$B 31 aei 
 
I 
 
 '. ', ' 1 . '...'" 
 
 8061' 12 W f iW 
 'A 'N' as 
 
Inter-Collegiate 
 Debate 1913-1914 
 
 Baker University 
 
 THE QUESTION 
 
 Resolved: That through appropriate legislation, 
 a minimum wage scale ought to be put into operation 
 in the United States. 
 
 Price One Dollar 
 
 Edited by 
 
 Geo. A, Brown and F. W. Osterhout 
 
THE CONSTRUCTIVE AND REBUTTAL 
 SPEECHES 
 
 Both Affirmative and Negative 
 
 of 
 BAKER UNIVERSITY 
 
 AFFIRMATIVE AGAINST NEBRASKA WESLEYAN 
 
 A. R. Bradley 
 
 Ernest Reser 
 
 W. S. Davison 
 
 NEGATIVE AGAINST WASHBURN 
 
 John Bass 
 
 Geo. A. Brown 
 
 F. W. Osterhout 
 
 Edited by 
 GEO. A. BROWN and F. W. OSTERHOUT 
 
 Price: One Dollar 
 
 i 
 
ALFRED E. LEACH, A. B. 
 Debate Coach and Professor of Public Speaking 
 
Affirmative Team: 
 
 Defeated Nebraska Wesleyan 
 
 W. S. DAVISON 
 A. R. BRADLEY ERNEST RESER 
 
 Negative Team: 
 
 Won Unanimous Decision 
 from Washburn 
 
 GEO. A. BROWN 
 JOHN BASS F. W. OSTERHOUT 
 
 282613 
 
These speeches are fifteen minutes in length, the rebuttals six 
 minutes, and are printed as they were given against the Nebraska 
 Wesleyan and Washburn Universities, two of the strongest debating 
 schools in the Middle West. 
 
 A. R. Bradley, First Affirmatiye. 
 
 Honorable Judges, Ladies and Gentlemen: Nations perish when 
 their foundations crumble. Hence a question of vital concern to our 
 laboring class must necessarily vitally concern our nation; for the 
 great laboring class constitutes the basis of society. The wide spread 
 interest which this question is arousing and the action which has been 
 started in several states forces it upon the minds of the thinking 
 public with a burning appeal. Following the example of Massachu- 
 setts nine states have enrolled on their statute books a minimum 
 wage law. Hence, we are face to face with living progressive truths, 
 no longer theories. 
 
 Industrial disputes are about the only form of contention in which 
 the government does not arbitrarily compel adjustment, but even 
 these are coming more and more under the jurisdiction of the state 
 until at present two-thirds of our states have some form of law con- 
 cerning labor and its interests. Why this increasing interest? There 
 is a vast hord of laborers in the United States who are forced by 
 starvation wages to exist among such sordid surroundings that they 
 are wrecked in character and in physique, the greatest assets of a 
 nation. In spite of the fact that through the long weary hours of toil 
 they have produced wealth and luxury for their employers, these 
 miserable beings are doomed to suffer for the lack of the things they 
 themselves have created. 
 
 Slavery has not been abolished, friends, until all such disgraces 
 as exist in our industrial world have been eradicated. All enlightened 
 society from Massachusetts to Oregon is demanding that a remedy 
 be found for the evil of the low wage. The fundamental principle 
 of labor legislation is the conservation of the human resources of 
 our nation, hence the wage question, because of what it involves, be- 
 comes one of our greatest national problems. 
 
 Ladies and gentlemen, in our presentation of the minimum wage 
 we do not contend for some visionary adjustment which will force 
 industry out of business and establish labor in luxury. We contend 
 that upon no other basis than that of complete justice to both em- 
 ployer and employee can this question ever be settled, and it is upon 
 such a basis that we present the minimum wage. We shall not argue 
 that a minimum wage shall be arbitrarily fixed as a living wage, but 
 we base our contention for a minimum as such a wage that will be just 
 and fair to both employer and worker. 
 
 We concede that starvation wages are not the sole causes of pov- 
 erty and wrechedness of the laborer, but statistics and investigation 
 
 4 
 
prove beyond contention that a vast army of workers, especially the 
 unskilled, are forced to toil for existence under conditions destructive 
 to physical and moral being. The negative must concede this fact, 
 and that a society based on such labor, whatever temporary success 
 it may attain, must come to final degradation and ruin. 
 
 Likewise, Honorable Judges, the proposition as stated does not 
 necessarily mean that a minimum wage apply to each and all indus- 
 tries. We admit that the highly skilled and well organized trades may 
 not need it, and therefore we shall contend at no time that wages 
 as a whole shall be tampered with or regulated. However, we do con- 
 tend that a vast number of workers must be protected by this means 
 against their own ignorance and helplessness as well as against the 
 greed of the employers. 
 
 In this class are found the sweated laborer, the underpaid factory 
 worker, women and children, and such industries as are dependent 
 upon the mercy of employers. We do not advocate that a laborer 
 should be paid more than he earns. That would be injustice to the 
 employer. Our sole contention is that if labor is exploited and un- 
 derpaid, as we shall prove, then in the name of eternal justice some 
 remedy must be found and applied. 
 
 We realize that the plan, being a human device, is not perfect, 
 therefore our argument is for the principle involved and can not be 
 disproved by an attack on the minor details. 
 
 Now, Honorable Judges, having given you our conception and 
 understanding of minimum wage I will now prove to you that the 
 minimum wage becomes a necessity. That capital is to a deplorable 
 extent oppressing labor in our country is an admitted fact. Accord- 
 ing to Professor Nearing, one of the world's greatest authorities on 
 wage problems, one per cent of our population controls fifty per cent 
 of the wealth of our country and further more than fifty-one per cent 
 of the laborers of our country have an annual income of less than 
 $625, a sum estimated by some of our authorities as being barely suf- 
 ficient to maintain American standards. With these facts in mind 
 Ave see that labor is receiving a pitifully small proportion of that 
 which it produces. It is impossible to believe that one per cent has 
 produced as much as the other ninety-nine per cent. The report 
 of the Bureau of Industrial Statistics of Pennsylvania shows that in 
 seven trades employing more than 60,000 women the average yearly 
 wage is less than $300. Since a large per cent earn more than the 
 average it follows, of necessity, that a great number earn less than 
 this pitiful sum. According to a report of a government investiga- 
 tion in the state of Connecticut in the cotton industry 29 per cent 
 earn less than $7, the base fixed by this commission as a living wage; 
 58 per cent earn less than that in the silk, 49 per cent in the metal 
 and 49.5 per cent in the rubber, or 48.4 per cent of the combined 
 labor in these industries fall below the standard of $7. It is evident, 
 therefore, that nearly one-half receive less than a living wage. Hon- 
 orable Judges, these figures were copied from the pay rolls and em- 
 
 5 
 
bodied in this report to the government. The question arises, can the 
 industries afford to pay more? A comparison of wages and the value 
 of the products shows that labor receives less than 22 per cent of 
 the value of the product which it creates. Who would contend that 
 this is a fair proportion? A startling fact is shown by Adams and 
 Sumner in their book, "Wage Problems," that wages in the sweated 
 industries have decreased in the last decade. This statement has 
 actually been verified by investigations. Since this is true it is 
 clearly seen that conditions demand legislative adjustment. Again, 
 quoting Professor Nearing, whose research is extensive and whose 
 findings are without bias, one-fourth of the men and four-fifths of 
 the women of the state of New Jersey receive less than $468 per year. 
 Ladies and gentlemen, I might present a labyrinth of figures proving 
 that labor in this country is underpaid, but these facts, taken 
 from governmental investigations in several representative states, 
 proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that more action, for the pro- 
 tection of American standards of living is essential. The underpaid 
 man becomes the physical and moral degenerate. Note the conditions 
 in the tenements and sweat shops of our cities, which are too well 
 known to require comment. There are 20,000 such tenements in New 
 York City alone in which abound disease, degradation and vice. Child- 
 hood is forced to contribute its uttermost to enrich able manufac- 
 turers. Poverty is ugly and repellant everywhere, but when it assails 
 the cradle it assumes its most hideous form. To the extent that chil- 
 dren are robbed of their inherent right to laugh and be free, to the 
 same extent do you cripple and blight society. According to Pro- 
 fessor Seager in his book, "The Bitter Cry of the Children," out of 
 171,732 deaths of children under five years of age in 1912, 78,263 were 
 due to bad conditions and preventable. Appalling, and we maintain 
 that nothing has been found so effective to prevent these sad 
 conditions as the minimum wage. It is impossible to rear efficient, 
 healthy and moral citizens in homes where the utmost wage of the 
 father is insufficient to meet the needs of their frail bodies. 
 
 Human nature is selfish, and greed relentless, and as long as 
 it is possible a certain class of unscrupulous employers will ever 
 exploit labor. Honorable Judges, does the fact that a man must toil 
 justify an employer in taking an unfair advantage, to avail himself 
 of labor half paid? No, eternally no. 
 
 Our opponents may contend that as a worker increases in ef- 
 ficiency in the same rate will his wages increase. This would be true 
 if the pay check were always in the true proportion to the amount 
 and efficiency of the labor performed. But what of the underpaid 
 labor? How can we expect the poor ignorant man, starving mentally 
 and physically, wholly lacking in incentive and initiative, to rise 
 above his present low level? A minimum wage by giving justice to 
 all is the only remedy which does not at the same time destroy effi- 
 ciency. 
 
 It will be argued that wages are governed by the law of supply 
 and demand, but this law. in the words of Gide, the great French 
 
economist, is a blind law of a nature that has no regard for equality 
 or justice. It does not take into consideration the fundamental prin- 
 ciple does a laborer receive what he earns, but only is the supply so 
 great that the laborer will be forced to accept whatever capital pleases 
 to offer. Furthermore, the law cannot operate under abnormal con- 
 ditions. Then, since the law of supply is inefficient and unjust, a 
 legal minimum based on principles of justice is needed to prevent 
 great moral injury being inflicted on our nation. Is it any wonder 
 that so much vice and crime exists, in view of the fact that not half 
 of the women wage earners of the United States receive as much as 
 $6 per week for their service? Furthermore, the death roll of the 
 United States is greater than that of any other nation, due in large 
 measure to industrial conditions. Because of the injury to the in- 
 dividual the state and public welfare must suffer for, be it known, 
 the whole is no greater than the sum of its parts. 
 
 Honorable Judges, I have proven to you by government statistics 
 that labor in many instances is underpaid in our country, whose funda- 
 mental principle is equal rights to all and special privilege to none. 
 I have proven that conditions demand a remedy, that we may stay 
 the physical and moral degeneracy of our great laboring class, that 
 their children may have the opportunity to develop into normal men 
 and women, to compel the freedy, selfish employer to deal justly and 
 fairly, to enable the mother to maintain her place in the home, not 
 in the industrial world. A remedy I say must be forthcoming, and 
 what remedy shall we seek for, what so just and fair to all concerned 
 as the minimum wage? In fact, I maintain that a minimum wage 
 is necessary and essential to the physical and political life of the 
 nation. 
 
 Legislation is the only effictive means for bettering conditions, 
 because, organization is impossible. Those who require the minimum 
 wage are, as a class, incapable of exercising the administrative ability 
 necessary for effective unionism. Organization among the employers 
 is impossible, for the majority will not organize, and those who would 
 can not. Again, legislation is the only means, for industrial educa- 
 tion is too slow a process. Legislation is the only effective means 
 for giving the people, who enter into wage contracts, equality before 
 the law, and such a policy effectively operated by a wage board con- 
 sisting of a fair representation of employers, employees and public 
 opinion is the only means for making true, for the first time, that 
 which has long been held to be true, that is, the establishment of just 
 relations between employer and employee. 
 
 Now, ladies and gentlemen, in conclusion we rest the issue upon 
 the fundamental principles involved and ultimate effects upon society, 
 not upon the petty details. To recapitate, we would not fix an arbi- 
 trary minimum based on the cost of living, but upon the capacity 
 of the worker and profits of the industry. We contend merely for 
 a wage as shall be just to both capital and labor. We recommend 
 the adoption of a policy in a cautious manner, and in those industries 
 
 n 
 
where labor is most clearly exploited, and we shall insist that the 
 negative recognize and meet the problem of starvation wages in those 
 industries. 
 
 Briefly, having given you our interpretation of a minimum wage, 
 I have asserted and proven that immediate adoption of the policy in 
 certain industries is necessary because of conditions that exist, and 
 I have further proven that legislation is the only effective manner 
 for controlling these conditions. 
 
 Second Affirmative, Ernest Keser. 
 
 Honorable Judges, Ladies and Gentlemen: The first speaker of 
 the Negative began his speech with the statement that a minimum 
 wage had never been tried in any place except in England; that it 
 was sometimes said there was one in Australia and in New Zealand, 
 but that it was not so. After saying that he spent almost his entire 
 time in trying to show wherein the minimum wage had not worked 
 satisfactorily in New Zealand and Australia, thus flatly contradicting 
 himself. The same speaker of the Negative challenged us to show 
 that there was a minimum wage in effect in more than two states in 
 the Union, namely: Massachusetts and Oregon. I have here the Jour- 
 nal of Political Economy for February, 1914, this month, giving the 
 laws now in force and operation, creating a minimum wage scale In 
 nine of the states in the United States. Either one of two things is 
 true; our worthy opponents are either ignorant on the question and 
 not up to date on it, or are seeking to dodge the issue that there is a 
 minimum wage scale now operative in nine of our states. 
 
 Hon. Judges, my colleague has shown that the fixing of a minimum 
 by legislation is necessary to immediately remedy the condition of 
 underpaid, unskilled, exploited labor. 
 
 The fundamental purpose of labor legislation is, or ought to be, 
 the conservation of the human resources of the nation. The general 
 labor market is quite capable of absorbing all the available labor force, 
 except that of the defective or superannuated, at a living wage. If in 
 every large city thousands of persons must continue to work hard 
 and get less than a living, the fact is an indictment against civilization. 
 We know there are some objections to a legal minimum wage, but 
 starvation wages, when encountered, are due to exceptional circum- 
 stances which justify extraordinary remedies. We pass inheritance 
 tax laws and income tax laws, which swell the national treasury, and 
 perhaps aid the middle class by slightly lowering their tax. But what 
 of the poor working man who has nothing on which to pay tax ; where 
 does he get his share and wherein is his benefit? He has none, but 
 is forced to grind on as before. What we need is a measure which 
 will give food, shelter and clothing to those who need, and to those 
 who earn it, the laboring class, on which rests the present and future 
 
 8 
 
strength of our nation. The proposal of a minimum wage makes for 
 itself a vast prima facie claim, in that it promises to end untold hard- 
 ships and wrongs; and it is safe to say that at present no one is sure 
 enough that it is not workable to justify him in definitely rejecting it. 
 If it were our own lives and comforts which were at stake, we should 
 sift to the bottom any argument which claimed nothing could be done. 
 
 The Negative will no doubt contend that a minimum wage will 
 not increase the real wage, claiming it will raise the cost of living. 
 But note this fact, Hon. Judges, that the minimum wage as we would 
 adopt it will materially affect only the wages of the unskilled class, 
 and not the whole scope of wages, and the tendency toward raising 
 prices would be slight indeed. Later in the debate I shall show why 
 the minimum wage will not increase the price of products, and also 
 how increased efficiency will care for any slight increase there may be. 
 Therefore, the minimum wage will increase the real wage, for an 
 additional dollar paid the unskilled worker will buy just as much as a 
 dollar paid the more skilled individual. 
 
 Plainly our opponents would still rely upon the law of supply 
 and demand, but already we have relied too long upon the law of 
 supply and demand to solve the problem of underpaid labor, and rely- 
 ing upon that law, our nation has allowed industrial conditions to 
 grow worse and worse without the expected adjustment. In all other 
 lines we have found legal regulation of capital necessary, and today, 
 being augmented by immigration and the movement of labor to the 
 cities, the condition of the oppressed and helpless worker has grown 
 so intolerable that the people are fast realizing the fact that the time 
 is now here when the law must step in and relieve the situation. 
 Restriction of immigration and like measures will no doubt assist in 
 this adjustment, but such measures alone cannot reach the needs 
 of a very large part of those now suffering, for there has always been, 
 and will ever be, a severe struggle between labor and capital; and 
 until the public, through the law, step in and say that such things 
 shall no longer be, capital, because of its superior power, will continue 
 to force a great class of unskilled workers to labor for just what the 
 employer is willing to pay. It is for this class we advocate the 
 minimum wage. 
 
 Thus far, ladies and gentlemen, I have shown that a minimum wage 
 will increase the real wage, and that we cannot longer depend upon 
 the law of supply and demand to regulate the conditions of unskilled 
 labor. Further considering the affirmative argument, I shall show 
 that the obvious objections to a legal minimum wage are outweighed 
 by its benefits. 
 
 First of all, it will raise industrial efficiency. The empolyer, 
 unable because of economic law to seriously increase prices, will turn 
 to scientific management; when he can no longer bargain for low 
 wages, he must turn elsewhere to increase his profits. Antiquated 
 machinery and old-time methods, now profitable only because oi 
 
ruthless exploitation of defenseless labor, will rapidly be discarded. 
 Trade unions strive for and establish a minimum wage. The employer 
 meets the situation by installment of modern machinery and modern 
 methods. The employers of twelve states are today meeting the 
 Workingmen's Compensation Act by substituting improved methods 
 and safe-guarded machinery for antique processes and dangerous ma- 
 chinery. When the law prescribes a sanitation regulation the same 
 is true. Efficiency will become the supreme law of the industrial 
 world, the only hope of industrial preservation. 
 
 In the second place, the question of unemployment will not be so 
 serious as often predicted. My colleague will show that in the five 
 sweated trades in which the Victorian law was first applied, the wages 
 have gone up from 12 to 35 per cent, and yet the actual number of 
 persons employed has increased greatly relative to the increase of 
 total population. No doubt a minimum wage will thro^v a few aged 
 and decrepit workers out of employment, but is it not better to force 
 a defective out of industry rather than let his competition pull down 
 the wages of a dozen efficient men? Such incapables are properly 
 a state charge, and it is better for the public to meet this responsibility 
 than to allow the far greater burden of underpayment to fall on a 
 much larger class of workers who are now suffering. 
 
 Moreover, the prime causes of unemployment are directly traceable 
 to subnormal wages. Chronic malnutrition, diseases and inefficiency 
 are daily increasingly augmented by starvation wages. The value of 
 the efficient worker will continue to grow. Labor's working life will 
 be lengthened. Labor's productive capacity will be increased. The 
 human wreckage of industry will not become a subject of charity 
 so early in life. The minimum wage by tending to give stability to 
 industry, will decrease unemployment. The minimum wage removes 
 the most important cause or unemployment, the physical basis. 
 
 Third, a minimum wage will materially aid in a more equal dis- 
 tribution of industrial wealth. Hon, Judges, note these few statistics: 
 By the most conservative of stable authority, it is estimated that an 
 adult woman cannot live in frugal comfort, good health and decent 
 existence on less than from $450 to $500 per year. Yet, according to 
 Prof. Boyle, of the wage-earning women in the United States, 60 per 
 cent get less than $325, and 90 per cent less than $500 per year. A 
 like estimate for men is $600, based on a family of a wife and three 
 children. However, Prof. Nearing, of the Pennsylvania University, 
 recognized authority, states that in the section east of the Rockies 
 and north of the Mason and Dixon line, one-half the adult males get 
 less than $500, and three-fourths get less than $600 per year. Likewise 
 a recent United States Government report on over 172,000 men in the 
 iron and steel industry, gives 65 per cent as receiving less than $500 
 per year. By these figures it is easy to see that there is undue op- 
 pression of the laboring class. 
 
 10 
 
Again, it is common knowledge that 1 per cent of our population 
 owns one-half the wealth of the United States, and only 29 per cent of 
 the wealth is owned by 91 per cent of the population. By statement 
 of Dr. Balch, there are over 1,000,000 families in the United States who 
 receive as a total income less than $500 per year. Yet, there are over 
 1,100 millionaires in New York City alone, that city where half the 
 poverty is due to low wages; where one-half the deaths of children 
 under five years is due to poverty, and where one out of every ten 
 who die in the city are buried in a pauper's grave. I ask you, is it 
 right, and is there not an inequality in the American standard of life 
 which ought not to be? 
 
 Likewise it is common knowledge that many of our incorporated 
 industries are making exorbitant profits. Just one illustration: The 
 United States Steel Corporation, which employs over 200,000 men, by 
 actual figures reported to the government, in 1910 made a clean profit 
 on every man, above all the expense of the whole works, one and one- 
 quarter times the amount paid that man. In 1911 they employed 
 some fewer men and made a considerably higher profit on each man. 
 
 The Negative would have you believe we are trying to base a 
 minimum wage upon what it costs the laborer to live. But this is not 
 our contention, Hon. Judges. We have and shall throughout the 
 entire debate advocate a minimum wage based upon the earning power 
 of the lesser skilled individual. We realize the fact, and maintain 
 that on the one hand, a laborer, man or woman, who is physically and 
 mentally normal, is ethically and economically able to earn enough 
 to keep him in reasonable existence, and that on the other side of 
 the question, industry not only owes to that laborer, but is economically 
 able to pay him, out of the profits produced by his hands, a sufficient 
 amount to keep him in the frugal necessities of life. We further realize 
 that if fixed by a board, representing the public, labor and capital, 
 such board in establishing a minimum wage in a certain industry 
 would take into consideration the needs of the worker, the amount 
 paid by those establishments paying the better wages, and the ability 
 of the particular industry to pay a reasonable wage. Thus you see, 
 ladies and gentlemen, that rather than basing a minimum wage upon 
 what it costs the laborer to live, we base it upon what' he earns, and 
 maintain that the normal laborer is able to earn a living wage. 
 
 In the fourth and last place, minimum wage is an effective check 
 to the increasing tide of national degeneracy. Industries which suck 
 the vital energies of their underpaid workers are parasitic. The 
 parasitic industry is a social menace and should be suppressed. The 
 present death toll of industry wrecked and shortened lives, enfeebled 
 women and children, and growing numbers of physical degenerates, 
 is the terrible indictment against subnormal wages. "It is a reproach 
 to national enlightenment and Christian civilization." Says Sydney 
 Webb: "Every economist admits that by raising the standard of living 
 we increase the national dividend." 
 
 11 
 
Substitution for squandered national resources is comparatively 
 easy. There are substitutes for wood and coal, but there are no 
 substitutes for men, women and children. Conservation of the human 
 resources of the nation is the crying need of the hour. The minimum 
 wage is a preventative measure. It stops millions of workers from 
 falling below the poverty line. This measure does not fix wages. It 
 fixes the level beneath which wages shall not be paid. It protects 
 defenseless labor. It simply proposes that industry shall not exist 
 at the expense of the vital energies of its workers. It fixes the rules 
 of a competitive game. Competition in wages has free play above the 
 fixed level. But minimum wage demands that industry shall play 
 fair with its workers. 
 
 Thus far in the debate, Hon. Judges, we have established the fol- 
 lowing facts: (1) That the fixing of a minimum wage by legislation 
 is necessary to immediately protect unskilled labor; (2) That the 
 obvious defects of a legal minimum wage are vastly outweighed by its 
 benefits : 
 
 Because it will increase industrial efficiency, it will materially aid 
 in a better distribution of industrial wealth, and lastly, it will ef- 
 fectively check national degeneracy. 
 
 W. S. Darison, Third Affirmative. 
 
 Honorable Judges, Ladies and Gentlemen: My opponent who 
 has just left the floor has based his argument on the theory of this 
 question, I shall base my arguments on facts. 
 
 Now, my colleagues have already shown that there is a large class 
 of labor in the country that is underpaid, that 60 per cent of the women 
 workers are receiving starvation wages, that 50 per cent of the men 
 workers are not receiving a living wage, that wage legislation is the 
 only adequate remedy, that the benefits to society will vastly outweigh 
 its defects. The question now remains will the minimum wage be 
 practical and efficient in operation? 
 
 I shall show, first, that the difficulties and objections presented 
 are no greater than those presented by other reform measures; second, 
 that the plan has behind it the weight of experience and the best of 
 authority; third, that its enforcement will be possible. 
 
 First, the obvious objections are not insurmountable. Every step 
 from slavery to citizenship, from absolutely monarchy to republic, has 
 been fought bitterly by the cry of "impractical." The arguments 
 against the minimum wage are not new, they have followed it and every 
 other reform measure from country to country. Laws regulating 
 hours of labor, child labor laws, workmen's compensation laws, and 
 laws fixing a minimum of sanitation have been met by the same argu- 
 
 12 
 
ment of impracticability and impossibility as our opponents are ad- 
 vancing here tonight. It was contended that they violated the natural 
 laws and rights of the individual; that they would drive labor out of 
 employment and ruin industry. But it has been shown that these 
 objections are not insurmountable for today they stand as living 
 embodiments of the indominable genius of the American people for 
 solving complicated problems. 
 
 My opponents have put much emphasis on the economic law of 
 supply and demand as a proper law to govern such questions. Time 
 after time this law has been disregarded by labor unions and corpora- 
 tions and has been discarded by our National and State governments 
 as inadequate and insufficient. The fixing of railway and freight 
 rates is plainly as much a violation of the economic law of supply 
 and demand as is the minimum wage. 
 
 The minimum wage is based on the principle that the worker, 
 whether man, woman or child, needs the protection of the state, not 
 only against overwork, accident, and unsanitary conditions, but against 
 unchecked competition and unregulated employment. Sidney Webb, 
 the greatest living English Economist, and a professor in the Univer- 
 sity of London, says that the fixing of a minimum wagr is less com- 
 plicated and demands less technical knowledge than the fixing of a 
 minimum of sanitation, which must be done for every factory, and that 
 it demands less technical knowledge than the fixing and regulating 
 of hours of labor. Then is it not reasonable" to conclude that since 
 similar objections have been overcome by other similar reform meas- 
 ures that these too will yield to the genius of the American intellect? 
 
 The minimum wage is not a new nor a radical inovation of leg- 
 islation as our opponents would have you believe, but it is backed by 
 a generation of actual experience. In Australia it has made a steady 
 growth in power and influence. Since 1896 it has spread from five 
 sweated trades to more than a hundred trades and industries. The 
 official report of Victoria shows that, in the five sweated trades to 
 which it was first applied, that wages have increased from 12 per cent 
 to 35 per cent. The hours of labor have invariably been shortened, 
 the number of factories has increased 60 per cent, and the number 
 of workmen bar? more than doubled. Furthermore there are fewer 
 dependents in Victoria today, with the population doubled, than in 
 1896. Contrast this, will you, Honorable Judges, with the conditions 
 which exist in the United States where, in spite of the great increase 
 in the cost of living, the wages in the sweated industries are less 
 than they were twenty years ago. 
 
 According to the best judgment of the people of Australia the 
 law is a success, for five successive times the temporary act of 1896 
 has been re-enacted by an overwhelming majority in both houses. 
 Minimum wage provisions have been in existence in New Zealand 
 since 1894 where its most outspoken opponents admit that it has 
 eradicated the sweating evil. The English Government sent Earnest 
 
 13 
 
Aves to carry on a special investigation in these countries and, in 
 view of the facts presented in his report, the Wage Board Act of 1909 
 was created, establishing a minimum wage in certain industries. The 
 bill not introduced by radicals but was introduced and supported in 
 Parliament by Winston Churchill of the English Cabinet. It was 
 backed by such men as Balfour and Herbert Gladstone. It is a signi- 
 ficant fact that it has proven such a success that it has since been 
 extended to the chain making and the coal mining industries. Thus 
 the English Parliament, the most conservative law making body in 
 the world, voiced almost unanimously its approval of the minimum 
 wage. In the chain making industries an increase in wages of from 
 35 per cent to 60 per cent was realized at the first reward and in the 
 coal mining industry of from 20 per cent to 30 per cent and in no case 
 has the industry suffered. In view of the imperative need for labor 
 legislation our Government sent Dr. Victor Clark to carry on a 
 special investigation in Australia, and in his report he says that in its 
 operation and results the minimum wage is a success "beyond expecta- 
 tions" and draws the unquestionable conclusion that it may be 
 successfully applied in this country. 
 
 The argument by my opponent that the minimum will become the 
 maximum is not substantiated by past experience. The Survey for 
 January 8th shows conclusively that the minimum did not become the 
 maximum in England. The average wage of the coal mines is 13 per 
 cent above the required minimum. It did not become the maximum in 
 in Australia. The average wage paid in the clothing industry is 42s 
 per week as compared to prescribed minimum of 36s. The average 
 paid to men is 56s as compared to a minimum of 45s. An average 
 of nearly 20 per cent above the minimum. Scholefield, who is authority 
 on Political Economy in New Zealand, says that there is scarcely a 
 factory which does not show a large number of workers with wages 
 above the legal minimum. This is conclusive evidence that the mini- 
 mum does not fix the maximum, and that wages still continue to vary 
 with the individual capacity of the worker. 
 
 Furthermore, the minimum has found favor with the employers 
 as well as the employees, for 45 per cent of the wage boards now in 
 existence in Australia were created at the request of the employers. 
 In the investigation carried on by Aves in Australia these questions 
 were sent to the employers, "Is legal adjustment of wages advantageous 
 to employers?" Eighty-one per cent answered yes. "Is legal adjust- 
 ment advantageous to your trade?" Seventy -nine per cent answered 
 yes. "Is legal adjustment advantageous to your community?" Seventy- 
 eight per cent answered yes. These facts shows that justice has 
 been rendered to all classes. 
 
 The experience of trade unions in the United States proves the 
 practicability and the efficiency of the minimum wage. The principle 
 of the minimum wage has been partially practiced by hundreds of 
 trade unions throughout the country. Their fundamental purpose, 
 admittedly good, is that of securing an adequate wage. What we are 
 
 14 
 
proposing to do is to take the same principle and put behind it legal 
 authority and the moral support of equal representation on wage 
 boards, which will insure justice to all concerned. In hundreds of 
 instances in the past decade the wage question has been taken out of 
 the hands of the employer and the individual and settled by a com- 
 mission or joint arbitration board. The minimum wage is fundamental- 
 ly an arbitration board and is known by that name in New Zealand. 
 Since the fundamental principle of the minimum wage is worked suc- 
 cessfully in the United States by trade unions, commissions, and 
 arbitration courts, we logically conclude that it will be workable and 
 beneficial when backed by law. 
 
 The minimum wage is endorsed by the best of authority. The 
 National Progressive party has pledged to work unceasingly in state 
 and nation for minimum wage standards in all industrial occupations. 
 Father Ryan of the Catholic Church, declares in unquestionable lan- 
 guage for the minimum wage. 
 
 In the first case of its kind in the United States Judge Cleeton, 
 of the Oregon Circuit Court, contended that if laws regulating hours 
 of labor for women and children are within the police power of the 
 state and therefore constitutional that these laws are complementary 
 the minimum wage law being necessary in many instances to make 
 laws regulating hours of labor effective. 
 
 Many of the greatest political economists in the world have allowed 
 themselves to go on record as favoring the minimum wage. Among 
 the most prominent are Winston Churchill and Gladstone of England, 
 Charles Gide of France, and in our own land the list is almost endless, 
 Seager of Columbia, Jenks of Cornell, Adams of Michigan, Henderson 
 of Chicago, Ely and Commons of Wisconsin, Hadley of Yale, Tausig 
 of Harvard, Groat of Ohio, Nearing of Pennsylvania, and Victor S. 
 Clark of Washington, D. C. Hence we see that the plan is supported 
 by the best of authority among labor leaders, economists, and social 
 workers. 
 
 Now my opponents have cited isolated cases where the minimum 
 wage provisions have been violated and have contended that they can 
 not be enforced. But we contend, Honorable Judges, that the best 
 laws on the statute books of Nebraska are not rigidly enforced, they 
 are not perfect it is true, but would the gentlemen advocate their 
 repeal on that occount? According to the authorities which I have 
 quoted, other countries are making minimum wage provisions reason- 
 ably affective and arbitration boards in this country succeed in 
 enforcing their wage provisions. 
 
 It will be backed in its enforceemnt by all honest employers 
 to whose interest it will be to enforce the law on their dishonest 
 and disloyal competitors. Reports show that in England some of 
 the employers tried to evade the law but others brought them to 
 terms. 
 
 15 
 
It will be passed in the interest of the largest class of people 
 in the United States, the working class, who, when represented on the 
 wage boards, will give their unwavering support. It is a social 
 reform designed to lessen unnecessary hardships, protect the public 
 health, and lessen the vice of our great cities, hence it will have 
 the loyal support of social reformers and the general public, whose 
 life and health is daily endangered by present sweat shop conditions. 
 It will have the hearty support of the consumers' leagues of the land, 
 for the State, the National, and the International Consumers' Leagues 
 have pledged to aid in the enforcement of minimum wage laws. 
 Hence a law backed by so large a majority of the people will make 
 enforcement not only possible but imperative, because of the weight 
 of public opinion. 
 
 In conclusion, if our opponents' arguments are to stand, we 
 demand that they substantiate their contentions by answering these 
 questions. If it is a matter of state control to fix a minimum of 
 sanitation and to regulate the hours of labor, why is it not equally 
 a matter of state control to fix a wage below which employers, for 
 the good of society, shall not be allowed to pay? If the measure 
 is so undesirable, why has it been continually reenacted and extended 
 in Australia? Why is it that England, conservative England, has 
 adopted the minimum wage as the best solution for subnormal wages? 
 Why has the measure been adopted by nine of our states and by 
 hundreds of business firms throughout the United States? Why have 
 the Consumers' Leagues of the world rejected other plans and pledged 
 themselves to work for the establishment of minimum wage laws? 
 
 To sum up our argument, we have established the following facts: 
 That the minimum wage is the only adequate remedy for conditions 
 resulting from starvation wages. That it is practical and desirable, 
 for its benefits to society will vastly outweigh its obvious defects. 
 That the difficulties of application are no greater than those of other 
 reform measures which are now in successful operation. That the 
 plan is backed by the successful experience of England, Australia 
 and New Zealand. That its enforcement will be possible, for it will 
 be backed by all honest employers, the laboring class, and the con- 
 sumers. 
 
 A K. Bradley, Affirmative Rebuttal. 
 
 Honorable Judges, Ladies and Gentlemen: Throughout the debate 
 our oppenents have attacked the smaller details of the minimum 
 wage policy. They have demanded a definitely outlined plan in hope 
 that some minor point would prove defective and through this they 
 would be able to attack the great principle involved. The plan, being 
 a human device, is not flawless; however, the defective minor details 
 could and would be corrected, after a short time, in practice. 
 
 16 
 
Our opponents have made much of the law of supply and demand. 
 But what is the law of supply and demand? Does it mean that 
 because there is a great supply of labor, a worker must take such a 
 wage as an employer pleases to offer? No other interpretation can 
 be given. There is no equity nor justice in this. Is the principle 
 that might makes right the solution of this problem? If my worthy 
 opponents advocate this, likewise they would advocate that the trusts 
 of our country should have the power to force the consumer to pay 
 such prices for commodities as they shall be pleased to fix, likewise 
 such a policy would enable a strong nation to wilfully oppress the 
 weaker one. The law of supply and demand is a relic of the past 
 and modern institutions and standards of progress demand the enact- 
 ment of a minimum wage law. 
 
 Again, our opponents contend that the minimum wage will raise 
 the cost of commodities. However my colleage has shown that a 
 large part of this difference will be made up by the increase of 
 efficiency of the worker. This would at least care for part of the 
 increased expenditure without raising prices. In some cases the 
 employer could pay without infringement on necessary profits, in 
 others the unskilled employee would be eliminated. Then again, 
 according to Mr. Grant, in his book, "Scientific Management," the ratio 
 of what is accomplished in our industries to what might be accom- 
 plished is the ratio 1:3. Hence, by scientific management the dif- 
 ference might be cared for. Even granting that there might be a 
 slight rise in prices upon first adoption, is it not better that working 
 people should divide among the vast number of consumers the 
 hardships which are now shouldered by the very few of the obviously 
 underpaid? Our nation does not require the product of any business 
 so badly that human lives must be sacrificed rather than pay enough 
 that these worthless may receive a reasonable wage. 
 
 We agree with the Negative that the minimum wage will throw 
 a few out of employment. However, because of the higher wages 
 paid, the employer will demand the most efficient, hence those thrown 
 out of employment will be the industrially inefficient, those lacking 
 physically or mentally. This would force the state to solve the prob- 
 lem of the unemployed and the unemployable, which must come sooner 
 or later. Economists are agreed that there is enough labor for all 
 the employable, hence the problem then is the distribution of labor. 
 England, likewise Massachusetts, have established free employment 
 bureaus that are proving very successful. As to the unemployable, 
 the inefficient and the aged, surely the most disastrous way to care 
 for this class is to allow them to compete with the able bodied work- 
 man, thus forcing wages down to their level. Hence, a minimum 
 wage will cause this class to stand out clearly, then such measures 
 may be adopted as required to care for them. Therefore, the prob- 
 lem of throwing workmen out of employment is not serious. 
 
 Concerning the minimum becoming the maximum, I will say that 
 in reply to personal letters, Holcombe of Harvard, Seager of Columbia 
 
 17 
 
and Mills of Vassar have all said that they did not believe that such 
 would be the case. Why? Because it has not proven so in other 
 countries. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, August, 1910, gives 
 conclusive statement that in Australia and New Zealand, 61 per cent 
 receive more than the prescribed minimum. A selected committee 
 from the British House of Commons, in a report following a care- 
 ful investigation, states: "It is a significant fact that in the clothing 
 industry of Australia wages are 17 per cent above the required min- 
 imum. In our country the minimum established by trade unions has 
 not become the maximum, and the two are analagous. The min- 
 imum will do for the ignorant unorganized laborer what the trade 
 unions have done for organized workmen. 
 
 If the minimum wage is a failure in Australia, why has it endured 
 seventeen years, constantly growing and extending? It was adopted 
 only temporarily and five different times it has come up for dis- 
 cussion, always to be readopted. Victor Clark says concerning Aus- 
 tralia, "The minimum has succeeded beyond expectations." Why 
 did England adopt the minimum wage after investigating its opera- 
 tion in this country, if all the predicted evils follow in the wake of 
 minimum wage legislation? 
 
 In summary, we have shown that labor, to a great extent, is 
 underpaid in our country. The underpaid workman stands as a 
 perpetual indictment of the hypocrisy of those who preach the 
 brotherhood of Good and the brotherhood of Man. We have shown that 
 the benefits of the minimum wage, such as we have proposed, far 
 outweigh the disadvantages, that it is practical in application, and 
 that it is just to all concerned. And finally it corrects and checks 
 those conditions which if allowed to go unchecked will ultimately 
 bring our nation to ruin. Therefore we contend that a minimum 
 wage law ought to be put into operation in the United States. 
 
 John Bass, First Negative. 
 
 Honorable Judges, Ladies and Gentlemen: Before I take up 
 the discussion for the negative I wish to call your attention to the 
 argument set forth by my worthy opponent. His speech can be di- 
 vided into two parts, in one portion he tried to picture the deplorable 
 conditions as he saw them. In the other portion he paid a tribute 
 to the minimum wage of Australia. My colleagues in the course of 
 their argument will prove that the minimum wage in Australia has 
 been an overwhelming failure, and should under no considerations 
 be adopted in the United States. 
 
 The negative admit that the labor conditions in the- United States 
 are not what they should be; but we do not admit that they are as 
 deplorable as my worthy opponent has pictured them. Honorable 
 
 18 
 
Judges, are we facing a crisis; are we plunging into an abyss of wreck 
 and ruin owing to a few abnormal conditions in our laboring sys- 
 tem? Experience proves that we are not. 
 
 The Senate Investigating Committee of the Sixty-first Congress 
 reports, that during the last seven years there has been an increase 
 of eighteen per cent in the scale of wages and an eight percentage de- 
 crease in the length of working hours in forty-one of the leading in- 
 dustries. The labor report of the State of Conneticut states, that the 
 average wage of women, exclusive of minors, was over $9.00 per week. 
 The committee of the Kansas legislature that investigated the lab- 
 oring conditions of this state, reports that every girl who was worth 
 $9.00 per week is receiving $9-00. The 950 girls working in the 
 Emery, Bird, Thayer Dry Goods Company of Kansas City, Mo., are re- 
 ceiving an average of $10.00 per week. These facts go to prove, 
 Ladies and Gentlemen, that the conditions are not as deplorable as 
 my worthy opponent has so eloquently stated. The official organ of 
 the American Federation of Labor says, "A great majority of our 
 industries are paying more than a living wage to their employees, 
 and where low wages are paid it is due to exceptional circum- 
 stances." It is of these exceptional circumstances that I wish to 
 speak. 
 
 The Negative maintain that the cause for low wages, which exists 
 in a few industries cannot be remedied by minimum wage legislation. 
 My worthy opponent said if we maintain that the minimum wage 
 cannot remedy the conditions of low wages, we must produce a better 
 remedy. Honorable Judges, it is not necessary for the negative to 
 produce a better remedy. The only thing we have to do is to prove 
 the fallacies and defects of a minimum wage, and that is what we are 
 going to do, beyond that we have no prerogative. 
 
 In considering the question of wages, we must consider those 
 fundamental economic laws that underlie the whole theory of wages. 
 In the first place wages constitute the price paid for the service 
 of labor, and hence come under the general law of supply and demand. 
 This economic theory seems to be ignored by the advocates of a 
 minimum wages, but the great authorities on economics like Tausig, 
 Seager, Ely and Fetters, support the theory, that labor is controlled 
 and regulated by the laws of supply and demand that are above 
 any artificial laws that may be promulgated by the mind of man in a 
 moment of restlessness. How can a few men assembled in a state or 
 national legislature establish laws to regulate a certain economic ele- 
 ment, over which they have no control? The scale of wages will 
 increase when the labor market is limited or restricted, in 
 spite of the fact that men may legislate to the contrary. Any 
 country has a high scale of wages when labor is scarce, but when its 
 labor supply exceeds the demand as it does in some of the industries 
 in the United States, the scale of wages will be low. 
 
 19 
 
State regulation of wages is by no means a new thing. England 
 tried it and failed, because the supply and demand of labor could 
 not be regulated by acts of parliament. A certain school of econom- 
 ists set forth the reason, that because the police power of the state 
 can enforce laws regulating the length of hours and unsanitary condi- 
 tions, it can likewise regulate the rate of wages. Such a hypothesis 
 is wrong both in theory and in practice. There are no economic laws 
 regulating length of hours and unsanitary conditions to interfere 
 with such legislation, but in the question of wages, between employer 
 and employee, the economic laws plays a vital part and defies legis- 
 lation. 
 
 Furthermore a minimum wage is not elastic, and cannot adjust 
 itself to the ever fluctuating labor market. Suppose during the time 
 of a commercial depression a large number of men are thrown out of 
 employment, how could a minimum wage, established during a period 
 of prosperity, adjust itself to the vast over supply of labor? The price 
 of labor in such a time would rapidly decrease, but the minimum wage 
 being fixed by legislation would remain the same, in spite of adverse 
 conditions. Therefore, because the minimum wage would seek to 
 control labor which can only be controlled by economic laws; and 
 that it would not be elastic in moments of depression, it is hailed 
 by most students of economics as false in theory and dangerous in 
 practice. 
 
 Now let us apply this economic law of supply and demand to the 
 situation of labor in some of the lower industries. That there exists 
 in some industries low wages, we admit, but at the same time there' 
 exists in these same industries an over supply of unskilled labor. 
 It is my purpose to prove that these conditions attributed to low 
 wages are due primarily to the influx of unskilled and ignorant 
 labor. The oversupply of labor is due to two causes: 
 
 First: Foreign immigration. 
 
 Second: The movement from the rural districts to the cities. 
 
 There are coming annually to our shores one and a quarter 
 million immigrants, largely from Eastern and Southern Europe, who 
 are ignorant of our customs and conditions. This class of unskilled 
 and ignorant immigrants, because of their ability to endure long 
 hours, and because of their low standards of life, have been the chief 
 factor in bringing about the conditions that exist in the textile and 
 sweated industries. The recent immigrants have little money when 
 they arrive, and to avoid starvation they are forced to seek employ- 
 ment at any cost. About 75 per cent of the workers in the sweated 
 industries are Southern and Eastern Europeans. This influx of for- 
 eign.immigration has so greatly exceeded the demand that today there 
 exists a severe competition among the immigrants themselves, and 
 these conditions in those industries have forced wages down to a 
 very low standard. 
 
 20 
 
The sweated industries did not exist prior to 1885. That year 
 marks the coming of the Italians and Poles to our shores. They im- 
 mediately congregated in the slums of our large cities; and owing 
 to the severe competition among themselves for employment, they 
 have brought about the conditions that exist in those industries. 
 The conditions in the textile industries of New England were very 
 favorable, previous to the coming of the ignorant and illiterate im- 
 migrants from Southern Europe. The American workers in those 
 industries were receiving good pay and working under favorable 
 conditions, but the coming of the Europeans, with their low standards 
 of living, so increased the supply of labor that the native Americans 
 were forced to leave. The foreigner today constitutes 80 per cent 
 of the population in the industries where low wages are paid. Their 
 ever increasing numbers and low standards of life are the chief 
 causes for those conditions, and how is it possible to pass a law 
 regulating low wages when those wages are caused by the nature' 
 of the individual? 
 
 In the second place our over supply of unskilled labor is due to 
 the exodus from the rural districts to the cities. In 1890 the rural 
 population constituted 72 per cent of the country's population; in 
 1910 it constituted 60 per cent. This decrease of the rural, and in- 
 crease of urban populatk n has had its effects upon the labor market. 
 The cotton manufacturers of the South have lured the poor white 
 from their mountain homes to settle in the cities. This movement 
 so greatly increased the supply of labor in the cotton factories that 
 the child labor question has been the result. That we have an over 
 supply of unskilled labor is proved by experience. There were 3,- 
 000,000 out of employment in 1907. Last December, two months ago, 
 the city council of Chicago passed a resolution asking the state to 
 give them aid for 100,000 idle men. Kansas City reported 50,000 idle 
 men in 1911. ' The inability to find employment is gathered by the 
 department of labor at Washington which investigated the Italians in 
 Chicago. It reports that the Italian is able to work on an average 
 of only four months in the year owing to the great number of Italians 
 in that city. My opponent has quoted the average yearly wages of 
 the employees in certain industries which on the face of it appears 
 low. But remember that the amount he quoted is the wage they re- 
 ceived for working a portion of the year. If the worker was able to 
 work 52 weeks in the year his wage would have been at least four 
 times that which my worthy opponent has quoted. 
 
 This overcrowded market of unskilled labor, caused by the influx 
 of foreign immigration and movement from the rural districts into 
 the city have been the causes of low wages. These conditions con- 
 stitute the exceptional circumstance for the causes of low wages in 
 some industries as mentioned by the organ of the American Federation 
 of Labor. Now the question is simply this. Can a minimum wage law 
 eliminate these economic difficulties, decrease the number of unem- 
 ployed and diminish the oversupply of unskilled labor? To accom- 
 
 21 
 
plish that is the impossible, as mere legislation can not regulate nor 
 control economic laws. 
 
 Now, Honorable Judges, since minimum wage legislation cannot 
 eliminate the causes for low wages, why is such legislation agitated? 
 The first place we hear of modern minimum wage legislation is in 
 Australia. It was agitated for political purposes. Australia today 
 is considered the world's experiment ground for every form of freak 
 legislation. It has no complicated commercial and industrial problem, 
 and for that reason the people of that island spend their time in 
 adopting every form of radical legislation. Every piece of social 
 legislation today, whether good or bad, had its origin in Australia. 
 The minimum wage was advocated by the Socialist parts of Australia. 
 This same party is now trying to regulate the cost of food products as 
 attempting to regulate the price of a loaf of bread. 
 
 But what has been the success of the minimum wage in Australia? 
 McDonald, that noted English expert upon this subject, says: "If a 
 minimum wage could have succeeded anywhere it would have been in 
 Australia where they have tried various forms since 1894. The 
 country is small, its industries simple; its population is but a handful 
 and is not crowded into large cities; its industrial inspection is child's 
 play, and it is protected by a high protective tariff. But in spite 
 of these favorable conditions, my colleague will prove that it has 
 not been successful, and experience in that distant island would 
 not justify its establishment in the United States. Mr. Aves and 
 Clark were sent out by the English and American governments to 
 investigate the minimum wage law in Australia. After two years of 
 investigation they made a detailed report of their findings in which 
 they warned their respective governments against its adoption. The 
 minimum wage was adopted by England in 1909 during the greatest 
 strike in its history. Coming to America, it was passed in Massachu- 
 setts in 1912 during the period of the Lawrence strike. Both employer 
 and employee were opposed to this law, but in spite of their opposi- 
 tion it was passed by unscrupulous politicians and urged upon the 
 non-interested voter. Mr. McSweeny, a member of the Massachusetts 
 Industrial Board, said: "The so-called minimum wage law which 
 went into effect July 1, 1913, is a monument to the timidity of the 
 Massachusetts legislature which allowed itself to be bullied into 
 passing without debate, a bill not for the sake of humanity, but for 
 the fear that the failure to pass it might cost them votes." 
 
 An investigation shows that the best economic students of our 
 day are opposed to minimum wage legislation. President Wilson and 
 Dr. Hadley of Yale are among its opponents. As a whole both Ameri- 
 can capital and labor are opposed to it. Both organized and unorgan- 
 ized labor have repudiated and denounced minimum wage legislation. 
 Mr. Gompers, the most influential labor leader in the United States, 
 in voicing the sentiment of the American Federation of Labor, says: 
 "We must not, we cannot depend upon legislative enactments to set 
 
 22 
 
wage standards." During the agitation for minimum wage legislation 
 in California the working women of that state sent eight representa- 
 tives to their legislature who bitterly opposed the minimum wage law. 
 About a year ago our legislature voted down the minimum wage law, 
 and when the bill was under consideration, petitions were sent to the 
 legislature signed by thousands of Kansas working girls requesting 
 the legislature to defeat the measure for the sake of their pride and 
 interest. Since both the employer and employee are opposed to it 
 what reasons are there for its adoption in the United States. 
 
 In conclusion, I have proved: First, that labor is controlled by 
 economic laws and not by legislation. 
 
 Second: Low wages, where they exist, are due to the conditions 
 of labor market and cannot be remedied by a minimum wage law. 
 
 Third: That both the employer and employee are opposed to it. 
 
 For these reasons we maintain that a minimum wage should not 
 be put into operation in the United States. 
 
 George A. Brown, Second Negatire. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, Honorable Judges, Ladies and Gentlemen: In the 
 beginning I wish to call your attention to my opponents attempted 
 argument. The gentlemen have claimed that immorality is caused 
 by low wages. This claim is absolutely without a foundation, because 
 if immorality is caused by low wages only those would be immoral 
 that receive a low wage. Legislation can not cure immorality, it is a 
 state of mind. I wonder if my opponents can explain why immorality 
 exists to such a great extent among the wealthy. 
 
 My opponents have made the assertion that the law has eliminated 
 strikes in Australia. One of the most noted strikes in the history of 
 Australia was the Victorian railway strike in May, 1903. In 1908, 
 Australia passed a law which made the employers subject to a fine 
 of $250 each for striking, and the employees subject to a fine of $50 
 each. The fact that there were 91 strikes in Victoria alone in 1911 
 shows that even this law combined with minimum wage law has not 
 eliminated strikes. 
 
 I also wish to make it plain that labor unions are opposed to 
 minimum wage legislation. Mr. Gompers, President of the American 
 Federation for Labor, says : "We stand for minimum wage by economic 
 forces rather than by legislative enactments." 
 
 The gentlemen have demanded the negative to give a remedy for 
 the conditions of the laboring people. It does not fall upon the nega- 
 tive to even suggest a remedy. We are not debating the affirmative 
 side of this question. And, before this debate closes even my opponents 
 
will be convinced that a minimum wage scale should not be put into 
 operation. 
 
 By way of summary, my colleague has shown that capable work- 
 ers are receiving a good wage, and where low wages exist they are due 
 to exceptional causes. Causes that can not be remedied by minimum 
 wage legislation. He has also shown that minimum wage legislation is 
 undesirable, and that the economic law of supply and demand is the 
 correct method of determining wages. It is my purpose to show that 
 minimum wage legislation is unsound in principle, and dangerous in 
 application. The third speaker will show that minimum wage legisla- 
 tion has not worked and can not be made to work. 
 
 Authorities agree that minimum wage means a "living wage," and 
 both affirmative and negative have agreed upon this interpretation. 
 Then, minimum wage is based upon the cost of living rather than upon 
 the worker's earning capacity which is obviously wrong. Since 
 minimum wage is based upon the cost of living it is inadequate. 
 First, because an individual minimum wage is impossible, the govern- 
 ment can not assess the needs of each individual, such a plan being 
 complicated and extremely expensive. If a moderate family, say a 
 man with three children, is taken for the basis of determining the 
 minimum, the wage becomes too large for the man with one child, 
 on the other hand it is too small for the man with five children. 
 The fact that an individual minimum wage is impossible, and a 
 moderate family taken from the basis is inadequate explodes the 
 theory of minimum wage legislation as well as its application. And, 
 the economic law of supply and demand remains the correct method 
 of determining wages. 
 
 Please note that the nominal wage is that which the worker re- 
 ceives in dollars, the real wage is what the worker can buy with the 
 nominal wage. My opponents have said that the law has increased 
 wages in Australia, but they failed to show that minimum wage law 
 caused this increase. Wages have increased in other countries which 
 are free from minimum wage law and more in some countries than 
 in Australia where the law has been tried for seventeen years. Judge 
 Heydon of Australia only names one class of regulated industries 
 where wages have increased more than in the non-regulated industries. 
 Mr. Aves, the English expert, says: "Taking the trades where any 
 appreciable percentage of women are employed those not subject to 
 the law show an increase of wages on the average of $3.03 per week; 
 while the trades which are subject to the law show an increase of $2.15 
 per week." In this case wages have increased over forty per cent 
 more in those industries which are not subject to the law, than in 
 those industries which are subject to the law. These figures signify 
 that legislation can not even raise the nominal wage above certain 
 economic conditions. Dr. Findlay says: "Here in Australia we 
 scarcely hear of the economic law of supply and demand but the result 
 of minimum wage laws is a step to the position that wages are de- 
 termined chiefly by economic laws." Statistics show that an increase 
 
 24 
 
in wages has always been followed by an increase in the cost of 
 living. Mr. Hobbs, a member of the board that published the New 
 Zealand Year Book for 1912, says: "That an increase in the cost of 
 living has been the only result of legislation so far." Raising the 
 prices reduces sales, thus it lessens the number employed and thereby 
 adds to our army of unemployed. An increase in the cost of living 
 decreases the purchasing power of a dollar and thus reduces the real 
 wage. We, the negative, demand of the third affirmative speaker to 
 show that minimum wage legislation has or can increase the real 
 wage. And, when the law has failed to increase the real wage it has 
 failed to render the workers any benefit. 
 
 One of my opponents has said that the negative would probably 
 say that the law would throw workers out of employment. The gen- 
 tleman has made a good guess and it is evident that he thought there 
 were some reasons for such argument or else he would not have 
 made such a statement. The law is dangerous for the very reason 
 that it will throw thousands of workers out of employment, and thereby 
 enlarges upon the greatest labor problem before the American people. 
 The Victorian Commission for 1903 shows that when the law went 
 into operation a large employer with a staff of 280 workers dismissed 
 from sixty to seventy hands; while another employer who gave worlt 
 to 160 hands expressed the opinion that one adult male out of every 
 eight in the trade had lost his employment. A furniture trade in New 
 Zealand dismissed thirty-one employees on the ground that they were 
 not worth the minimum wage. These figures show that 12 per cent 
 of the employees lost their employment. Prof. Taussig of Harvard, 
 says: "That probably the only thing minimum wage can do, is to 
 divide labor into two classes, those who are worth the minimum and 
 those who are not." But, this does not solve the wage problem. It 
 is class legislation which is contrary to the principles upon which 
 this nation was founded. Ladies and Gentlemen, I have not only given 
 you substantial reason but I have also given you illustrations which 
 show that where the law has been put into operation a large per cent 
 of the employees lost their employment. 
 
 Now, let us get our bearings on my opponents ingenious contention 
 that minimum wage legislation can help sweated and inefficient labor. 
 First of all what is sweating? The best economic students say that 
 it is the product of the evolution of modern industry. In other words 
 our demand for unskilled labor is becoming less. In short, inefficient 
 labor is that class which can not obtain better employment. Further 
 sweated labor is largely home work which is done by women. If a 
 woman has four or five hours to work after her housework is done, 
 shouldn't it be her privilege? Minimum wage legislation will take 
 from sweated, inefficient labor, the only source from which they can 
 obtain a living. Because if the minimum wage law is to provide this 
 class with a living the minimum will be made higher than their 
 efficiency and instead of having a fair wage they will have no wage 
 at all. One only needs to know the conditions of labor in Manchester, 
 
 25 
 
England, to know the impossibilities of regulating inefficient labor. 
 Manchester and other English cities have had municipal minimum 
 wags laws for decades and in Manchester there are over 300,000 fami- 
 lies living in atics. This evidence is sufficient to show that minimum 
 wage law can not render any one self-support who was not able f 
 earn it before. 
 
 The affirmative has claimed that minimum wage law will increase 
 the efficiency of labor by giving them better food and shelter, as soon 
 as the law is put into operation the less efficient will be thrown out 
 of employment and they will have neither food nor shelter. The nega- 
 tive holds that the law will decrease the efficiency of labor. First, 
 because when we once establish a law assuring a certain wage the 
 inefficient workers will have no desire to become efficient. The 
 efficient workers will hold their employment because they are able 
 to earn the minimum wage, if the inefficient workers are employed 
 they are put on the level with the efficient workers and thus dis- 
 courages efficient labor. Mr. Aves, says: "I think that the evidence 
 is conclusive that the conditions in New Zealand are tending so far 
 as adult male workers are concerned and over a wide field toward a 
 lower efficiency." Mr. Clark says: "It is the unanimous testimony 
 of the employers of Australia that their men do not work as well 
 under minimum wage law as before." In the last four days the 
 negative has received letters and official reports from Australia and 
 New Zealand which admit that the minimum wage law has decreased 
 the efficiency of labor tremendously. 
 
 Honorable Judges, in conclusion, I have shown by illustrations, 
 argument and facts, that minimum wage legislation is unsound in 
 principle and dangerous in application. 
 
 First: Because the minimum wage can not be fixed to suit one 
 man's conditions without working an injustice upon some other worker, 
 thus the law is inadequate and unjust. 
 
 Because the law can not increase the real wage and thus it fails 
 to render the workers any benefit. 
 
 Because minimum wage legislation will throw thousands of work- 
 ers out of employment and thereby enlarges upon the greatest labor 
 before the American people. 
 
 Because it will take from the less efficient the only source from 
 which they can obtain a living. 
 
 Because the law can not render self-support to anyone who was 
 not able to obtain it before. 
 
 Because minimum wage legislation will cause our labor to become 
 more inefficient by causing the negligent and careless workers to 
 become more worthless, and by discouraging the efficient workers. 
 
 26 
 
Because minimum wage legislation will increase the cost of pro- 
 duction, due to a decline in the efficiency of labor which must result 
 in an increase in the cost of living and thereby react upon labor and 
 make their conditions more deplorable than in the start. 
 
 In view of these facts the negative holds that a minimum wage 
 scale ought not to be put into operation by legislation. 
 
 F. W. Osterhout, Third Negative. 
 
 Honorable Judges, Ladies and Gentlemen: The gentleman, who 
 has just left the floor, spent nearly half of his speech dwelling upon 
 the fact that nine of our states have adopted a minimum wage law. 
 But simply because a few of our states have adopted a minimum wage 
 law, it is no proof that it is a just and desirable law, for on the statute 
 books of our states can be found many laws which are absolutely 
 worthless. For instance, Maryland has a law which makes hanging 
 the penalty for burning a hay stack. Will the gentleman of the Af- 
 firmative say that we should have such a law throughout the United 
 States simply because it can be found on the statute books of one 
 of our states? 
 
 Attempts have been made to regulate wages by law in the past, 
 and they have always failed. England passed an unsuccessful maxi- 
 mum wage law in her Statute of Laborers of 1349. Even the minimum 
 wage itself has been tried in the past. King Philip of Spain adopted 
 a minimum wage for miners four hundred years ago. But the law 
 soon fell into disuse because of its impractibility and impossibility of 
 enforcement. The English Poor Law of 1796, which embodied the 
 principles of the minimum wage, resulted in the laborers becoming 
 careless, inefficient and improvident. The report of the Commission 
 of 1834 stated that this law actually injured the laborers and their 
 families, the very persons for whose benefit the law was passed. 
 
 Thus we see that the attempts to regulate wages by law in the 
 past have had one common result, namely, failure. 
 
 And a minimum wage law will fail in the United States, first, be- 
 cause it can not be enforced. One of the many ways in which the 
 minimum wage law can and is being evaded is that the employers 
 sell the raw material to the workers on credit and buy back from 
 them the completed articles at a stipulated price. This method of 
 evading the law is common in the boot and harness industries of 
 Australia. 
 
 Another way of evading the law, which would be especially baffling 
 to eliminate in the United States, is that the employers enter on their 
 wage book a wage which is above the fixed minimum, while in reality 
 they are paying less than the minimum. Exhaustive investigations, 
 in Australia, show that this method of evading the law is especially 
 
 27 
 
common among the smaller factories. For example, a number of men 
 were receiving $7.30 per week while their wage was entered upon 
 the factory wage book, for the inspectors examination, at $13.38 per 
 week. 
 
 Although Australia and New Zealand never did have the complex 
 labor problems which are found in the United States, for the total 
 population of Australia and New Zealand combined is less than that 
 of New York City alone and is scattered over a territory greater than 
 that of the United States, yet these facts show that even in those 
 sparcely populated countries the minimum wage law can not be en- 
 forced. The inspectors themselves admit this to be so. Inspector 
 Bishop, of Victoria, acknowledges that the minimum wage legislation 
 can not be enforced there. 
 
 In the United States, we are already so overburdened with laws 
 that it is almost impossible for the employers to obey the laws we 
 have, but if we add to these our opponents unjust minimum wage law 
 it will only serve to tempt the unscrupulous employers to evade it. 
 For think, Honorable Judges, how preposterous it is to suppose that 
 such a law will be obeyed in the United States when it compells the 
 employer to pay, say $9 per week for a worker who is incapable or 
 earning more than $6. 
 
 We scarcely need ask why they will evade such a law in the United 
 States, for when the workers' only source of support has been taken 
 away by legislation, or in times of industrial stress, or panic, or when 
 the workers can not get work, it is perfectly clear, Honorable Judges, 
 be there a minimum wage law or no minimum wage law, the workers 
 will obtain employment at whatever wage they can command, for the 
 right to sell one's labor to provide food for one's wife and children 
 is supreme, and no law will stand in its way nor will any jury, with 
 a moral conscience, in any state, convict under such circumstances. 
 
 In the second place a minimum wage law will fail in the United 
 States because it will discourage industry; first, by favoring foreign 
 competition; second, by discouraging investments and, third, by dis- 
 criminating against the small industries. 
 
 The Negative has already shown that an increase in wages means 
 an increase in prices, and an increase in prices will favor foreign 
 competition and thereby discourage home production. The manufactur- 
 ers of New South Wales state that the minimum wage laws have 
 compelled them to decrease their business and that instead of giving 
 employment to workers in Australia to make the articles which they 
 need in their business they are in reality giving employment to work- 
 ers in Europe and in America. 
 
 But, Honorable Judges, since we know that the minimum wage has 
 ended in a like result in New Zealand we are doubly sure that a 
 minimum wage in the United States will favor foreign competition. 
 And, statistics for New Zealand show that since the minimum wage 
 
 28 
 
law has gone into operation the exports of manufactured articles have 
 decreased while, at the same time, the imports of such articles have 
 increased. 
 
 Further a minimum wage law will discourage investments. The 
 Bovril Company was prevented by labor legislation from erecting a 
 plant in New South Wales which would have meant the expenditure 
 of several million of dollars. And, the minimum wage will have a 
 like result in the United States. This is a statement which is proven 
 TDy the fact that one of our large American corporations was intending 
 to locate a steel plant in Australia which would have meant the ex- 
 penditure of two million dollars, but they gave up the project on ac- 
 count of the labor conditions. They state that the uncertainty created 
 by labor legislation makes the whole management and administration 
 of business subject to the caprice of party politics and absolutely 
 deadens the spirit of investment. 
 
 Again, the minimum wage will discriminate against those in- 
 dustries in which the margin of profit is small, and in many cases 
 It actually forces such industries out of business. A few years ago a 
 minimum wage law was put into operation in the coal mining districts 
 of England. But many of these mines were already paying all they 
 could, the margin of profit being so small that when the minimum 
 wage law raised the wages of the employees, they were forced to dis- 
 continue business, and the miners, instead of being guaranteed a 
 minimum wage, received no wage at all. 
 
 A large brush factory left Australia on account of the minimum 
 wage laws. A tobacco firm moved its factory from Victoria. While 
 in this same state no less than forty-seven of the smaller boot and shoe 
 factories were forced out of business. 
 
 The Affirmative has contended tonight that such industries which 
 cannot exist under the minimum wage are parasitic, and that the 
 country would be better off without them. But Massachusetts was 
 not so sure of these industries being parasitic, for, notice this, Hon- 
 orable Judges, when the cotton industries of Massachusetts complained 
 that they would be unable to pay a higher wage; Massachusetts, even* 
 before her minimum wage had gone into operation, passed an amend- 
 ment to her minimum wage law giving the courts the right to declare 
 the minimum wage inoperative for any industry which in their opinion 
 ould not afford to pay the minimum wage. 
 
 These facts show that a minimum wage in the United States will 
 discourage industry, because, it will favor foreign competition, it will 
 discourage investments, and it will discriminate against the smaller 
 industries. 
 
 Honorable Judges, I have not only givevn you sound reasons for 
 these statements, but I have backed them up with concrete examples 
 taken from those countries where the minimum wage is in actual 
 operation. 
 
 29 
 
In the last place, I wish to show you that the gentleman of the 
 Affirmative was mistaken when he said that a minimum wage law in 
 the United States would not tend to become a maximum. Honorable 
 Judges, it is nothing more than reasonable to expect that if the em- 
 ployers are compelled by law to pay too much to some of their workers 
 they will, in self-defense, in order to keep working expenses within 
 reasonable bounds, pay less to others than they deserve. Take the 
 case of the employer where he has two men working for him. One, 
 an inefficient man at six dollars per week; the other, a capable man 
 at twenty dollars per week, and there is, says, a twelve dollar minimum. 
 If this employer is compelled by law to pay twelve dollars to his in- 
 efficient six dollar man we can expect nothing else than that he will 
 take part, if not all, of this increased wage from the wage of the 
 twenty dollar man. And, this would be unjust to his twenty dollai- 
 man, for such a proceeding would stifle his incentive. Honorable 
 Judges, we have no reason to believe otherwise than that if a minimum 
 wage law is put into operation in the United States, it will draw the 
 wages of the efficient down towards the minimum. In short, the 
 minimum will tend to become the maximum. To show that this must 
 be the inevitable results of such a law in the United States, we need 
 only turn to those countries where the minimum wage is in operation 
 and in nearly every case the minimum tends to become the maximum, 
 and in numerous cases, the minimum has actually become the maxi- 
 mum. In the coal mining districts of New South Wales a minimum 
 wage was put into operation which was somewhat below the general 
 averages of the wages. And immediately the minimum became the 
 maximum, and no less than six thousand employes were Compelled 
 to accept a wage of from eigth to nine per cent below that which they 
 had been receiving before. Similar results were experienced in the 
 timber industry of Australia where, again, several thousand employes 
 were compelled to accept a lower wage. In the clothing industry of 
 New South Wales a minimum wage of four dollars and eighty-seven 
 cents per week was adopted for women and girls, and official reports 
 show that there are clothing factories in New South Wales where no 
 woman or girl is receiving more than four dollars and eighty-seven 
 cents per week, in other words, the minimum became the maximum. 
 
 In conclusion, Honorable Judges, I have shown you that the at- 
 tempts to regulate wages by law in the past have failed. Likewise, 
 the minimum wage laws of Australia are proving unsuccessful. For 
 the very fact that the minimum wage laws of Australia have been 
 amended and re-amended time and again, is proof in itself that the 
 minimum wage laws of Australia are not satisfactory. I have also 
 shown you that the minimum wage will fail in the United States; first, 
 because it can not be enforced, for it is an utter impossibility to enforce 
 a law in the United States which is not based on justice and equity. 
 Second, the minimum will discourage industry because it will favor 
 foreign competition; it will discourage investment, and it will dis- 
 criminate against the smaller industries. Third, the minimum will 
 tend to become the maximum. 
 
 30 
 
Honorable Judges, in closing, I would have you notice this, the 
 gentlemen of the Affirmative would adopt their unjust minimum wage 
 law throughout the United States; a law which must extend over 
 forty-eight different states with all the varying conditions. They would 
 adopt a plan which has been tried in the past and which in every case 
 has, in time, proven unsuccessful. Shall we adopt such a law in the 
 United States which fixes a certain wage on the one hand and at the 
 same time prescribes no fixed return of service on the other? If we 
 are to give both the employer and the employee an absolutely fair 
 and equal chance, the law will have to prescribe a fixed return of 
 service for a fixed wage, and such a plan is neither practical nor 
 possible. 
 
 George A. Brown, Negative Rebuttal. 
 
 The third affirmative speaker concluded the constructive argument 
 for the affirmative by urging that we should adopt minimum wage law 
 because we have passed work-hour and sanitary laws. These laws are 
 simple in both their scope and administration when compared with 
 minimum wage law. There is no economic law governing the length 
 of work days, but there is the law of supply and demand which gov- 
 erns wages, and it must be recognized. 
 
 The gentleman said that the minimum wage law had restricted 
 immigration in Australia; it is evident that he is not aware of the 
 fact that Australia has immigration laws against the Southern and 
 Eastern Europeans, if anything has restricted immigration in Aus- 
 tralia it has been their immigration laws and not their minimum 
 wage law. 
 
 It is rather humorous the way my opponent tried to line all the 
 economists up on his side. He named Dr. Hadley, and the gentlemen 
 have also claimed that the law will increase the efficiency of labor, 
 let us see what Dr. Hadley says about the law increasing the effi- 
 ciency. He says, "That increased efficiency of work necessary re- 
 sults from improvement in wages, seems a dangerous fallacy." The 
 gentlemen have repeatedly named Sidney Webb. Sidney Webb is a 
 radical Socialist of the first magnitude; and, to prove my case I only 
 need to use Mr. Webb's own quotation in which Mr. Webb says: 
 "Minimum wage law is simple when compared with sanitary laws." 
 Think, Honorable Judges, of the absurdity of saying that a law that 
 goes into a man's pocketbook and demands him to pay a certain wage 
 is simple when comparied with a law that merely requires certain 
 sanitary conditions. Why, a moment's reflection cancels such au- 
 thority. 
 
 In my main speech I demanded of the affirmative to show that 
 the law could increase the real wage, the main argument of this 
 detate is closed and the gentlemen have not attempted to answer 
 
 31 
 
our demand. If the gentleman attempts to answer this challenge in 
 his rebuttal we hold that he is afraid of his argument. No affirmative 
 can hope to win the debate when they have failed to show that the 
 law will increase the real wage. The official reports from New 
 Zealand show that since the law has been put into operation wages 
 have increased 19 per cent, and the cost of living has increased 22.5 
 per cent. This means that the real wage is 3.5 per cent less in New 
 Zealand than when the law was put into operation. Mr. Schofield, a 
 New Zealand writer, says: "That an increase in wages has always 
 been followed by an increase in the cost of products to the consumer 
 who is generally the laboring man himself." 
 
 By way of summary the negative has shown: 
 
 First, that the law is not even sound in theory. The third nega- 
 tive speaker has shown beyond any controversy that the law has 
 proven unsatisfactory in practice. 
 
 That minimum wage legislation can not restrict the 900,000 
 ignorant and inefficient immigrants that come from Southern Europe 
 annually, and check the exodus to the cities. 
 
 That the minimum wage can not be fixed to suit one man's condii 
 tions without working an injustice upon some other worker, and 
 thus the law is inadequate and unjust. 
 
 The negative has given abundance of evidence which shows that 
 the law has not and can not increase the real wage. Even Australia 
 authorities admit that in spite of legislation wages are governed by 
 economic conditions. 
 
 That the law will cause labor to become more inefficient, by 
 causing the negligent and careless workers to become more worth- 
 less, and by discouraging efficient workers, due to the leveling of 
 wages. My colleague has shown that the minimum tends to become 
 the maximum. He has given cases where the minimum has actually 
 become the maximum. 
 
 That the law will cause an increase in the cost of production, 
 due to decline in the efficiency of labor, and here the law fails to in- 
 crease the real wage. 
 
 That the minimum wage scale theory will throw thousands of 
 workers out of employment. It has been estimated by the Father 
 Ryan that those who will not be able to earn the minimum wage 
 will number 8,000,000. The official reports from Victoria show that 
 twelve per cent of the employes lost their employment. This is 
 proof that the law will take from the less efficient the only source 
 from which they can obtain a living. 
 
 Lastly, those whom the law will effect are opposed to it. For 
 example, the Chicago merchants in conference, held April 1st, de- 
 clared themselves against minimum wage law. The employes, thor 
 
very ones for whom the law is supposed to benefit, have repudiated 
 and denounced minimum wage legislation. 
 
 In conclusion, minimum wage legislation not only fails to remedy 
 the causes of the conditions of the laboring people, but it is not even 
 sound in theory, and has proven unsatisfactory in practice. It is 
 inadequate and unjust; it can not increase the real wage, and thus 
 fails to render the workers any benefit; it makes the conditions of 
 the workers more deplorable than in the start by throwing thousands 
 of them out of employment, and by decreasing their efficiency. Hon. 
 Judges, in view of these facts we ask you to hold the affirmative to 
 strict proof. 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE MINIMUM WAGE QUESTION 
 
 Books. 
 
 Ashley, W. J. Adjustment of Wages. 
 Clark, Victor S. Labor Movement in Australia. 
 Cambridge History. Vol. I., p. 516. 
 Boyle, James. Minimum Wage and Syndicalism. 
 Le Rossignol. State Socialism in New Zealand. 
 Nearing. Wages in the United States. 
 Ryan, J. A. A Living Wage. 
 
 Ryan, J. A. A Minimum Wage and Minimum Wage Boards. 
 Carnegie. Problem of Today. 
 Webb, Sydney. Problems of Modern Industries. 
 Adams and Sumner. Labor Problems. 
 Chapin, R. C. The Standard of Living. 
 Levasseur. American Workman. 
 
 Balch, W. M. Christianity and the Labor Movement. 
 Gnatt. Work, Wages and Profits. 
 Encyclopedia Britinica. Vol. 28, Vol. 16. 
 St. Ledger, A. Australian Socialism. 
 Scholefield, Guy H. New Zealand in Evolution. 
 Aves, Ernest. Reports of Labor Conditions in New Zealand and 
 Australia. 
 
 Clark, Victor S. Labor Conditions in Australia. U. S. Labor 
 Bulletin No. 56. 
 
 Clark, Victor S. Labor Conditions in New Zealand. U. S. Labor 
 Bulletin No. 49. 
 
 Henderson. Pay Day. 
 
 Intercollegiate Debates. Vol 3, pp. 81-184. 
 
 Butler. Women and the Trades. 
 
 Dawson, W. H. Social Industry in Germany. 
 
 Hayes, Carlton. British Social Politics. 
 
 Spargo, John. The Bitter Cry of the Children. 
 
 Hadley, Dr., of Yale. Economics, pp. 361-69. 
 
 33 
 
Taussig, F. W., of Harvard. Principles of Economics. Vol. 1, 
 pp. 285-302. 
 
 Ely, R. T., of Wisconsin. Outlines of Economics. (See Wages.) 
 Gant. Scientific Management. 
 
 Statistics. 
 
 Pennsylvania. Annual Report of Industrial Statistics, 1911. 
 
 Connecticut. Report of Labor Conditions of Wage Earning 
 Women and Minors, 1913. 
 
 New York. Annual Report of Bureau of Labor Statistics, Part 2, 
 1911. 
 
 Report of the Thirteenth Census of the United States. Comparison 
 of Wages and Profits. Vol. 8, pp. 518-41, 1910. 
 
 Massachusetts. Report of the Commission on Minimum Wage 
 Boards, 1912. 
 
 Pamphlets. 
 
 Reeley, M. K.. Select Articles on Minimum Wage. 
 
 Study of State and Federal Wage Statistics. 
 
 Report of the Industrial Commission. Vol. 15, 1901. 
 
 Women and the Trades. 
 
 U. S. Labor Bulletin. Vol. 24, pp. 178-202. 
 
 McSweeney, E. F. Minimum Wage and Other Economic Quacker- 
 ies. 
 
 McSweeney, E. F. Practicability and Desirability of Minimum 
 Wage. 
 
 Labor Clarion, March 28, 1913. 
 
 Senate Documents, 62nd Congress, First Session. 
 
 Senate Documents, Vol. 7, p. 61. Congress. 
 
 Senate Documents, Vol. 20, p. 61. Congress. 
 
 Seager, W. R. Theory of Minimum Wage. 
 
 Mackay, John (Wellington). Handbook of Labor Laws in New 
 Zealand. 
 
 Canterbury Employers Association Year Book, 1911-12-13. 
 
 Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and Shops, Victoria, 
 Australia. 
 
 Commons, John R. Proposed Minimum Wage Law for Wisconsin. 
 
 Association for Labor Legislation New York, Reports and Pamph- 
 lets. 
 
 Kelly, Florence. Minimum Wage Boards. 
 
 McSweeney, E. F. The Case Against the Minimum Wage. 
 
 A National Peril. New Zealand Employers' Federation. 
 
 Address, Scott, William. Secretary Otago Employers' Association. 
 New Zealand. 
 
 Annual Report. Aukland Employers' Association, 1912. 
 
 Annual Report. Canterbury Employers' Association, 1910. 
 
 34 
 
Annual Report. Otago Employers' Association, 1911. 
 
 Speech, Dr. Pindlay, Attorney General Wellington, New Zealand, 
 1908. 
 
 Hammond, H. B. Judicial Interpretation of the Minimum Wage 
 in Australia. 
 
 Magazines. 
 
 Survey. Vol. 23, pp. 577-8; Vol. 24, pp. 806-10, 810-20, 759-62; 
 Vol. 25, pp. 789-92, 815-16, 864-65, 772-81, 571; Vol. 26, pp. 32-3, 907; 
 Vol. 27, pp. 1623-24, 1663-5; Vol. 28, pp. 313, 454-5, 10-11; Vol. 29, J>p. 
 470, 533, 174, 897, 49, 74-6, 653; Vol. 30, pp. 4-5, 9-10, 112, 64, 755-6, 
 260-1, 416; Vol. 31, pp. 181, 50-1, 106-7, 351, 321, 323, 324, 454; Rev. of 
 Rev., Vol. 19, pp. 32-54; Vol. 33, pp. 40-2; Vol. 34, p. 615; Vol. 45, pp. 
 439-42; Vol. 46, pp. 366, 367-8; Vol. 47, pp. 216, 349; Vol. 48, pp. 216-7, 
 375-6. 
 
 Journal of Political Economy. Vol. 19, pp. 479-90; Vol. 20, pp. 999- 
 1010, 973-78, 834-45; Vol. 21, pp. 752-61, 630-42; Vol. 24, pp. 578-88. 
 
 Political Science Quarterly. Vol. 13, pp. 413-41; Vol. 18. 112-140. 
 
 American Labor Legislation Review, February, 1913. 
 
 Quarterly Review. Vol. 210, pp. 67-85; Vol. 216, pp. 554-73. 
 
 Economic Review. Vol. 14, pp. 118-20. 
 
 Engineering Magazine. Vol. 35, pp. 529-36, 661, 909; Vol. 36, pp. 
 498, 698; Vol. 39, pp. 161, 331; Vol. 43, pp. 451-53. 
 
 Literary Digest. Vol. 46, pp. 774-5, 621-4; Vol. 47, pp. 548, 1067. 
 
 Quarterly Journal of Economics. Vol. 18, pp. 140-45; Vol. 20, pp. 
 497-522; Vol. 23, pp. 450-69; Vol. 24, pp. 561, 574-77; Vol. 26, pp. 511- 
 18, 787; Vol. 34, pp. 578-88. 
 
 Outlook. Vol. 45, pp. 439-42; Vol. 73, pp. 721-23; Vol. 84, pp. 1043- 
 4, 1034; Vol. 86, pp. 811-6, 842-3; Vol 88, pp. 314-17; Vol. 98, pp. 448- 
 53; Vol. 102, pp. 159-60; Vol. 103, pp. 705-7, 52-4; Vol. 104, pp. 501-2; 
 Vol. 105, pp. 516, 780, 821, 824. 
 
 The Public. Vol. 16, p. 1040; May, 1913, p. 509; August, 1913, pp. 
 798-9; September, 1913, pp. 869-70. 
 
 American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 17, pp. 303-14; Vol. 19, pp. 
 130-134. 
 
 Cassiers. Vol. 41, p. 533; Vol. 25, pp. 227-30. 
 
 Nineteenth Century and After. Vol. 63, p. 289; Vol. 64, pp. 507- 
 24, 748-62, 763-76; Vol. 72, pp. 264-76; Vol. 73, pp. 644-58; Vol. 74, pp. 
 1167-84; Vol. 84, p. 311. 
 
 Twentieth Century. Vol. 6, pp. 65-69. 
 
 Everybody's Magazine. Vol. 27, pp. 271-72. 
 
 Christian Advocate. August 28, 1913. 
 
 Nation. Vol. 96, pp. 350-1, 274, 248; Vol. 97, pp. 94-5. 
 
 Century Magazine. Vol. 63, p. 285; Vol. 64, p. 748; Vol. 72, pp. 
 264-76; Vol. 84, pp. 311-13. 
 
 Catholic World. Vol. 96, pp. 577-86. 
 
 American Economic Review. Vol. 1, pp. 20-21-37; Vol. 3, pp. 
 259-86. 
 
Atlantic Monthly. Vol. 67, pp. 34-44; Vol. 110, p. 411; Vol. 112, pp. 
 289-97, 431-3, 289, 444-53; October, 1913. 
 
 Fortnightly Review. Vol. 94, p. 1145; Vol. 98, pp. 585-98. 
 
 Independence. Vol. 52, pp. 2330-32; Vol. 54, pp. 2373-5; Vol. 59, 
 pp. 324-8; Vol. 61, p. 1251; Vol. 67, p. 1497; Vol. 70, pp. 806-7; Vol. 72, 
 pp. 584-5; Vol. 73, p. 1007; Vol. 74, p. 851; Vol. 75, p. 459; Vol. 76, pp. 
 536, 209, 332. 
 
 Living Age. Vol. 273, pp. 451-61, 370-72, 248-50; Vol. 277, pp. 
 195-205. 
 
 Hearst Magazine. Vol. 23, pp. 499-502. 
 
 English Historical Review. Vol. 15, pp. 445-55. 
 
 Contempory Review. Vol. 93, pp. 308-25; Vol. 95, pp. 227-38, 548- 
 65; Vol. 96, pp. 67-89; Vol. 102, pp. 193-201. 
 
 Arena. Vol. 23, pp. 499-515. 
 
 Westminister Review. Vol. 165, pp. 135-47; Vol. 172, pp. 623-31. 
 
 Ghaut. Vol. 17, p. 471; Vol. 55, pp. 13-14, 1304; Vol. 60, pp. 337- 
 55, 414; Vol. 66, pp. 148-50; Vol, 68, pp. 134-38, 12-14; Vol, 70, p. 7-8; 
 Vol. 72, p. 37. 
 
 Colliers. Vol. 48, pp. 16-17. 
 
 Yale Review. Vol. 19, pp. 32-54. 
 
 Annals of Amer. Acad. of Pol. and Soc. Science. Vol. 17, pp. 136- 
 38; Vol. 33, pp. 440-316-25; Vol. 36, p. 397; Vol. 37, pp. 1-90, 203-11; 
 Vol. 48, pp. 45-53, 66-77, 3-12, 22-36, 13-21, 37-40. 
 
 Forum. Vol. 28, pp. 542-53; Vol. 42, p. 535; Vol. 49, pp. 576-84. 
 
 New York Times Annalist. November 17, 1913, p. 615; Novem- 
 ber 24, 1913, p. 668; December, 1913, pp. 808, 825. 
 
 Ladies Home Journal. Vol. 30, p. 27. 
 
 Harper's Weekly. Vol. 51, p. 1537. 
 
 New South Wales Industrial Gazette. July, 1913, p. 1015; Septem- 
 ber, 1913, p. 3; November, 1913, pp. 43, 435. 
 
 36 
 
OVERDUE. 
 
 o\93l 
 
 LD 21-100w-8,'34 
 
GEME RAL 
 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY