tion with these figures, it should be borne in mind that the bureau pursues the laudable policy of seeking to ascertain the qualifications of applicants for positions before they are recommended for employment. The superintendent thus, in his report for the quarter ending June 30, 1899, says: "Every effort has been made to ascertain the qualifications of applicants for the work sought. Letters asking for information from former employers as to the character and ability of the applicants have been very much to the credit of the people who seek to place their labor with us. As to the people for whom we have found employment, few complaints have been made, indeed, as to their ability and qualifications, and in but two cases was the complaint made by the employee that the wages were not paid as per agreement, and a letter from this office to the employers has been successful in righting any such wrongs."

The Maryland bureau was organized in 1896. Until September, 1900, its operations were conducted entirely by mail; and its work was of little importance. Since then, personal interviews are held with applicants, and the scope of the work has been much broadened. It is still, however, the least important of the seven bureaus. No report concerning its operations has been obtainable.

The two prominent features brought out by the preceding study are: 1) that private employment agencies do little for the solution of the problem of unemployment, but on the other hand are often so dishonestly conducted as to make them undesirable institutions; and 2) that the system of employment bureaus organized under the auspices of the state bureaus of labor may now be said to be definitely established in the United States. It is with these institutions that we are chiefly interested.

An examination of the work of the various bureaus which have been created, short as is their experience, convinces us that they are institutions which can be of great service to the workingman. To do this, however, it is necessary that they should be conducted with the greatest care and

tact. If their affairs are merely managed in a perfunctory or routine way, but little success can be anticipated. The permanent prosperity and development of the bureaus depend to a high degree on the zeal and ability of the persons in charge.

The first and most important consideration to be observed is that the work of these bureaus should not be confounded in any way with that of charity bureaus. The function of an employment bureau is not to help the incapable class which ordinarily seeks assistance from public charity, but to aid the honest workingman who is willing and able to work but can not find employment.

A second point is that though the bureau is conducted in the interest of the workingmen, chief attention must be directed to giving satisfaction to the employers to whom labor is furnished. It is evident that the success of an employment bureau is entirely dependent upon gaining the confidence of the employers of labor. To do this it is necessary that the bureau should use extreme caution and discrimination in recommending any applicant for employment, unless it has every reason to believe that the person is fitted by his personal character and skill to fill the position to the satisfaction of the employer. It should not be the aim of the bureau to find employment for every applicant. It is evident that a great many of these belong to the class of incapables, and to recommend them for employment would injure the reputation of the bureau. The principle should be firmly established that a selection of the most fit will always be made.

Another important point as regards the policy of the bureau is mentioned in the Ohio labor report for 1896. The commissioner there says:

The employment offices should not be allowed to furnish any help in case of a labor dispute or strike of any kind; and I strongly recommend a ruling of the department on this subject. As it now stands there is no guide in this matter except the superintendent's own feelings and sense of right. Certainly the state of Ohio ought not to allow itself to be made a party in any sense in

such troubles. The state establishes these offices on the request and through the instrumentality of the labor unions, for the benefit mainly of the laboring people, and the offices should not be allowed to assist in an injury to them.

It will be remembered that Illinois in her law makes provision for such cases as this along the lines here laid down. It is only proper to state that in the United States no trouble has ever arisen in regard to this question. The danger nevertheless is one that is always present and should be guarded against as suggested.

The final point that it is desired to comment on is the necessity for joint action by the different bureaus in the same state such as is provided for in the Illinois law, and when there is but one bureau, the advisability of having branch offices in the different industrial centers. The lack of employment is often geographic. Labor of a certain kind may be superabundant in one section and lacking in another. An employment bureau to realize its full usefulness, therefore, should acquaint itself with labor conditions throughout the state, and thus be able to equalize the demand and offer of labor in the different sections of the country.

CHAPTER III.

THE INSPECTION OF FACTORIES AND

WORKSHOPS.

Factory inspection in the United States has followed and grown in consequence of the enactment of laws regulating the condition of labor in factories and workshops. A little consideration will show that these two classes of legislation. are entirely different in character. The province of the first is to specify conditions; of the second, to see that they are enforced. The name inspection is in some respects misleading. The real duty of factory inspectors is to enforce laws. Their powers of inspection are but incidental to this duty, and are exercised in order that the latter may be more efficiently performed. Yet, in the majority of the states having factory laws, the inspection of factories was first provided for, and the power of issuing orders directing factory operators to comply with the provisions of the laws, or at least the granting to the inspectors of adequate powers for enforcing them through judicial action, was only granted later, as the necessity for such powers became evident. In a word, the inspector of factories is primarily a police officer with special duties.

The history of the development of the official inspection of factories and workshops in the United States is like that of most social legislation. One state has led the way by the enactment of tentative measures, which it has afterwards developed as dictated by experience. Other states have profited by the example and have taken similar steps. The moral influence of the action of states on each other in the United States is great. A movement at first grows slowly, but as state after state adopts similar measures the pres

sure on others to do likewise becomes stronger, and the movement tends to advance at a constantly increasing rate.

In the field of the inspection of factories we are now in the midst of such a movement. Factory inspection in the United States is of comparatively recent development. Though Massachusetts, the first state to take steps in this direction, enacted its initial law for the inspection of factories in 1877, it was not till six years later, or in 1883, that its example was followed by another state-New Jersey. Wisconsin in the same year provided for inspection through its bureau of labor. Ohio followed in the succeeding year, 1884. The movement, once fairly started, however, has spread with increasing rapidity. In 1886 New York provided for factory inspection. In 1887 Connecticut, Minnesota and Maine did likewise. They were followed by Pennsylvania, California and West Virginia in 1889, Missouri and Tennessee in 1891, Illinois and Michigan in 1893, Rhode Island in 1894, Delaware, Indiana, Nebraska and Washington in 1897 and Kansas in 1899. There are, therefore, at the present time, 21 states that have made some provision for factory inspection.

Twenty-one states out of 45 is, of course, a small proportion. As has been stated, however, it is not a completed movement that is being studied. We are rather in the position of one who in the midst of action stops to look back and see what has been accomplished in order better to determine his course for the future. In considering the progress that has been made, moreover, the comparison should be not with the total number of states, but rather with those in which the manufacturing industry is largely developed. It will thus be seen that of the New England and Middle states, all of which are manufacturing states, the smaller states alone-New Hampshire, Vermont and Maryland— have no inspection. In the middle western states, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Minnesota, Kansas, Nebraska and Wisconsin have inspection officers. The far western and the southern states, if we except the slight