest death rate of 9.69, with Virginia second with a rate of 8.49.

Discussing the death statistics of the coal mines, Dr. Joseph A. Holmes, director of the Bureau of Mines, said: "While these latest mortality statistics in the coal mines of the country show slight improvement over previous years, the United States still has no record to be proud of. In spite of the progress we have made, we are still far below the standard of safety we should have reached.

"It is, of course, comforting to know that for each year since 1907 there has been a decreasing number of men killed for every million tons of coal mined, and that for every life lost we have each year taken out of the earth more tons of coal. This is an improvement in the right direction.

"The Bureau is co-operating with the State mine inspectors, the mine workers and with the mine operators," continued Dr. Holmes, "in an endeavor to solve many of the difficult problems connected with the coal mining industry in this country. In this effort there is serious need of the statesman. No branch of industry in this country is on so bad an economic basis today as that of coal mining, and a satisfactory basis can not be reached until important legislative changes are made."

The Stream of Wealth, or, Where the People's Money Is Going.*

All terrestrial streams and ocean currents have now been fairly well explored and understood; but the Stream of

"By A. A. Graham, Topeka, Kas.

Wealth changes course and volume so frequently that constant observations are necessary to even approximate the source, the direction, the mouth or the volume.

At present the Stream of Wealth in the United States springs from every individual, and the converging tributaries form three main branches, uniting in one short but tremendous channel.

In order of importance these branches are (1) the United States Steel Corporation, (2) the Standard Oil Company, (3) the Rubber Trust.

Like every great watershed, there are numerous other and smaller branches, but these mingle their waters so thoroughly with the main branches as to lose identity.

At the present moment the already swollen Stream of Wealth is overflowing by reason of the precipitation of the automobile. A government report, recently issued, states that during the last year the value of the automobile output has been equal to the value of all products sold from the farm, both grain and livestock.

All wealth, initially considered, comes from the ground; the only other source of income is the output of the mines, but these are owned by very few individuals indeed.

Here, then, is the situation: The wealth of nearly all the people of the United States, produced during the last year, has gone into automobiles. This is astounding; but, when we consider, also, that the accumulated wealth of the preceding generation, when available, is likewise expended for automobiles, we lack a word to express our surprise.

As an instance of the now almost universal rule, a man of my acquaintance recently came into an inheritance from his well-to-do parents, representing the meager savings of a lifetime of hard work, and the result was an automobile.

An automobile is constructed chiefly of iron and rubber, and the principal item of operation is gasoline. The ultimate profit, therefore, is seen to accrue to the Steel, the Rubber and the Oil Trusts. These three corporations join to maintain their respective monopolies against the government and the people, and, in ultimate effect, form a great and uncontrollable ocean.

The Oil Trust, however, was recently dissolved by legal proceedings, made to die a legal death; but a legal death is often only a resurrection, where the

weak is made powerful, corruption incorruptible, and the mortal immortal, as the Oil Trust abundantly shows. Immediately on the legal death and dissolution of the Oil Trust the prices of all oils have tremendously advanced, as also the stock of the parent company, adding more than $100,000,000 to the wealth of the chief stockholder. Repeated deaths and dissolutions would be most welcome to the Oil Trust. Are the trust busters knaves, or the people fools? Both, I guess.

Having presented the parallel, we must now note the contrast: The great sea

returns to the land, in bounteous gifts, the blessed rain; but the ocean of wealth never returns anything to the people, as the monuments of all departed nations, without exception, read.

You have no automobile, you say, and this does not interest you. Well, neither have I, but the price of our services and the cost of our subsistence depend initially upon the conditions brought about by the automobile mania, and we are the victims of circumstances, the innocent bystanders. The disappearance of wealth affects first the man with least to sell, the laborer, the wage-worker.

The general demand for the adoption of the recall to apply to judges as well as to other officeholders has occasioned great alarm in the ranks of the plutocracy. Those interests which chiefly through the instrumentality of the courts have for many years been exploiting and oppressing the common people are loud in their protestations that the "Recall of Judges" would be a degradation of the judicial ermine, sure to result most disastrously to the cause of good goverment.

The blind judicial idolatry of which the "interests" are such ardent advocates and defenders has constituted for them so prolific a source of revenue and power that they will, if possible, prevent the establishment of any reform which would deprive them of the stupendous advantages they enjoy as a result of it. Hence the plutocratic press, "Captains of Industry," "Princes of Finance," prominent educators and other "lights" in "high" society are wrought up to a violent stage of opposition to the recall of judges.

That the courts in declaring as unconstitutional nearly all laws enacted to protect the working classes and the masses in general from corporate greed and oppression are wantonly exercising a legislative veto power that it was never intended they should possess; that through the arbitrary and tyrannical misapplication of the writ of injunction they are continually depriving wage-earners of their constitutional rights as citizens;

that they are despotically exercising their power to inflict punishment for what they may see fit to designate as contempt of court with a view to terrorizing the toilers in the interests of "Big Business" are facts which are today agitating the public mind to an extent that will inevitably lead to the adoption ere long of this badly needed reform.

One of the most recent evidences of the alarm felt by those who see on the wall the handwriting that presages the downfall of judicial tyranny is the action recently taken by the New York State Bar Association in appointing a committee to investigate the causes which have produced the present feeling of "discontent with our judicial system," etc., etc.

This committee sent communications to commercial and financial bodies and to leading representatives of organized labor. Amongst those receiving one of these communications was Thomas E. Ryan, Chairman of our New York Legislative Board, whose reply, sent with the approval and endorsement of the Executive Board of that body, is specially interesting at this time.

The following is the correspondence between the committee of the New York State Bar Association and Brother Ryan:

ALBANY, N. Y., June 18, 1912. DEAR SIR-At a special meeting of the New York State Bar Association, a resolution was passed authorizing a commit

tee of fifteen to investigate the causes which have produced any feeling of discontent with our present judicial system, and of the manner in which justice is administered in this State; and if any evils are found to exist, to suggest remedies for their abatement.

A sub-committee of five was appointed to make this special investigation, of which committee I was made chairman.

The sub-committee is endeavoring to make as thorough an investigation as possible, and feel that they must go outside of the members of the bar in order to ascertain the real feeling of the people upon the subjects referred to, and for that purpose we are calling upon the various chambers of commerce in the State, as well as the different bar associations, to give us their aid and assistance, and we are also calling upon some of the leading representatives of the mechanical and labor interests of the State to give us their aid. In pursuance of that policy I am now addressing you this communication, and ask that you kindly advise the committee whether to your knowledge, or in your experience, there is any considerable feeling of discontent with our courts, or with the manner in which justice is administered; the causes for that feeling of discontent, if any exists, and any suggestions that you can make as to remedies therefor.

Of course, we are asking you not only for your own impression, but for the impressions of the people with whom you are associated, or of the organization or organizations of which you are a mem

ber.

We would like a reply if possible on or before the 1st of July.

Very respectfully yours,

(Signed) D. CADY HERRICK. To Mr. Thomas E. Ryan, 11 Delaware Street, Albany, N. Y.

ALBANY, N. Y., June 28, 1912. Hon. D. Cady Herrick, 452 Broadway, Albany, N. Y.:

DEAR SIR-In reply to your favor of the 18th inst., relative to feelings of discontent towards the judiciary, existing among the people, exclusive of members of the bar, and the cause of such feeling, I beg leave to reply that such a feeling does exist, and to a greater extent than is made known by the newspapers.

There are many reasons for this feeling of discontent and distrust:

First. The plain people are not satisfied with the manner of selecting judges (I do not say electing, for the people do not elect) by the greater corporate interests. For instance, we have but one judge in our highest court who is the choice of the people Judge Gray-who was elected over Judge Werner in 1902. The next year, if my memory serves me, Judge O'Brien, a noted enemy of labor, was selected by both of the great parties, the Republicans naming him as well as the Democrats, and of course he was elected. We had to take him. He was placed on the ticket, we think, by a combination of the "interests." In 1904, Judge Werner, a Republican, and Judge Cullen, a Democrat, were placed on the tickets of both parties, and again the people had no opportunity to make a choice. There was no chance of beating the combination ticket selected by the union of certain business and political interests, in New York. Judge Haight was selected in the same way, and in 1907 the two Bartletts were selected by the two State committees and placed on both the great party tickets, although one of them was a Democrat and the other a Republican. This was believed by the working people to be another combination of the "interests." The same is true of the ticket selected in 1910. .. . . Our people believe that this system of selecting judges is intended to keep the courts, and does keep them, under the influence, if not the control, of men who have little or no sympathy with organized labor, or with the masses.

What is true of our State judges, we believe to be also true of the Federal judges, who are picked out principally because gentlemen like Mr. Archbold, of the Standard Oil Company, want them.

The claim of the "interests" seem to be stronger than party ties, not only in the selection of United States judges, but in the naming of State judges. This would not happen were it not that the "interests" control the bosses, and the parties think more of their own gain than they do of justice for the plain people.

Second. From a judiciary thus selected we do not get, or expect, any favors, and not always even-handed justice.

Almost all our labor laws are crippled by construction, or held to be nullities as being opposed to constitutional provisions. You, as a lawyer, know that our first "eight-hour law" was declared unconstitutional, and we had to go to the trouble

and expense of having the State Constitution amended to make such a law stand. So our "Prevailing Rate of Wage Law" and "Alien Labor Law" were declared unconstitutional. The stonecutters' law met with the same fate; and the horseshoers' law was also vetoed by the court. The plumbers' law was crippled, and the law requiring prison-made goods to be branded was annulled. The law prohibiting women working at night went by the board, with the rest, and latest, but not least, the compensation for injuries law of 1910 was unanimously knocked out of the statutes.

Now we, in our meetings, often put this and that together, and when we consider how the judges get their places, and how few of them owe anything to the people, whose servants they are, in theory at least, and when we talk about the fate of our laws, is it to be wondered at that we are not alarmed by the talk of the recall?

But your committee may say that inasmuch as all those decisions were just, and decided according to law, we ought not to complain. Were they so decided? Turn to your law library, judge, and on page 424 of Volume 179 of the Court of Appeals reports, read what the distinguished chief judge of that court said, viz.:

"I fear that the many outrages of labor organizations or some of their members have not only excited just indignation, but at times have frightened courts into plain legal inconsistencies and into the annunciation of doctrines which, if asserted in litigations arising under any other subject than labor legislation would meet scant courtesy and consideration."

So, dear Judge, it is one kind of decisions for labor legislation and another kind for other cases. Legal "inconsistencies" are good enough for labor cases, but not for other cases. If these "inconsistencies" were applied in commercial cases the decisions would be received not only with "scant courtesy," but we actually believe that you gentlemen of the bar association would favor the recall of the judges making such decisions.

And yet people like Mr. Hornblower and other great lights of your association seem to wonder why we are not in love with the courts.

In view of the fact that the Congress of the United States recently, in so far as it could, recalled a whole court, the Court of Commerce, consisting, I believe,

of five judges, one of whom is likely to be impeached for constructive bribery, we do not see anything wrong in giving the people the power to reasonably recall judges, like the late Judges Barnard, McCunn and Cardoza.

Nor do we think that the action of certain leaders of the State Bar Association, praising the judges whom they selected, will have much weight with the wage-workers of this State. Very respectfully yours,

THOMAS E. RYAN, Chairman of Legislative Board, Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, State of New York.

Labor Affairs in the United Kingdom.*

The present strike of the workers in the London docks has already at this writing lasted more than twice as long as did the other famous dock strike in London in the eighties. The dispute is now concluding its ninth week and there are quite 60,000 union workers still on strike, besides many others. Unlike the great strike of twenty-five years or so ago, the London dockers this time have had very little outside help, and the result is that after the practical exhaustion of their union funds they have had to starve or depend upon chance collections. It is true that several important funds have been established for their relief, but with somewhere about 300,000 men, women and children wrung from their means of support the area of trouble is very wide.

Still, all the way round, great courage is being shown and there is no murmuring and practically complete solidarity. Perhaps altogether 1,000 unionists have gone back to work, and they are bodies out of touch with the center of union dock sentiment. The employers exhibit the most extreme obstinacy in refusing to accept anything else but complete surrender from the strikers, and they have refused to consider the dockers' offer to return to work under the old conditions, with full reinstatement of all strikers, the matters in dispute to be settled afterwards by arbitration.

The reason for this undeviating and tyrannical attitude is to be found in the

*Exclusive correspondence to the Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen's Magazine.