If no widow or children survive, parents, if partially dependent, shall have 15 per cent; if one parent is wholly dependent, 25 per cent, or if both parents, 40 per cent.

If one other more remote relation than widow, children or parents is the nearest wholly dependent person, the compensation shall be 20 per cent, or if more than one is dependent, 30 per cent, share and share alike. If remoter relatives are partially dependent, 10 per cent shall be paid to him or them. Separate provision of lump sum payment to non-resident widows or children, in case there are no resident dependents, is made.

Schedules for disability are substantially as follows: Total disability, 50 per cent of decedent's wages for life or during the existence of the total disability. Total disability is summed up as total blindness, loss of both feet, loss of both hands, loss of a hand and a foot, paralysis of the arms and legs owing to spinal injury or imbecility or insanity due to an injury to the skull.

Loss of arm at or above elbow, 50 per cent, 72 months; hand at or above wrist, 50 per cent, 57 months; leg at or above knee, 50 per cent, 66 months; foot at or above ankle, 50 per cent, 48 months; total deafness, 50 per cent, 72 months; loss of hearing in one ear, 50 per cent, 36 months; loss of sight of one eye, 50 per cent, 30

months; thumb, 50 per cent, 13

months; first finger, 9 months; second finger, 7 months; third finger, 6 months; fourth finger, 5 months; great toe, 9 months; any other toe, 4 months. Modification of compensation when the employer gives work to men temporarily partially disabled is provided for.

The court may consider and act upon applications to have the compensation paid in a lump sum instead of in monthly payments.

The act shall not affect any right of action for injury or deaths happening before the act takes effect.

Employers must report accidents, payments and operations under the act to the Interstate Commerce Commission, which will print compilations of such reports.

Objected to System

Objection to the installation of an efficiency system in the Rauch & Lang Carriage Co., in Cleveland, O., led to a strike in the automobile body department of the company on Friday, June 21, 1912. Anywhere from 25 to 60 men walked out. This crippled the factory to an extent that caused the company to close the entire factory till the following Monday morning and 300 men were sent home.

For two weeks, five men from one of the efficiency bureaus in New York had been in the works, explaining their system, which is one of saving lost motion by the men in their work. It would work out to the advantage of the men as well as to that of the company, the officers of the company thought, but the men caucused among themselves and determined that if they were clocked it would cut their pay, increase their work and cost some of them their jobs.

It is probable that the Industrial Workers of the World were in this walkout, although the company did not know a thing about that organization in the connection even after the men had struck. At all events, on the evening of Wednesday, June 19, a representative of Hungarian local No. 17, I. W. W., appeared before local No. 33. I. W. W., an English speaking local, and said some work was going to be done among the automobile workers at the Rauch & Lang factory, and asked the assistance of local 33, the powerful local in Cleveland. The representative was turned over to No. 33's organization committee, which works in the dark. The strike followed within 24 hours.

Harry Thomas, secretary of the Cleveland Federation of Labor, which is affiliated with the A. F. of L., attributes the walkout to "spontaneous combustion". If it had been a trade union strike, Thomas would have known all about it.

Officials of the company said a meeting of the men and the company had been arranged to iron out what the company declared was only a mis

take.

The governmental eight-hour bill is now a law. It is entitled, "An act limiting the hours of daily service of laborers and mechanics employed upon work done for the United States or for any territory or for the District of Columbia or for other purposes". It passed the house of representatives Dec. 14, 1911, and the senate, with amendments, May 31, 1912, was concurred in by the house, June 5, 1912, and was signed by President Taft late in June.

Briefly, the measure provides that in every contract for work to be done for the government shall be a provision that no laborer or mechanic shall be required or permitted to work more than eight hours a day, that government inspectors shall report violations, that fines of $5 a day for every man required or allowed to work in excess of eight hours a day shall be withheld from the contractor for the benefit of the government, but that the contractor may appeal to the head of the department making the contract and finally to the court of claims. Various exceptions to the general operation of the law are made and the president is given power to waive the provisions of the act in certain emergencies.

It remains to be seen whether the law is constitutional and whether big concerns, especially such as must work through sub-contractors will be willing to do business with the United States at all on its basis.

Many of the foremost business men of the country appeared before the senate committee on education and labor, considering the bill, in January, February and March, of this year, protesting against the bill. Probably the greatest objection urged was that the

bill makes the principal government contractor responsible for the act of the sub-contractor and penalizes him by fines that might even exceed his contract for overtime work exacted or allowed by a man at a distance and not under his supervision and control. Among the other objections. made were that the bill prevents the laborer from working overtime and making extra money if he so desires and that an old United States law imposing a criminal penalty on men doing business with the government in connection with certain hours of labor is specifically not interfered with by this act.

Judge Daniel Davenport, of Bridgeport, Conn., representing the American Anti-Boycott Association, said to the committee: "No man not crazy, no man outside of bedlam, would ever undertake to do business with the government under provisions of this character."

"Would any gentleman here," said Judge Davenport, "ever take a contract with the government under these conditions and with all these possibilities? Would any lawyer advise his client to take a contract with the government under these conditions? Would the government itself, if it were intelligently managed, ever exact such stipulation and make such provisions ?”

Among the business men who appeared before the committee to protest against the bill were, George F. Monahan, representing the National Founders' Association; James A. Emery, counsel of the National Association of Manufacturers: Herbert E. Herrod, representing the National Metal Trades Association; Frank C. Partridge, vice president of the Vermont. Marble Co.; Frank C. Page, of the

E. W. Bliss Co., of Brooklyn, N. Y.; Schuyler Merritt, of Stamford, Conn., representing the Connecticut Manufacturers' Association; F. C. Nichols, of the Colts Patent Firearms Association, of Hartford, Conn.; Oliver Crosby, of St. Paul, Minn., for the American Hoist & Derrick Co.; J. L. Record, of the Minnesota Employers Association; C. E. Williams, of Providence, R. I., a member of the National Metal Trades Association; J. T. McMurray, of Plainfield, N. J.. representing the Niles Bement - Pond Co.; Arthur W. Beaman, of the Stockbridge Machine Co., of Worcester, Mass.; H. Ainsworth, of Moline, Ill., representing a machine tool firm; C. E. Fast, an employe of Mr. Ainsworth; R. G. Bickford, general counsel of the Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Co.; Arthur T. Waterfall, of the Russel Wheel & Foundry Co., of Detroit Justus H. Schwacke, of Philadelphia; Joseph Wright Powell, representing Cramp & Sons' Ship & Engine Building Co., of Philadelphia; James Morpeth, of Providence, in behalf of the Metal Trades Branch, of Rhode Island; G. L. Markland, of Philadelphia; Wallace Downey, of New York, representing the Downey Ship Yard & Marine Co.; Paul D. Carpenter, of Milwaukee, for the Chicago office of the National Founders' Association, and the Milwaukee Metal Trades and Founders' Association; Robert H. Richards, of Wilmington, Del., representing a number of manufacturing concerns of his city; John Satterthwaite, representing the Remington Machine Co., of Wilmington, Del.; Sterling H. Thomas, representing the Pusey & Jones Co., of Wilmington, Del.; Rodney Thayer, of the Baldt Steel Co.; A. M. Campbell, of the Lynchburg (Va.) Cast Iron Pipe Co.; C. Edwin Michael, president of the Virginia Bridge & Iron Co., of Roanoke, Va.; Charles A. McCormick, representing Johnson & Johnson, of New Brunswick, N. J.; John M. Glenn, secretary of the Illinois Manufacturers' Association; William B. Fuller, of the H. B. Claflin Co., of New York City; W. C. Fish,

of the Lynn (Mass.) Works of the General Electric Co.

In addition, written statements were received from J. M. Manley, representing the manufacturers in the Cincinnati branch of the National Metal Trades Association; D. H. Creider, secretary of the Manufacturers' Association of Pittsburgh and the Pittsburgh branch of the National Metal Trades Association; Walter Drew, commissioner of the National Erectors' Association, and Herbert E. Herrod (a legal brief), for the National Metal Trades Association. Herrod's communication included extracts from letters from the following members of the Association: The American Hoist & Derrick Co., St. Paul; the American Motors Co., Indianapolis; the American Rotary Valve Co., Chicago; the American Tool & Machine Co., Boston; the Bettendorf Axle Co., Bettendorf, Ia.; the Birmingham Iron Foundry, Derby, Conn.; R. H. Brown, New Haven: the Brown & Sharpe Mfg. Co., Providence; the Ballard Machine Tool Co., Bridgeport, Conn.; H. W. Caldwell & Sons Co., Chicago; Chandler & Taylor Co., Indianapolis; the Chaplin-Fulton Mfg. Co., Pittsburgh; the Cheney Begelow Wire Works, Springfield, Mass.; the Cincinnati Milling Machine Co.; the Cincinnati Shaper Co.; the Cincinnati Tool Co.; the Cockburn Co., New York City; De La Vergne Machine Co., New York City; the Detrick & Harvey Machine Co., Baltimore; the John Douglas Co., Cincinnati; the Excelsior Tool & Machine Co., East St. Louis, Ill.; the Fav & Bowen Engine Co., Geneva, N. Y.; the Garvin Machine Co., New York City; the Great Lakes Engineering Works, Detroit; the Hardie Tynes Mfg. Co., Birmingham, Ala.; the Hartford Machine Screw Co., Hartford, Conn.; the W. K. Henderson Iron Works & Supply Co., Shreveport, La.; William Hollingsworth, Baltimore; the Kempsmith Mfg. Co., Milwaukee; the Kennedy Valve Mfg. Co., Elmira, N. Y.; the Keyless Lock Co., Indianapolis ; the King Machine Tool Co., Cincinnati; the Lennox Machine Co., Marshalltown, Ia.; the Link-Belt Co., Chicago; Littleford Bros., Cincinnati:

Lombard Iron Works & Supply Co., Augusta, Ga.; the National Machinery Co., Tiffin, O.; New York Central Iron Works Co., Hagerstown, Md.; Nichols & Bookwalter, Chicago; Northern Engineering Works, Detroit; Arthur J. O'Leary & Son Co., Chicago; Reeves Pulley Co., Columbus, Ind.; the Richardson, Phenix Co., Milwaukee; Charles Ross & Son Co., Brooklyn; Sandy Hill Iron & Brass Works, Hudson Falls, N. Y.; Schroeder Headlight Co., Evansville, Ind.; Sebastian Lathe Co., Cincinnati; George H. Smith Steel, Casting Co., Milwaukee; Southern Engine & Boiler Works, Jackson, Tenn.; Standard Motor Construction Co., Jersey City, N. J.; St. Louis Screw Co.; Standard Machinery Co., Providence, R. I.; the Stanley Works, New Britain, Conn.; the L. S. Starrett Co., Athol, Mass.; Trevor Mfg. Co., Lockport, N. Y.; the Triumph Electric Co., Cincinnati; Union Foundry & Machine Co., Pittsburgh; the Wallace Barnes Co., Bristol, Conn.; the Waverly Co., Indianapolis; D. T. Williams Valve Co., Cincinnati; Williams, White & Co., Moline, Ill.; F. Cortez, Wilson & Co., Chicago; Central Machine Works, Indianapolis; Curtis & Co. Mfg. Co., St. Louis; the Dayton Mfg. Co., Dayton, O.; Dorris Motor Car Co., St. Louis; Economic Machinery Co., Worcester, Mass.; Farrel Foundry & Machine Co., Ansonia, Conn.; the Fitchburg Steam Engine Co., Fitchburg, Mass.: Arthur Harris & Co., Chicago; the Herbrand Co., Fremont, O.; Hobbs Mfg. Co., Worcester, Mass.; M. D. Knowlton Co., Rochester, N. Y.; C. E. Lipe, Syracuse, N. Y.; National Machine & Tool Co., Boston; Norton Grinding Co., Worcester, Mass.; Scranton Forging Co., Scranton, Pa.; Skillin & Richards Mfg. Co., Chicago; Strieby & Foote Co., Newark, N. J.; the Strong-Scott Mfg. Co., Minneapolis; the United States Bung Mfg. Co., Cincinnati; Warner Gear Co., Muncie, Ind.; George Whiting Co., Chicago, and the Worcester Pressed Steel Co., Worcester, Mass.; and telegrams from D. F. S. Clark, of Boston and St. Louis branch, National Metal Trades Association, J. F. Hem, secretary.

In spite of this overwhelming mass of protest against the bill on the part of representative business concerns in line to do government work, the senate passed the bill, somewhat amended. The law is known as H. R. 9061. It is not long, and in order to give an opportunity to study it, and to see how far, if at all, the senate amendments make it more tolerable to the business interests that objected to it, it is here printed in full. The senate amendments are shown numbered. The bill follows:

"An act limiting the hours of daily service of laborers and mechanics employed upon work done for the United States, or for any territory, or for the District of Columbia, and for other purposes:-

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That every contract hereafter made to which the United States, any Territory, or the District of Columbia is a party, and every such contract made for or on behalf of the United States, or any Territory, or said District, which may require or involve the employment of laborers or mechanics shall contain a provision that no laborer or mechanic doing any part of the work contemplated by the contract, in the employ of the contractor or any sub-contractor contracting for any part of said work contemplated, shall be required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any one calendar day upon such work; and every such contract shall stipulate a penalty for each violation of such provision in such contract of five dollars for each laborer or mechanic for every calendar day in which he shall be required or permitted to labor more than eight hours upon said work; and any officer or person designated as inspector of the work to be performed under any such contract, or to aid in enforcing the fulfillment thereof, shall, upon observation or investigation, forthwith report to the proper officer of the United States, or of any Territory, or of the District of Columbia, all violations of the provisions of this Act directed to be made in every such contract, together with the name of each laborer or mechanic who has been required or permitted to labor in violation of such stipulation and the day of such violation, and the amount of the penalties imposed according to the stipulation in any such contract shall be directed to be withheld for the use and benefit of the United States, the District of Columbia, or the Territory contracting by the officer or person whose duty it shall be to approve the payment of the moneys due under such contract, whether the violation of the provisions of such contract is by the contractor or any sub-contractor. Any contractor or sub

contractor aggrieved by the withholding of any penalty as hereinbefore provided shall have the right within six months thereafter to appeal to the head of the department making the contract on behalf of the United States or the Territory, and in the case of a contract made by the District of Columbia to the Commissioners thereof, who shall have power to review the action imposing the penalty, and in all such appeals from such final order whereby a contractor or sub-contractor may be aggrieved by the imposition of the penalty hereinbefore provided such contractor or subcontractor may within six months after decision by such head of a department or the Commissioners of the District of Columbia file a claim in the Court of Claims, which shall have jurisdiction to hear and decide the matter in like manner other cases before said court.

as in

"Sec. 2. That nothing in this Act shall apply to contracts for transportation by land or water, or for the transmission of

intelligence, (1) or for the purchase of

supplies by the Government, whether manufactured to conform to particular specifications or not, or for such materials or articles as may usually be bought in open market, except armor and armor plate, whether made to conform to particular specifications or not, (2) or to the construction or repair of levees or revetments necessary for protection against floods or overflows on the navigable waters of the United States: Provided, That all classes of work which have been, are now, or may hereafter be performed by the Government shall, when done by contract, by individuals, firms, or corporations for or on behalf of the United States or any of the Territories or the District of Columbia, be performed in accordance with the terms and provisions (3) of section one of this Act. The President, by Executive order, may waive the provisions and stipulations in this Act as to any specific contract or contracts during time of war or a time when war is imminent (4), and until January first, nineteen hundred and fifteen, as to any contract or contracts entered into in connection with the construction of the Isthmian Canal. No penalties shall be imposed for any violation of such provision in such to any (5) extraordinary events or conditions of manufacture, or to any emergency caused by fire, famine, or flood, by danger to life or to property, or by other extraordinary event or condition on account of which the President shall subsequently declare the violation to have been (6) excusable. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to repeal or modify the Act entitled "An Act relating to the limitation of the hours of daily service of laborers and mechanics employed upon the public works of the United States and of the District of Columbia" being chapter three hundred and fifty-two of the laws of the Fifty-second Congress, approved August first, eighteen hundred and ninetytwo, (7) as modified by the Acts of Con

contract due

gress approved February twenty-seventh, nineteen hundred and six, and June thirtieth, nineteen hundred and six, or apply to contracts which have been or may be entered into under the provisions of appropriation Acts approved prior to the passage of this Act.

(8) "Sec. 4. That this Act shall become effective and be in force on and after January first, nineteen hundred and thirteen."

FAILED TO QUIT

Only Two Hundred Workers in Los Angeles Responded to Strike Call

The city of Los Angeles, Cal., has had its fill, evidently, of the alleged labor leaders. The latter called a strike of men engaged in the Los Angeles building trades for June 13, 1912, and the same was a dismal fizzle. Only about 200 of from 1,500 to 2,000 men walked out. The Los Angeles Times of the following morning in its local. columns said:

"The strike called for yesterday of union members of the building trades. proved a disastrous fizzle, so far as concerns the hopes of the walking delegates and other malcontents who expected to tie the construction work of the city up in a hard knot and lay it supinely at the feet of the laborite. bosses.

"Diligent inquiry among the principal builders of the city showed that less than 200 walked out, in spite of frenzied efforts on the part of imported agitators. Most of those who left their jobs were 'floaters' and belonged chiefly to the carpenters, plumbing and painting trades. The effect of the strike on actual building activity here is absolutely negligible. On the big downtown jobs scattering handfuls of men left their work in some instances; in others not a man left. In several instances the contractors did not even know their men had been called on to strike, so insignificant was the ripple in the ranks.

"Of 1,800 in the payrolls of the F. O. Engstrum Co., now working on fourteen jobs of a total value of over $3,000,000, not a man in any trade left off work for a moment.

"Thirty members of the Building Trades Association met during the af