various groups of industries other than agricultural is shown in the following table:

STRIKES, BY INDUSTRIES AND CAUSES, 1904.

[Strikes due to two or more causes have been tabulated under each cause; hence the totals for this table do not agree with those for the following table and the first table on page 572.]

In the following table are shown, as far as data are available, the number of working days lost, the aggregate loss in wages, and the amount of strike benefits paid in strikes in all industries other than agriculture during 1904:

DAYS OF WORK LOST, WAGE LOSS, AND AMOUNT OF BENEFITS PAID IN STRIKES 1904, BY INDUSTRIES.

In the 615 strikes for which the facts were reported, the total number of working days lost was 1,368,181, or an average of 2,225 days each. The aggregate wage loss in 475 strikes was $433,193.66, or $911.99 for each strike. Strike benefits were paid in the case of 70 strikes, the average amount per strike being $407.99.

RUSSIA.

Svod Otchotov Fabrichnykh Inspectorov za 1904 god (Digest of reports of factory inspectors for 1904). Published by Otdiel promyshlennosti, Ministerstvo torgovli i promyshlennosti (Bureau of Industry of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry). 1907. pp. xv,

212.

Annual digests of the reports of the factory inspectors have been published by the Russian Government since 1900. The one under consideration is the fifth in the series. In addition to the accounts of the administrative activities of the inspectors, the reports contain many important annual data concerning the manufactures of Russia, such as the number of establishments and employees, the number of women and children employed, idle establishments, strikes, industrial accidents, wages, etc. The data refer only to those establishments and industries which are subject to factory inspection, as stated on page 978 of Bulletin 76.

At the beginning of the year 1904 there were subject to inspection 15,375 establishments with 1,684,334 employees, and at the end of the year 14,700 establishments with 1,663,080 employees. The decrease was mainly due to the closing of 745 establishments with 28,744 employees. The closed establishments were mostly of the smaller type, with an average of 38.6 employees, so that the average number of employees per establishment increased from 109.6 in the beginning of the year to 113.1 at its close.

The following table gives the number of the industrial establishments grouped by the number of workingmen employed:

NUMBER AND PER CENT OF ESTABLISHMENTS AND EMPLOYEES, BY SIZE OF ESTABLISHMENTS, AT THE END OF 1904.

It appears that while the majority of the establishments are of the smaller type, 81.7 per cent of them containing 100 working

men or less, and 67.7 per cent, 50 workingmen or less, the majority of the factory employees worked in large establishments, 78.3 per cent in those employing over 100 workers and 50.3 per cent in those employing more than 500 workers.

The distribution of the factory employees by sex and by age groups at the beginning and at the end of the year is shown in the following table:

NUMBER AND PER CENT OF EMPLOYEES, BY SEX AND AGE GROUPS, AT BEGINNING AND END OF THE YEAR 1904.

In Russian industrial statistics it is customary to differentiate three age groups: Adults over 17 years of age, young persons from 15 to 17 years, and children from 12 to 15 years. The table shows that at the end of the year adult women constituted 23.5 per cent of the total number of employees, young persons of both sexes 9.1 per cent, and children below 15 years of age 1.5 per cent. During the year there was an increase of adult women and a decrease of young persons and children of both sexes.

During the year, 69,697 accidents were reported to the factory inspectors; of these, 67,098, or 96.27 per cent, were slight in their nature, 2,204, or 3.16 per cent, were serious, and 395, or 0.57 per cent, were fatal. The data are particularly interesting, since the year 1904 was the first year of the operation of the Workingmen's Compensation Act of June 2 (15), 1903, (a) which requires complete reports of all industrial accidents. In the preceding year only 35,138 accidents were reported. The factory inspectors are required to present complete reports on the amount of fines which the Russian factory code permits the employers to impose upon the employees for the following three causes:

a See Bulletin 58, pp. 955–959.

Faulty work, unexcused absences, and breach of the factory rules or disturbance of peace.

The number of fines, the total amount collected in fines, and the average amount per fine, per employee, and per $100 in wages, for the years 1901 to 1904 are shown in the following table:

The next table shows the number of fines levied, the total amount of fines collected, and the average amount per fine in 1904, classified according to the reasons for which the fines were levied:

NUMBER OF FINES AND AMOUNT COLLECTED, BY CAUSES OF FINES, 1904.

The largest number of fines in 1904, or 74.2 per cent, were imposed for faulty work, the average amount levied being very small, namely, less than 6 cents. The fines levied for other reasons are less frequent, but greater in amount. According to the Russian factory law, the sums collected in fines can be used only for the relief of the factory employees in cases of permanent or temporary disability resulting from illness or accidents, in cases of confinement, for funeral expenses, for loss of property of employees through fire or other causes, or for cases of need. The number of cases relieved and the total and average amounts granted in 1904 are shown in the following table:

DISPOSITION OF AMOUNTS COLLECTED IN FINES, BY CHARACTER OF RELIEF GRANTED, 1904.

DECISIONS OF COURTS AFFECTING LABOR.

[Except in cases of special interest, the decisions here presented are restricted to those rendered by the Federal courts and the higher courts of the States and Territories. Only material portions of such decisions are reproduced, introductory and explanatory matter being given in the words of the editor. Decisions under statute law are indexed under the proper headings in the cumulative index, page 633 et seq.]

DECISIONS UNDER STATUTE LAW.

EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY-EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN IN VIOLATION OF STATUTE REMEDIES-NEGLIGENCE-Stehle et al. v. Jaeger Automatic Machine Company, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 69 Atlantic Reporter, page 1116.-George Stehle, an infant, sued by his next friend, George Stehle, the latter suing also in his own right, to recover damages for injuries received by the former while in the employment of the company named. The verdict was for the company in the court of common pleas of Philadelphia County, which judgment was, on appeal, reversed, and a new trial ordered.

The grounds for reversal appear in the opinion, which was delivered by Judge Elkin, and which reads as follows:

The error which ran through the whole trial in the court below was failure to give effect to the act of May 2, 1905 (P. L. 352). The case was tried under the rules of law applicable to cases of negligence where master and servant, both being competent to enter into a contract of employment and each presumably capable of appreciating the dangers thereof, are charged with the duty of exercising due care, the master in providing reasonably safe appliances and machinery, and the servant of using ordinary care to avoid open and obvious dangers. These rules have no application to the facts of the present case. The boy appellant was born June 6, 1892, was first employed by appellee company in April, 1905, and was injured January 27, 1906, being at the time of the injury under 14 years of age. Section 2 of the act of 1905 provides that no child under 14 years of age shall be employed in any establishment to which the provisions of the statute apply, and section 4 requires that "no minor under sixteen years of age shall be permitted to clean or oil machinery while in motion or to operate, or otherwise have the care or custody of, any elevator or lift." It seems to be conceded that the place where the boy worked was an establishment within the meaning of the act, and hence the case must be considered in the light of the statute regulations and requirements. That the legislature, under its police power, has the authority to enact such legislation, is not an open question in this State. In the recent case of Lenahan v. Pittston Coal Mining Company (218 Pa. 311, 67 Atl. 642 [Bulletin No. 74, p. 239]), we held