contemplated the creation of a sinking fund for the payment of the principal of the national indebtedness. The act of 1790 provided that all revenues derived from duties on imports, and from the sale of public lands, over and above the amount annually appropriated by Congress for the current expenses of the Government, should be applied to the sinking fund. Hamilton laid down the principle that has ever since controlled our financial legislation, that the creation of a debt should always be accompanied by provisions for its extinction.

The Sinking Fund Act of 1862, which is still in force with subsequent modifications and amendments, provides that a certain sum shall be annually set aside for the purchase of the outstanding principal of the public debt. This sum amounts to one per cent of the principal of the unpaid debt, plus the annual interest on the bonds already purchased on behalf of the sinking fund. The present annual requirements of the sinking fund are about $54,000,000. This fund, however, is satisfied only when the revenues of the country exhibit a sufficient surplus, and outstanding bonds can be bought at such a figure as to make the purchase advantageous to the Government. At the present time the Sinking Fund is about $345,000,000 short of the amount which would have been realized by its operations had its requirements been fully carried out. If the provisions of the Sinking Fund should be complied with fully in the future, the interest-bearing debt in 1908 will not exceed $600,000,000, and will probably consist of about $100,000,000 of the four-per-cent bonds of 1925, and $500,000,000 of the two-per-cent bonds of 1930. We can thus look to the probable extinction of our debt by 1920.

As the present national banking system is, to a large extent, based on the national debt, the rapid reduction and final payment of this debt will necessitate radical changes in our banking law. On June 30, 1900, there were 3,816 national banks in operation, with a circulation, based on the deposit of Government bonds, amounting to $274,115,552. On August 28 last there were 4,232 banks, with a circulation secured by bonds of $328,068,190. Over $106,000,000 in bonds are also used by the banks that qualify as the depositaries of public funds. Inasmuch as the circulation of the banks is rapidly increasing, while the amount of Government bonds outstanding is constantly diminishing as our debt is becoming extinguished, the time is not far distant when there will not be enough bonds to meet the necessities of the banks. Those who maintain that public debts are public burdens must at least admit that we have made the best possible use of our burden.

The present favorable condition of our national finances, our unim

paired credit, our fruitful revenues, and our wonderful national resources are largely the result of a faithful adherence to the principles of the financial policy laid down by the first Secretary of the Treasury, whose views on the national debt are summed up in these words in his great Report on the Public Credit:

"Persuaded, as the Secretary is, that the proper funding of the present debt will render it a national blessing, yet he is so far from acceding to the position, in the latitude in which it is sometimes laid down, that' public debts are public benefits ' - a position inviting to prodigality and liable to dangerous abuse — that he ardently wishes to see it incorporated as a fundamental maxim in the system of public credit of the United States, that the creation of debt should always be accompanied with the means of extinguishment. This he regards as the true secret for rendering public credit immortal. And he presumes that it is difficult to conceive a situation in which there may not be an adherence to the maxim. At least, he feels an unfeigned solicitude that this may be attempted by the United States, and that they may commence their measures for the establishment of credit with the observance of it."

As we trace the course of our national debt from its origin in the struggle of the colonies for independence through more than a century of national development, and note its rapid augmentation whenever the imperious necessities of war have called for sudden and unusual expenditures, we contemplate with pride the faithful discharge of our national obligations in the past, while we are impressed with the belief that in the future the firmest bulwark of our nation's safety must always be the strength of our national credit.

HENRY SHERMAN BOUTELL.

LABOR AND THE LAW IN ENGLAND.

THE recent discussion by the British Trade Union Congress of the action of the House of Lords in reversing the decision of the Court of Appeal in the Taff Vale Railway case is of extreme interest and importance to English workmen. It is no less interesting to students of labor legislation in this country, as the trend of legislation in the United States has closely followed that of Great Britain. It is of further interest because of the belief of many earnest men that the greater the recognition accorded to the trade unions the less will be the liability of strikes and the easier it will be to reconcile the differences between labor and capital. To those persons who believe in compulsory arbitration and point to New Zealand as a model to pattern after, the unassailable legal position of trade unions becomes of the first importance, as the whole system of compulsory arbitration is based upon the recognition of associations of workmen.

Last year I was commissioned by the United States Department of Labor to inquire into the effect of certain labor legislation in England, the investigation including among other things the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act. My observations on the working of that act were embodied in a report made to the Department and printed in the "Bulletin of the Department of Labor," No. 33, March, 1901. In the government report it was proper to present facts only, not opinions. The present article is based largely on the investigation made for the report and the deductions which legitimately follow.

To understand the privileges and limitations of labor in England at the present day it is necessary to review briefly the history of labor legislation, and to note how labor, once outside the pale of the law, has been given a recognized status, and is now vested with inalienable rights which must be as rigidly respected as those enjoyed by capital. Practically, the workman had no standing in the eyes of the law before 1824. In that year an attempt was made to improve his legal condition, but the actual results were a failure, and it was not until the passage of the Trade Union Act of 1871, its amendatory act of 1876, and the Conspir

acy and Protection of Property Act of 1875, that the equality of labor was recognized by the Legislature. Curious as it sounds, it is yet a fact that during the last thirty years only has the Parliament of Great Britain admitted that labor was entitled to the same protection as capital and clothed it with a defined status.

Previous to 1824 strikes were practically unknown, for a very simple reason. It was impossible for men to combine to get their grievances redressed. They could not as a body and acting in concert leave their work as a protest against a reduction of pay or hours, because combinations were illegal, and those engaging in them were in danger of the most severe penalties. The great labor disputes which took place previous to 1824 were rather industrial revolts than organized movements to ameliorate intolerable conditions. These outbreaks invariably resulted in attacks on persons and in the destruction of property, and the men who raised the standard of revolt were sent to prison. More than one perished on the scaffold.

In the year 1799, during the reign of George III, an act was passed directed against labor. Some of its penalties are worth quoting as showing the spirit of the age and the brutality of Parliament in dealing with that portion of the population which was compelled to work for others. The preamble declares:

"Whereas great numbers of journeymen, manufacturers, and workmen in various parts of this Kingdom have by unlawful meetings and combinations endeavored to obtain advance of their wages and to effectuate other illegal purposes; and the laws at present in force against such unlawful conduct have been found to be inadequate to the suppression thereof, whereby it is become necessary that more effectual provision should be made against such unlawful combinations, and for preventing such unlawful practices in the future and for bringing such offenders to more speedy and exemplary justice."

This act declared null and void all agreements between workmen for obtaining an advance of wages or for lessening or altering their hours of labor. Upon conviction before a magistrate, workmen entering into any such agreement were to be committed to jail for three months or to the house of correction for two months with hard labor. This punishment was to be awarded to any journeymen or workmen who entered into any combination to

"obtain an advance of wages, lessen or alter the hours of work, decrease the quantity of work, or who by giving money or by persuasion, solicitation, or intimidation endeavor to prevent any unhired or unemployed journeyman or other person wanting employment from hiring himself to any manufacturer or tradesman; or who should, for any purpose contrary to the provisions of the act, directly or indirectly, decoy, persuade, solicit, intimidate, influence, or prevail, or attempt to prevail, on any jour

neyman hired or to be hired to quit or leave his work, service, or employment, or who should hinder or prevent, or attempt to hinder or prevent, any employer from hiring such workmen as he might think proper, or who (being hired or employed) should refuse to work with any other journeymen employed therein."

Like penalties were enacted for those who attended meetings held for making agreements rendered unlawful by the act, or by any means induced other persons to attend such a meeting, or paid money in support of such a meeting, or collected money from other persons. Nor might anyone contribute to the support of persons who had quitted work. Any sums so collected were forfeit, one-half to the King and one-half to the informer.

In 1824 is to be noticed the first amelioration of the condition of labor. Parliament in that year passed an act repealing the combination laws, and striking off the statute books acts as ancient as the reign of Edward I. This legislation, however, did not produce the desired results; and in the following year an act was passed containing the important provision that it should not be unlawful for persons to meet "for the purpose of consulting upon and determining the rates of wages or prices which the persons present at such meeting should demand for their work." Compare this with the statute of George III, and it will be seen what a long stride had been made toward progress and freedom. Still, great dissatisfaction existed. The interpretation of the law was left to the courts, which practically reenacted all the harsh provisions of the combination acts by declaring that labor combinations were unlawful at common law, on the ground that they were in restraint of trade. There was a long period of agitation and discontent, until, in 1859, a law was passed which declared that workmen were not to be held guilty of "molestation" or "obstruction" under the act of 1825 for simply entering into agreement to fix the rates of wages or the hours of labor, or to endeavor peaceably to persuade others to cease or abstain from work to produce the same results.

But once more the courts nullified the intent of the lawmakers, and a commission was appointed to investigate the subject. The result of this investigation led to the passage of two acts-the Trade Union Act and the Criminal Law Amendment Act, the latter repealing the acts of 1825 and 1859. This new act made stringent provisions, as against both masters and men, to prevent coercion, violence, threats, following, molestation, and obstruction; but there was no prohibition against doing or conspiring to do any act on the ground that it was in restraint of trade, unless it came within the scope of the enumerated prohibitions.