It is scarcely to be expected that a popularly elected body will pass laws effectively restricting the rights claimed by the working classes, although statutes aimed against the boycott are not uncommon. Such restriction as is imposed on laborers comes mainly from the courts, which either apply broadly statutes not originally intended to affect the acts of organized labor, or revert to the principles of the common law. The courts continue to use the injunction extensively, and they have of late shown a growing disposition to hold labor organizations as such liable in damages for acts deemed unlawful. The Industrial Commission disapproved the use of injunctions against acts already subject to punishment as crimes. But no State (except Virginia, where the law was declared unconstitutional) has yet enacted the bills, which have been vigorously pushed by labor unions, limiting the issue of injunctions in labor cases, or providing for jury trial of violations of them. In fact, the only recent legislation of any importance relating to labor disputes is that of California, which, following the English statute, previously copied only in Maryland, declares that an agreement in a trade dispute to perform any act which, if performed by an individual, would be legal, shall not be deemed conspiracy.1

The recommendations of the Industrial Commission regarding the protection of working people were so numerous that it would be impracticable to trace in detail their relation to the recent enactments of the States, which have been many and progressive. In general, the direct recommendations of the Commission on this subject contained nothing novel, but consisted in urging all the States to follow the example of certain of the most advanced.

Perhaps the most interesting legislation of the past two or three years has to do with the time of employment of men, women, and children. The effect of the liberal decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in upholding the constitutionality of the Utah eight-hour law for mines and smelters,2 was shown promptly. Missouri and Montana in 1901, Nevada and Arizona in 1903, have followed Utah in establishing the compulsory eighthour limit for mines; in the three States first named the pro

It is

vision extends to smelters also.1 In Colorado a constitutional amendment to the same effect was adopted in 1902.2 difficult to overestimate the importance of this somewhat tardy recognition of the propriety of State "interference with individual liberty" in the case of adult men, where peculiarly injurious conditions of work exist.

Less novel is the legislation restricting the hours of labor on public work, whether done directly or through contractors. Several additional statutes of this character have been enacted recently. So far as employment by contractors is concerned, such laws have recently been held unconstitutional in Ohio and New York, as previously in certain other States. The minimum rate of wages law was also overthrown in New York. The legislature of that State has accordingly submitted a constitutional amendment authorizing it to regulate conditions of labor on all public works and public contracts.5

Probably no other year has witnessed so many important enactments relating to child labor as 1903. Most significant is the beginning of restrictive legislation in the South, where the abuse of child labor has become so conspicuous in recent years. Arkansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and Texas in 1903 prohibited the employment of children under 12 years of age in factories, though in the three States first named the public authorities may permit such children to work, if necessary for their support or that of invalid parents. Night work of children under 12 in South Carolina, and under 14 in Virginia and Texas, is also forbidden. New child labor laws with 14 as the age limit appear in Oregon and Washington; while New 'Laws of Mo. 1901, p. 211; 1903, p. 219; Mon. 1901, p. 62; 1903, ch. 53; Nev. 1903, ch. 10; Ari. 1903, ch. 8.

'Laws of 1903: Cal. ch. 107, sanctioned by constitutional amendment of 1902; Nev. ch. 37; Wash. ch. 44; proposed constitutional amendment, Mon. ch. 49.

4

Cleveland vs. Construction Co., 65 N. E. Rep. 885; People vs. Construction Co., 67 N. E. Rep. 129.

'Laws of N. Y. 1903, p. 1453.

Laws of 1903: Ark. ch. 127; N. C. ch. 473; S. C. ch. 74; Va. ch. 156; Tex. ch. 28.

Jersey and Wisconsin have raised the age limit from 12 to 14.1 One of the indirect results of the investigation of the Anthracite Strike Commission was the enactment of a law in Pennsylvania, raising the age of employment in coal mines from 14 to 16 years, and in breakers and other outside work from 12 to 14 years.2 Several compulsory education laws have also been adopted in 1903, and other statutes have restricted the hours of young persons.

It is interesting to note that Colorado, which has woman suffrage, has prohibited the employment of women for more than eight hours per day in factories and stores in any occupation which requires standing.3 This is the shortest compulsory The last clause will doubtless be a

work-day for adult women.

source of much complication.

Less important is the recent legislation regarding the safety, sanitation, and inspection of factories and mines, regarding sweatshops, and regarding the time and method of paying wages. No novel provisions appear, but the detailed regulations of such States as New York and Massachusetts are rapidly being copied elsewhere. The regulation of private employment agencies has recently become a common subject of legislation, and free public employment bureaus are growing continually more numerous.

In no respect is the labor legislation of the United States so backward as in regard to employer's liability. Even the Industrial Commission failed to make any specific recommendation on this subject, though its discussion showed a strong leaning toward a more liberal policy. There is gradually arising a public recognition of the fact that a large proportion of industrial accidents are inevitable, and that the industry, not the hapless person injured, ought to bear the financial burden of accidents of this character. Particularly is it being perceived that the complexity of modern industry takes away whatever justice may formerly have been found in the fellow-servant doctrine, and that a work

'Laws of 1903: Or. p. 79; Wash. ch. 136; N. J. ch. 201; Wis. ch. 349. The last State adopted the fourteen-year limit in 1899, but permitted employment if necessary for support.

'Laws of Pa. 1903, ch. 266. The limit of sixteen years for mines is also fixed in a proposed constitutional amendment in Montana, Laws of 1903, ch. 49.

Laws of Col. 1903, ch. 138.

man injured by the negligence of another employee should have the same right to compensation by the employer as a third person would have. Vigorous agitation for such legislation is being conducted by labor organizations, and several important enactments have been secured since 1900.

The most advanced American statute is that passed by Maryland in 1902.1 As regards steam and street railways, mines, quarries, and public works, the employer is made liable for accidents due to his own negligence or to defective works, etc., even though there be contributory negligence of the person injured, and also for accidents caused by fellow-employees. The employer may relieve himself of this additional liability by contributing to a State insurance fund, and may agree with his employees to deduct half of the contribution from their wages. Colorado had previously abolished the common-law principle of fellow servants as regards all classes of employment, being the first State to take this step.2 The New York law of 1902 is much less radical, but it is important as being the first departure of that State from the harsh common-law doctrines. It holds all employers liable for injuries resulting from the negligence of persons whom they intrust with the inspection of machinery or with power of superintendence; and it abolishes the unjust principle of "acquiescence" by declaring that for an employee to continue at work after the discovery of danger therein, does not relieve the employer from liability for injury. Recent laws in Virginia, Montana, and Oregon increase the liability of railroad companies for injuries to their employees, but they contain nothing which is not already found in various other States. Most States which have modified the law of employer's liability have done so only with regard to railroads.

Washington, D. C.

EDWARD DANA DURAND.

'Laws of Md. 1902, ch. 139, 412.

'Laws of Col. 1901, ch. 67.

'Laws of N. Y. 1902, ch. 600.

NOTES.

In

The Theory of Descent and the Social Sciences. January, 1900, Professors Häckel, Conrad and Fraas instituted a prize-essay contest on the subject "Was lernen wir aus den Prinzipien der Descendenz-Theorie in Beziehung auf die innerpolitische Entwickelung und Gesetzgebung der Staaten?" A gratifying number of theses were submitted (December, 1902), and in due time the prizes were awarded. The professors in charge were particularly pleased by the fact that the contest was entered by men of such various view-points and professions. The best essays are now. being published under the collective title "Natur und Staat, Beiträge zur naturwissenschaftlichen Gesellschaftslehre."

The first volume of the series is philosophical in its position, and with the second, though the latter is clever and of value, is eclipsed, in the eyes of the scientist, by the third number, to which was adjudged the highest award. This is 'Vererbung und Auslese im Lebenslauf der Völker, Eine Staatswissenschaftliche Studie auf Grund der neueren Biologie,' and is by Dr. Wilhelm Schallmayer, a surgeon in Munich. To the best of our knowledge it is the most important attempt yet made to apply the specific theory of selection to human society. Bagehot, in his 'Physics and Politics,' attempted such an application, but, as it seems, with insufficient knowledge of the inevitable basis of the subject in natural sciences. Haycraft, in 'Darwinism and Race Progress,' made some very suggestive remarks on the subject, but his biology also is not convincing, and his treatment rather unsystematic. Even the great exponent of Evolution, Herbert Spencer, because of the very general and abstract nature of his formula, had too little of a definite nature to say about selection.

Judging from the profession of the author, the work at present before us would presumably suffer upon the sociological and political, rather than upon the biological side. But, as a matter of fact, most men are forced by the fact of living in society, to know something about sociology; and Dr. Schallmayer has far more than a smattering of this science. His book is better than a congeries of suggestions; it is a real contribution in a practically virgin field.

The author is an adherent of Professor Weismann, and is thus led to lay an especial stress upon the importance of selection as applied to human generative development; and, whatever position