We have passed since that time through a period when there has been much said about the cost of living, which has figured very largely in wage scales, in some instances to the advantage of labor; in most instances, where it has been settled otherwise than by a representative of the Federal Government, in a defeat for labor; the consideration for the welfare of the worker and his family laid aside; the hard fact that so many calories subsistence for the worker cannot be purchased upon a certain wage, all laid aside; the industry must not suffer. And who creates the industry? Is it not the workers, after all, upon whom the industries are dependent? It is a confession to that extent, a confession of that fact, when we admit that when the workers stop work everything is tied up and, in the affected industry, nothing happens.

As to the jack-of-all-trades proposition, it is hardly worth while mentioning it. We none of us hope to see the day when the tinker and all-around mechanic is the rule. Despite the fact that men of the different crafts lose a great deal of time, we are faced by another fact: that there is constant unemployment all around; and if Jack,-who is a fair carpenter and a tolerable bricklayer, who can cobble shoes in a pinch, and who can mend and sew harness-if Jack does all of these things and receives only a wage sufficient for the year out of all of those, there would be no real social remedy involved at all; there would be no good result socially from it; we would be confronted with the same problem of unemployment; and, whether you believe it or not, we should be obliged, as we are at the present time, to carry the unemployed upon our backs. (Applause).

Discussion by the Meeting

THE PRESIDENT: We are very much indebted to Mr. Howe for his enlightening talk, which was certainly very fair in all its details.

We expected to hear from Mr. Bell, who unfortunately was prevented from coming, and the subject is going to be open now for discussion from the floor under the five-minute rule. I am going to call this discussion to a close in time to hear from Mr. Miner Chipman, who has kindly come here on very short notice and who will close the discussion tonight, speaking from the point of view of the public. Mr. Woehlke, of the Sunset Publishing Company.

Remarks by Walter V. Woehlke

MR. WOEHLKE: I have listened with a great deal of interest to the speakers tonight, and was especially interested in Mr. Howe, because his remarks had more or less of a personal application to my business. As I understand Mr. Howe, he is opposed to arbitration in the adjustment of wage disputes. I am sorry to hear that he is because it seems to me that on account of his personality and his intellect, which he has displayed here tonight, he must wield great influence in his union. As I understand it, he opposes arbitration because the use of arbitration is spreading and because machinery is being set up everywhere to facilitate the use of this mode of settling industrial disputes,-especially wage disputes. Another reason he gives is, as he says, that arbitration is expensive, and he cites one instance in which arbitration cost the union treasury four thousand dollars. Then he says that the recent strike did not cost the union that much. I do not doubt that, but at the same time if we would consider that there were at least three hundred men out of work for ten days, the cost to the men was in the neighborhood of twenty thousand dollars, not counting the cost, if I may say so, to ourselves.

What I want to express now is the conviction that in the discussion here tonight, one tremendous factor has been overlooked. We have been speaking of adjusting wages, of basing this adjustment upon the standard of living, upon the needs of a family, on the cost of fuel, clothes, rent, car fare, taxes and other things. Yet we have forgotten that at the present time the world is in the control of economic forces so tremendous in their effect, so gigantic in their power, that our puny efforts to deal with them are practically valueless.

During the discussion here I have not heard a single word about the interests of that class of American labor which is numerically strongest,

and from the national standpoint the most important, an element which comprises perhaps forty per cent of the working population, and which for the last year has worked practically for nothing. I am referring to the American farmer, the man who produces the things we eat, wear on our backs and on our feet. He has gone, so far as the working farmer-owner is concerned, without wages; he has received nothing for his year's work and in many instances he has paid for the privilege of producing that which we in the cities need.

There was no question about adjusting the wages of farm labor by arbitration. Nobody even thought of that; it came all of itself. The world's economic forces obliged the farmer to cut down wages and he has asked no one's permission. He simply could not pay them. Farm wages all over the country have been reduced in the neighborhood of twenty-five and thirty per cent and in spite of that, the supply of labor today exceeds the demand on the farm.

A year ago the index number of the demand was 117 and that of the supply was 65. Last month the index number of the demand was 75 and of the supply was 107, in spite of lower wages, the reduction in many instances amounting to thirty and thirty-five per cent.

Now we are speaking here of basing our adjustment of city wages on the needs of a family, on the American standard of living. If we will consider the thing in its right light we will realize that as a city, as city dwellers, we have been for many years dependent on the labor of the farmer and of his employees who work ten hours a day, and who never received the same standard of wages as the city workers until the last three years. Now the standard of living of the farm owner and of the farm laborer has gone down; it has been forced down; they have not been asked, no arbitration has been offered, but the great economic forces that govern the entire world today have obliged them to cut wages to the amount necessary to keep things moving, and in spite of the reduction, the prospects this fall are such that once again the farmer will look back, when he receives the prices of his crops,. and see that he has worked for nothing. When that happens, I believe that Mr. Howe will be very glad to have arbitration to keep up the standard. (Applause).

Remarks by Philip Bancroft

MR. BANCROFT: I am glad to come to this meeting tonight and hear someone say something in favor of the farmer, because I am a farmer myself, and I know that what the last speaker said was very true.

Now we with farms are paying three dollars a day where a year ago we paid five dollars, and at three dollars a day the men work ten hours daily and they work harder than the average mechanic does in the city. I would like to say the farmer can't pay any more and make enough in farming to supply the mechanics in the city, who work eight hours a day, with enough to eat, at any reasonable wages.

Now on our own farm, we do not know whether we will make any money this year or not; we hope we will,-but it all depends on what prices we get for our products. But the average farmer is not making any money this year. He didn't make any money last year, and if he pays farm hands the same wages that the union labor men want in the cities, and if they work only eight hours a day on the farm, and if the farmer's wife who does the cooking were paid union cook's wages, (and she works a darn sight harder than any union cook I have ever seen) then the union men in the city would need sixteen dollars a day to pay for the necessities of life. (Applause).

Remarks by James W. Mullen

MR. MULLEN: In this question before the Commonwealth Club for discussion tonight, of course, there are many angles. I believe much that has been said concerning the farmer is true, but the farmer is becoming aroused from his slumber. He is a little late in his awakening, but the indications are that in the years to come he will place himself in a position where he will be more capable of taking care of himself in the strife and competition between the different elements of society.

The speaker that followed Mr. Howe said Mr. Howe was opposed to arbitration. It so happens that Mr. Howe and I are members of the same union, and I do not believe he expressed himself as opposing arbitration. He did, however, indicate that he was opposed to the abuses of arbitration, and I want to agree with him in that respect. I am also opposed to a great many of the abuses of arbitration. He mentioned that a case of arbitration had cost the union $4,000. That was absolutely nothing compared with some arbitration cases I can refer to. I know of a little organization of this city composed of eighty-two men and because of the tactics of the employers the little union was compelled to pay $4,600 as its share of the expenses in that arbitration; and as the decision of the arbitration board only covered a year, those men could not get back the amount of their expenses in so short a time with the increase they received. Now, I say, everybody is opposed to that sort of arbitration, where dilatory tactics,

tactics for delay, tactics practised for the sole purpose of piling up expense in order to discourage little organizations from asking in future for increases in pay are used.

The American labor movement is committed to the principle of arbitration. We believe in arbitration, but we believe in fair, honest arbitration, and we do not always get it.

Now another thought was expressed here this evening; the thought was concerning the limitations of an industry, that an industry could only pay a certain wage, and if it went beyond that point it would become bankrupt. I do not believe in that proposition either. I believe that if an industry is occupying a field that is satisfying the needs or the desires of society, society ought to be willing to pay enough for the product of that industry to support the labor engaged in it in decency and comfort. Now, that is what I believe. Your attention has been directed to the British coal miners particularly here tonight. Any one who knows anything about that particular industry knows that there are mines where a ton of coal can be brought to the surface at a very low rate of cost; they also know that there are other mines where the cost of bringing a ton of coal to the surface is considerably greater. And if society needs the mine which is a poor producer, if society needs the coal coming from the mine where it costs a large amount to bring it to the surface, then society ought to be willing to pay a wage to the miners in that poor mine that will enable them to live in decency and frugal comfort. Now, it may be a hard proposition to get at, to figure out and reason out how a condition of affairs may be established that will enable the worker in the poor mine and the worker in the good mine both to enjoy the comforts of life. It is a hard proposition for this reason: We may say there are three grades of mines; one mine's coal may be mined for a dollar a ton, brought to the surface for a dollar a ton; in another mine it may cost $1.50 a ton; another mine, $2 a ton. If you base the selling price of coal upon the $1 mine, the man that operates that mine gets a fair profit, and the others are operating at a loss, and if you base the price of coal on a $1.50 mine, and allow the owners of that mine a reasonable amount of profit, you put the $2 per ton mine out of business and still give the $1 mine an excessive profit. The contention of the British coal minersI do not agree with it in every detail-but the contention of the British. coal miners for the pooling of the production of those mines in order that the miners may receive a decent wage, has in it, I say to you, the elements of justice, because there is no reason why a miner working