drafting of resolutions which should govern the machinists' trade in all the shops of members of the National Metal Trades Association. In general these conditions were such as had been demanded by the machinists. The union was recognized, but at the same time it was expressly provided that the employers should be free to employ such men as they chose, whether they were union men or not. No discrimination, however, was to be made in any way against union men. As regards hours of labor, it was agreed that nine and one-half hours should constitute a day's work from and after six months from the adoption of the agreement, and nine hours from and after twelve months from the date of the final adoption of the joint agreement. Other provisions covered the subjects of overtime work, apprentices, and who should be considered as machinists. No mention, it will be noted, was made in regard to wages. This was a matter regarding which the joint council did not feel that it could safely take up at this time.

This was the situation of affairs at the opening of the present year. Every circumstance seemed to indicate that a common basis had finally been reached between the employers and employes in the machinery trade, giving promise of permanent peace. Not only had a number of the most disputed questions between labor and capital been adjusted, but there was in existence a joint board having the endorsement of both parties and apparnetly full power to settle such difficulties as might arise in the future. Certainly few trades of the country had reached equally favorable conditions. In spite of this, however, the machinists' trade was again to be plunged into a war which exceeded in intensity and extent that of the preceding year, and having as a result the destruction of the admirable system of joint conciliation which had been so laboriously built up. It remains for us now to inquire how this unfortunate state of affairs was brought about, and what will probably be the ultimate outcome.

In considering this strike it is important to note, first of all, that there were in reality two distinct strikes undertaken by the machinists at the same time. One of these was against the employers who were not members of the National Metal Trades Association, and had as its cause the single claim of a nine-hour day. This association included only the larger employers, and there were a great many small shops and also the machine shops of the railway companies which were not members and consequently were not bound by the agreement for a nine-hour day which had been made in 1900. The second strike was against the members of that association which had agreed upon a nine-hour day to date from May 20, 1901, and grew out of differences respecting the changes which should be made in wage rates upon the going into effect of the shorter day.

This distinction between the strike against those who were, and the strike against those who were not, members of the National Metal Trades Association is of the utmost importance, as the two strikes were essentially different in character. In the latter case the men were acting strictly within their rights, both legal and moral, and in general received

the hearty support of the country. Inasmuch as the British machinists enjoyed a nine-hour day and many trades in the United States were working only nine, or even eight hours, it was felt that the demand of the machinists was quite a justifiable one.

When we turn to the strike against the members of the National Metal Trades Association, however, we have to deal with quite a different condition of affairs. Here the question at issue was not so much whether better conditions should or should not be given as one of good faith. The parties, represented by their national associations, had made a formal agreement, and each now claimed that this compact had been grossly violated by the other. In the partisan statements that have been issued by both it is not easy to determine what are the real facts in the case, but as far as that can be done they seem to be as follows: The contract between the two associations provided that on May 20, 1901, the nine-hour day should be introduced in all the shops of members of the employers' association. Nothing was said in the contract regarding any readjustment of wages when that event took place. The men claimed that it is always understood that the demand for a reduction in hours of labor means that the reduction shall not carry with it any reduction in earnings; otherwise little or nothing would be gained by them. In the present case the system of remuneration in most of the shops was that of hourly wages. In order that the men might earn as much as they had formerly it was necessary that the rate per hour should be raised. This meant an apparent increase in wages without any change in daily earnings.

The employers, on the other hand, maintained that the reduction in hours to be granted on May 20 did not carry with it any obligation to change the piece or hourly rates that had prevailed. Each side maintained that its position was understood when the agreement for shorter hours was made. This does not seem to be the case, for Mr. Devens, the Secretary of the National Metal Trades Association, testified before the Industrial Commission, a few days after the making of the agreement, that no conclusion had been reached regarding wages, and that he anticipated trouble regarding the matter. It is necessary to assume, therefore, that no matter which party had the balance of justice upon its side, there did exist an honest difference of opinion.

This being so, the question immediately arises why was the matter not referred to arbitration according to the system so carefully provided in the agreement for the adjustment of any future difficulties? But here again arose a fundamental difference of opinion regarding the method of procedure. The men claimed that they were perfectly willing to have the matter arbitrated, but that the question was a national one and should be considered by the councils of the two national organizations. The agreement for nine hours was a general one, and its interpretation in respect to wages should be the same.

The employers, on the other hand, claimed that the matter of wages was one to be settled by each shop; that therefore the matter should first be considered by the local or district arbi

tration councils, and only come before the general arbitration council on appeal, as duly provided for by the agreement. This procedure was objected to by the machinists, as it would split the fight up into a large number of local contests and no uniform result could be anticipated. Both sides issued official statements accusing the other of refusing to submit the matter to arbitration. In this they were both unfair. Both were willing to submit to arbitration, but could not agree upon the manner in which it should take place.

Efforts for an adjustment of the difficulty were made up to the last moment, but proving without avail, the strike was promptly inaugurated May 20. The actual events of this strike are of but minor importance in comparison with the principles involved. They can therefore be passed over with briefer comment.

The strike was not suddenly sprung upon the trade, but had been carefully prepared for. The definite announcement that nine hours would be demanded on May 20, 1901, had been made a year previously, on May 18, 1900. At the annual convention of the American Federation of Labor, in Louisville, December, 1900, the movement received the indorsement of that body, and it was determined that, in accordance with their regular policy of making the demand for shorter hours in one trade after another, all efforts should be concentrated on the machinists' trade during 1901.

In January the Federation accordingly sent out a special circular to its 750 volunteer organizers to devote their main attention to organizing the machinists.

On April 11 a large corps of special organizers were sent out where they were most needed, and Mr. Gompers, the President of the Américan Federation of Labor, and Mr. O'Connell, the President of the International Association of Machinists, took the field and addressed large gatherings in the important cities.

On May 20 the strike was promptly inaugurated, and machinists all over the country laid down their tools, except where the employers had granted the nine-hour day without a contest. The first results were exceedingly favorable to the men. The American Federationist, in its June issue, stated that by May 25 over 1,700 firms had agreed to the nine-hour day. These firms, in almost all cases, however, represented the small shops, and the big establishments, especially those in the National Metal Trades Association, were holding out.

It has been the desire of the machinists' union that strikes should not take place in the railway shops, but it was impossible to restrain the men, and a considerable number of the roads in the east were affected. Among these the most important were the Lehigh Valley, the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western, the Central of New Jersey, the Vermont Central and the Southern.

It is impossible to state the total number of persons who took part in the strike. It is estimated that there are 150,000 machinists in the United States, and probably the majority of these were involved. It is equally impossible to give a complete statement of the result. In a great many cases the employers acceded to the demands of the men and granted a nine-hour day without reduction of wages.

It is certain, however, that the victory of the machinists was by no means a general one. As far as their contest with the members of the National Metal Trades Association is concerned, the balance of victory probably favored the employers. At any rate, there is no doubt that the central purpose of the strike-the securing of a general nine-hour day throughout the country-was not obtained, and in this respect the strike must be accounted a failure. The machinists' union, however, was not crushed, and that the struggle for shorter hours will be renewed in time is one of the certainties of the future.

or

To conclude, then, this account of the machinists' strike, it will be seen that the occurrence is of far greater importance than that of the mere question as to what wages hours of labor should be in the immediate future in a particular trade. To many, who were following with interest the labor movement, it had seemed in 1900 that at last a common ground upon which both employers and employes could stand had been found for one of the great trades of the country. The agreement between the two national associations of employers and employes, respectively, in the machinists' trades seemed to furnish the guarantee of peace having every element of stability.

The strike of 1901 and the consequent abrogation of the agreement has apparently destroyed this expectation. Nevertheless, in spite of these unfortunate circumstances, no one can study the question carefully without being convinced that the strike is no argument against the general principle of joint agreement. That principle, as expressed in the machinists' agreement, offers the only practicable solution of the problem of labor disturbances. The lessons of the machinists' strike only serve to show that the framing of a system of joint action is an exceedingly complicated and difficult matter. The machinists' agreement failed not because it was based on a wrong principle, but because it did not go far enough and make full provisions for the method of action in all contingencies. To a certain extent also it may be said that it was in advance of its time. Neither the employers nor the employes were fully prepared for it, nor were their organizations strong enough to control their members in all cases. No greater mistake could therefore be made than to see in the machinists' strike a demonstration of the futility of the method of collective bargaining. One has but to look at the increasing success of this method in Great Britain and its operation in the ironmolding, printing, and, to a less extent, coalmining trades in this country to realize its great service in bringing about an industrial peace that is fair to both the employer and the employe. (See articles on TRADE UNIONS, pages 172, 282, and CONCILIATION and ARBITRATION, page 189.) W. F. WILLOUGHBY, PH. D., Expert U. S. Department of Labor, Washington, D. C.

STEVENS, MAXIM, HIRAM was recently knighted by King Edward VII, the nomination having been made by his mother, the Queen. Maxim's name was in the last list of honors approved by Victoria, and he was among the

first to be ennobled by her son. This honor was conferred in recognition of the invention of the Maxim gun, a piece of ordnance which has marked a new epoch in the manufacture of firearms, and in army tactics.

This automatic system has now been adopted generally for the machine guns of the world, and Vickers Sons & Maxim, British gunmakers, have recently made an absolute sale of their plant and patents for $5,000,000, in shares, to the new Cramps Company of Philadelphia.

Hiram Stevens Maxim was born in Sangerville, Maine, Feb. 5, 1840. He had only a common school education, and at eighteen years of age he was making bicycle wheels with two rows of spokes and a suspended hub. These were the first wheels of the kind, and

ton were pressed together into threads, looking like macaroni. The following year a manufactory was started in Hayle, England, and it is now obliged to run night and day in order to keep up with orders. The Maxim gun is one of the greatest mechanical triumphs of the age, while the invention of cordite is almost equally important in the department of chemistry. (See page 197.)

MILITIA, APPROPRIATION FOR STATE.The sum of $1,000,000 was appropriated by the Fifty-sixth Congress to be divided among the various states for maintaining the militia.

The allotment was made by the Secretary of War August 28. The amount to be paid to each state is as follows:

Alabama Arkansas

California

SIR HIRAM MAXIM.

they were made after an apprenticeship of two years with a carriage maker. His scientific knowledge was obtained by study and attending lectures. In 1878 he took up the question of electric lighting and filed the first patent for depositing carbon on carbon rods, electrically heated in an atmosphere of hydro-carbon vapors. This was one of the inventions which made carbon lighting possible, as the filaments of all lamps are now treated by this process. In 1881 he was made a Chevalier of the Legion of Honor at the Paris Electrical Exhibition, as he exhibited the first machine for keeping the currents even and constant in a system of incandescent lighting.

In 1883 he made, in London, the first automatic gun. England was at first incredulous it could not be that the Yankee inventor had made a gun which would load and fire itself, but the demonstration soon came. The basic principle of the Maxim is the utilization for reloading of the power of the recoil. The idea came to him while shooting at a target with a Springfield musket, the kick of his gun suggesting a force which might possibly be utilized for automatic loading and firing.

For some years the inventor had been experimenting with smokeless powders and in 1887 he had taken out an English patent on a powder, in which nitro-glycerine and gun-cot

.$23,366

16,993

19,117

MULDOON, PETER J.,-The consecration of the Rev. Father Peter J. Muldoon of St. Charles Borromeo's Church, Chicago, as auxiliary bishop of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago, on Thursday, July 25, was a notable event in religious circles.

When Father Muldoon was appointed auxiliary bishop, a protest, for some reason which has not been given to the public, was sent to Pope Leo against his elevation to that high office. That the opposition was not deemed worthy of serious notice is evidenced by the result.

The new prelate was born in 1863, at Columbia, Cal., where his parents had removed from Ireland several years before. He was educated in early life in the public schools of Stockton, Cal., and at the age of fourteen entered the Collegiate School of St. Mary's, Kentucky. Four years later he entered St. Mary's Seminary, Baltimore, where he completed his theological studies. When twenty-three years of age he was ordained priest in 1886, and made pastor of St. Pius Church, Chicago.

In 1888 he was appointed chancellor of the Archdiocese and secretary to Archbishop Feehan. In 1895 he gave up these duties to become pastor of St. Charles Borromeo's Church. The ceremony of consecration at the Holy Name Cathedral, Chicago, was an elaborate and imposing one. His Eminence Cardinal Martinelli presided, and was assisted by Archbishop Feehan, the Rt. Rev. James Ryan. and the Rt. Rev. Henry Crosgrove, Bishop of Davenport, Iowa, as consecrators. A large number of prelates and priests were present from various parts of the country, some of whom officiated in the minor parts of the services.

An immense congregation was in attendance to witness the introduction to the Catholic Hierarchy of one of its youngest and most highly esteemed members.

NEW JERSEY.-Henry Hudson is believed to have been the first European to set foot upon the soil of the state. This was in 1609. The Dutch shortly thereafter built trading posts, one on Manhattan Island, and another near Albany. They claimed by right of exploration and settlement the entire region round about, including New Jersey. Certain Dutch adventurers in or about 1618, with a few Scandinavians, crossed over to the west bank of the Hudson, and settled in Bergen county. Between 1637 and 1641 several companies of Swedes emigrated to the southern part of the State and settled on the eastern bank of the Delaware. In 1654, however, Stuyvesant, the Dutch governor of New Netherland, attacked these Swedish settlements, and brought thera completely under Dutch control. The Indians in this region belonged to the Lenni-Lanapé, but their previous defeats at the hands of the Iroquois had left them weak and dispirited. Hence the Dutch, despite several wars, did not suffer greatly at their hands. The English settlers at a later period followed the invariable policy of buying the Indian lands in the state. The English claim to territory in North America was based upon the discovery of the Cabots. The virtual enforcement of their claim to New Jersey may be traced to the

grant made by Charles II., in 1664, to his brother James, Duke of York. By "Letters Patent" a territory of quite indefinite extent but including both New York and New Jersey was granted to James in fee simple, together with practically absolute powers of government therein. Immediately after the grant an expedition under Col. Richard Nicolls was despatched to New Amsterdam. rendered, as did also the quondam Swedish settlements on the Delaware. New Amsterdam was re-baptized New York. Barring the recapture of New York by the Dutch, and the temporary re-establishment of Dutch authority in 1673, New York and New Jersey remained thereafter under English control until the Revolution.

The city sur

to New Jersey. In the deed of transfer the name New Jersey (Nova Caesarea) was given to the province in honor of Carteret, who had held the island of Jersey for the king against parliament in the Civil War.

Berkeley and Carteret, anxious to encourage immigration, issued in their capacity as "Lords Proprietors" their "Grants and Concessions" which served in a very real sense as the early constitution of the colony. By this document they guaranteed religious toleration, "usage or custom of this realm of England to the contrary thereof in any wise notwithstanding;" and ordained an elective representative Assembly. They also offered grants of lands gratis to settlers emigrating to the colony before 1666. Philip Carteret, a kinsman of the proprietor, was sent out as first governor with thirty colonists, and in 1665 settled in Elizabeth Town, now Elizabeth, so named after the wife of Sir George Carteret. Here and else. where in the northern part of the colony there

STATE CAPITOL, TRENTON, N. J.

had previously been made small settlements by immigrants from Long Island and New England under grants made to them by Nicolls. To settlers from New Haven and other parts of Connecticut of the stricter Puritan element is due the founding of Newark in 1665. From New York there was also an infiltration of Huguenots; and bodies of Scotch emigrants were at various times added to the colony.

In 1674 Sir George Carteret obtained exclusive control of what was afterwards known as East Jersey, including all territory in the province north of a straight line from Barnegat creek to the first tributary of the Delaware south of the Rancocas. Lord Berkeley had disposed of his holdings in West Jersey to two Quakers, Byllinge and Fenwick, to whom William Penn was soon joined in co-proprietorship. Penn was instrumental in effecting a large quaker immigration to West Jersey, where Salem was founded in 1675, and Burlington in 1677. There were now two distinct proprietary governments in "the Jerseys," each with its own governor, council, and Assembly. In East Jersey the Puritan element was dominant, while in West Jersey the laws reflected the mildness and tolerance of the Society of Friends. The proprietors of West Jersey in their "Concessions and Agreements" promised land gratis to settlers arriving prior to April 1, 1677, and laid down a liberal scheme of representative government. After a quarter of a century had passed, the proprietors of "the Jerseys," finding their prerogatives of government questioned, and their quit-rents refused, made a full surrender of their rights of government to the Crown in 1702. Thereafter "the Jerseys" were united as a crown colony, having for many years the same royal governor as New York, although maintaining a separate Assembly. From 1702 down to the Revolu. tion the history of the colony is mainly a narrative of the relations subsisting between the successive royal governors and the popular Assembly. Tactful governors found the As

sembly complaisant and even devoted; while governors despotically inclined were sometimes driven out of the colony. After 1738 New Jersey had a governor of its own, separate from New York. The last royal governor, William Franklin, a natural son of Benjamin Franklin, was taken prisoner in 1776, and kept under guard until exchanged two years later.

The tory element in the colony comprised some of its most worthy citizens, but it was not large numerically. On July 2, 1776, two days before the Declaration of Independence, a state constitution was adopted, the preamble of which, referring to the king of England, declared "all civil authority under him is necessarily at an end." The first legislature of the state under the constitution convened in Princeton, August 17, 1776, and elected William Livingston governor. It is necessary only to allude to the campaigns of the Revolution to emphasize how disproportionately New Jersey suffered in that war from being the geographical center of the main field of military operations. Under the Articles of Confederation New Jersey, in common with the other states, felt strongly the absence of any adequate authority in Congress. A retaliatory tariff war with New York in this critical period brought this strongly home to both states. The growing national feeling of New Jersey manifested itself in the promptness with which the federal Constitution was ratified. Only Delaware and Pennsylvania preceded New Jersey in such action; and in marked contrast to the doubtful and qualified assent given by some states, the vote of ratification in the New Jersey convention was unanimous. Since the adoption of the Constitution, New Jersey's history has been inseparably bound up with that of her sister commonwealths. Slavery early existed in the State, but in 1804 the legislature by statute declared the children of slaves born in future should be free, so that while there were 12,000 slaves in the State in 1800, slavery had disappeared by 1860. In the Civil War New Jersey furnished to the federal army 88,305 men, or 10,057 more than her quota, and within 10,501 of her total available force.

Of recent years New Jersey has attracted attention by virtue of her industrial development, and her somewhat unique system of jurisprudence. At the close of the eighteenth century New Jersey, along with New York and Pennsylvania, constituted the granary of the country. The census of 1890 disclosed a marked decrease in the farm acreage of the state, while showing that the State stood fifth in the value of its manufactures, although only eighteenth in point of population. The proximity of New York and Philadelphia will probably make gar den and dairy farming always profitable, but the general trend towards manufactures and commerce has long been unmistakable. This

is explained by the facilities for transporta