in the trade three or more years, 15 require a similar term of two years or less, 14 specifically prohibit the admission of employers, foremen or other persons empowered to discharge workmen, 11 specifically permit their election under certain conditions, and 7 confine the membership to white persons. About 10 refuse admission to workmen directly interested in the liquor business, 4 explicitly disavow discrimination on account of color or nationality, and 3 openly discriminate against foreigners. Thus the American Flint Glass Workers charge ordinary entrants an initiation fee of $3, but foreigners are required to pay $50, must declare their intention to become citizens, and can be elected only by a majority vote of the whole membership. A few local unions such as the Marble Workers and Marble Polishers of New York City restrict the membership by charging an excessive membership fee, $100 in these cases. With respect to tendencies, the writer's opinion is that the admission of employers, the imposition of excessive entrance fees, and the discrimination against foreign unionists, are usually condemned and are generally decreasing, but that the movement is towards the segregation, if not towards the greater exclusion, of negro workmen.

The cases are rare in which a union deliberately refuses to receive a body of competent workmen, and then boycotts them as "scabs." As a rule they can only occur when a national or local union has made some arrangement with employers by which the latter agree to employ none but union men, and the exclusion can be successfully

maintained only so long as the employers abide by this arrangement. As employers are usually very anxious to become independent of any particular union, and as the sympathy of the trade union world is generally with any body of capable workmen who desire to become unionists and are refused the opportunity, this policy is usually found in practice to be, as one would expect, suicidal.

(3). The New Trades Combination. Occasionally, however, employers enter heartily into this policy of exclusion and attempt to found an industrial monopoly on the basis of a labor monopoly. Joint monopolies of this kind were introduced in the Birmingham bedstead trade about 1890, but have just begun to attract attention in the United States. The scheme as it was formally worked out in Birmingham, centered around a joint wages board composed of representatives from an employers' association and representatives from a union of the operatives in the industry. Prices for the whole industry were to be fixed by this board, and wages were to vary directly with prices, although not in the same proportion. The employers' association agreed to employ none but union workmen, and the operatives' union agreed to work for no manufacturer who refused to abide by the official price list. It was an alliance, offensive and defensive, for the maintenance of the Standard Wage and the Standard Price. The New Trades Combination, as it was called by the author of the scheme, was adopted in a number of Birmingham industries, but has recently been abandoned in all but two unimportant industries, because

of the expense of paying wages to the idle workmen of recalcitrant employers who refused to abide by the official price list.

One of the most instructive attempts to establish an industrial monopoly upon a labor monopoly is found in the American window glass industry. Some years ago the Window Glass Workers' Association, by rigidly restricting the number of apprentices and imposing a prohibitive entrance fee upon foreigners entering the Association, had so reduced the number of proficient workmen in the country that there were not enough to man the existing plants. To monopolize the glass manufacture of the country, the manufacturers had only to secure control of the labor supply, and this the American Window Glass Company attempted to do by paying high wages and agreeing to employ none but union men. But independent companies immediately sprang up, manned partly by imported Belgians, and partly by members of the union. Under these circumstances the Company was enabled to run only about one-half of its aggregate plant for eight months during the year. In order to obtain the full supply of labor the Company offered the union a block of stock worth about $150,000, to be paid for by the annual dividends declared upon it, the sole condition being that the Glass Workers should assist the Company to operate its plant as nearly as possible to its full capacity. The dividends were being steadily paid on this stock at a rate which would have made it the property of the union in five years. After the agreement had been in

force about two years, however, the stock was withdrawn by the Company on the ground that the workers had not complied with their part of the agreement, or, in other words, had not wholly withdrawn from the independent companies. It is worthy of note that the withdrawal of the stock came just as glass blowing machines were being introduced into the Company's factories.

Experience shows that an industrial monopoly based on a monopoly of the labor supply is peculiarly weak. The high wages inevitably draw to the trade a large num ber of workmen, who either are taken into the union or refused entrance. If taken in, they must be supplied with work, and this brings prices and wages down by increasing the output. If they are refused admission, they usually set up a rival union which not only affords a supply of labor to independent manufacturers, but probably secures the sympathy and support of the trade union world at large. Such a combination of adverse forces is usually too strong for the most powerful monopolies of this kind.

(c) Monopoly and Labor Organization: We are now in a position to draw certain conclusions concerning the policy of the closed shop and labor monopoly in general. (a) Labor monopolies are of two kinds, inclusive and exclusive; in the former the combination is maintained by all the workmen against the employers, in the latter it is maintained by a group of workmen against their fellowworkmen. Monopolies of the second class are short-lived and relatively infrequent. () In combinations of the

inclusive type, the individual member is compelled to abide by the common rules and standard terms of the union. In other words he is under a very real compulsion. It must not be supposed, however, that the introduction of such compulsion deprives the individual laborer of any real freedom of bargaining. In entering such a combination, the workman merely exchanges the compulsion of the employer (as modified by demand and supply) for the compulsion of his fellow-workmen (as modified by demand and supply).

(y) The justice of trade-union policies and actions must be determined in accordance with their intent and reasonableness, as these tests are applied in the law on strikes and in the judicial determination of the rates and charges of quasi-public monopolies. Let us apply this canon concretely. When a union refuses to work with non-union men, and by its refusal secures their discharge, the justice of its action can be determined only by the circumstances of the particular case. Were the nonunion men prevented from joining the union by excessive initiation fees and other means? If so, the action of the unionists must ordinarily be interpreted as malicious in the extreme and highly unjust. Per contra, if the nonunionists had refused to join the union and were selling their labor at prices insufficient to maintain the accustomed American standard of living, the unionists can not be blamed, from any standpoint, for attempting to force these competitors to adopt their own standard terms. Or take the case of a complete combination of laborers, who