ORGANIZATION AND WORK OF THE AMERICAN I. COLLECTION, CLASSIFICATION AND CATALOGING OF DATa and Mate- A. Laws and Administrative Rules. Of all states and foreign countries arranged by subjects. B. Critical and Explanatory Data. 1. Court briefs and decisions. 2. Opinions and criticisms of administrative officers. 3. Decisions of attorneys general. 4 Clippings, letters, statistical data bearing upon the history, the efficiency or deficiencies of legislation and administration. C. Bibliographical. I. Books and articles, card cataloged up to date. II. INVESTIGATION WORK. By special workers and field investigation with coöperation of Labor Bureaus, Factory Inspectors, Manufacturers' Associaciations, Labor Unions, Settlements, Social Workers, Charity Organization Societies, Medical Colleges, Associations and Boards for health and sanitation, Economists, American Bureau of Industrial Research, Carnegie Institution, Legislative Reference Bureau, Actuaries, Societies for Industrial Education, State and Local Branches of American Association for Labor Legislation. A. Working of Present Laws in America. 1. Preparation of monographs, bulletins, bibliographies. B. Investigations as to the necessity for other remedies or preventive measures. 1. Uniformity and adequacy of accident and vital statistics. 2. Uniformity and efficiency of Bureaus of Labor. 3. Industrial Health and Efficiency, prevention of diseases, poisons, etc. 4. Insurance, unemployment and other measures. III. PUBLICITY. 1. Bulletin of the International Labor Office, $2.00 per year. 2. Charities and the Commons; Current Items, reviews and special articles, $2.00 per year. 3. Wisconsin Bureau of Labor, Monographs to be published as separates and afterwards in Biennial Reports. ECONOMIC THEORY AND LABOR LEGIS LATION. RICHARD T. ELY. It is in every way fitting that the first annual meeting of the American Association for Labor Legislation should be held in connection with the annual meeting of the American Economic Association. Steps were taken to organize the American Association for Labor Legislation at the Baltimore meeting of the American Economic Association;1 and the committee appointed at that time to effect the organization consisted of members of the latter association, as do nearly all the members of our Association. Thus the old Association is the parent of the younger in a direct and very obvious way. But other reasons for the fitness of this joint meeting, although they lie less on the surface, are quite as important. The joint meeting with the American body which represents the science of economics in the United States at once suggests a connection between economic theory and labor legislation. As a matter of fact when the American Economic Association was organized at Saratoga, on the 9th of September, 1885, the Constitution embraced a Statement of Principles, which was adopted as not in any sense a creed but "as a general indication of the views and the purposes of those who founded" the Association. The following is a quotation from this "Statement of Principles": "We hold that the conflict of labor and capital has 1 1In 1905. brought into prominence a vast number of social problems whose solution requires the united efforts, each in its own sphere, of the church, of the state, and of science." It is thus stated, in effect, that the labor question, ormore accurately-the many labor problems of our time require legislation, and it is obviously implied that economic science must furnish guidance to legislation. This clearly shows that in 1885 the economists of the country, generally speaking, assumed no attitude of antagonism to labor legislation, nor have the professorial and professional economists of this country, except in isolated instances, assumed any attitude of antagonism to labor legislation as such since that time. The Statement of Principles was dropped later and that without opposition, because even those who proposed and especially favored it at first, felt that they had won their battle and that the Statement had accomplished its purpose. While there was some opposition to the American Economic Association based on general grounds which cannot be here discussed, and while there was some opposition in the press and on the part of a few economists to the position taken with respect to labor legislation, it is significant that no opposition to the formation of the American Association for Labor Legislation made itself heard, and that among the economists who took an active part in its formation were men who would perhaps generally be designated as "hard-headed"whatever that may mean-and conservative. Yet ours is an association the very title of which assumes the necessity and desirability of labor legislation. While it is true that the economists of 1885 were in favor of "wise and sane" labor legislation, a perusal of the published utterances of 1885 with reference to the American Economic Association shows that since that time a sur prising change of public opinion has taken place, and in my own opinion, this change is an evidence of the influence the economists have exerted-an influence the magnitude of which furthermore in my own opinion-for I do not assume to speak for anyone else the economists themselves frequently do not fully appreciate. But what has been the position of economic theory in the past with regard to labor legislation? Has it been, as popularly supposed, hostile to such legislation? Or has it been as hostile as popularly supposed? Manifestly, it is quite out of the question now and here to enter exhaustively into this chapter in the history of economic thought, but the general drift of economic theory may be briefly indicated. The economists of the latter half of the 18th century who founded modern political economy as a distinct and separate branch of knowledge, Quesnay and his associates, Adam Smith and his associates, were opposed to what is called legislative interference in the realm of the economic life. And they opposed, generally speaking, labor legislation. They favored, as we all know, a passive policy of government and used as a maxim laissez-faire. But how often does the same phrase, term, or watchword mean one thing in one stage of evolution and quite the opposite in a later! We must not at once, then, jump to the conclusion that we have to do in the case of these men with any antagonism to the interests of labor. In fact, these men were such warm-hearted humanitarians, that they would perhaps scarcely rank among the "hard-headed" economists. One has only to read their lives and to follow closely their writings to become entirely convinced that they had, in high degree even, what is now called "the enthusiasm of humanity", and were animated with a passionate desire for improvement in human affairs and particularly for the uplift of the lower orders. The eighteenth century economic philosophy was, however, as we all know, based on a now discredited and discarded belief in a beneficent code of nature, ruling the economic life as all other social life spheres, and which, if not interfered with, would bring to all classes and especially the workers, the maximum amount of economic well-being. But in addition to this general view, we have as an explanation of their position the multitude of restrictions, and old-established monopolies and special privileges which oppressed the manual toiler and to the removal of which they directed their attention. It is noteworthy that Turgot, notwithstanding his general negative economic philosophy, favored a system of public education which France did not achieve for a hundred years, and which a modern economist has said reminds one of socialist demands, while Adam Smith, in denouncing labor laws, said if a labor law chanced to be in the interest of labor it was sure to be a just law. How different is the position of a man, who, in denouncing labor laws, has in mind laws oppressive to labor, from the position of a man a century later who, in denouncing labor legislation, has in mind laws passed in the interest of labor !2 That we must always bear in mind the circumstances of time and place when we discuss economic theory and its relations to social interests in general and to labor in particular, is strikingly shown in the designation "Liberal School of Political Economy" in the history of economic thought. This designation is frequently applied to Adam Smith and his followers, the classical economists in England, and their adherents elsewhere. Thus Eisenhart entitles the second book of his Geschichte der Nationalökonomik "CriticalLiberal Individualistic Period" (Kritisch-liberale, individualistische Periode). In this connection the word "liberal" now carries with it the implication of an extreme conservatism, yet at one time "liberal |