The influence of economic and industrial conditions on infant mortality is marked. Though the available evidence indicates that the death rate of young babies is declining throughout the civilized world, it also shows clearly that this rate is uniformly highest in industrial districts. Thus in 1910, according to the United States Census (Bulletin 112, p. 24), the death rate per 1,000 population under one year of age in the registration states was as follows:

The high infant death rate in the industrial states is sometimes attributed to the employment of women, but the evidence to this effect is not entirely conclusive. For as a rule the mother works because the family is poor and the dominating factor in infant mortality is poverty, with all the conditions of over-crowding, insufficient or improper food, bad sanitation, ignorance, illiteracy and low standards of life which inadequate earnings bring in their train. The re

sults of the investigations of Booth in London and of Rowntree in York, England, upon this point are confirmed by those of the study of infant mortality in Johnstown, Pa., made by the U. S. Children's Bureau (Infant Mortality Series, No. 3; Bureau Publication No. 9), which show that the number of babies born in the selected year who died before their first birthdays varied with the amount of their fathers' earnings. The following table shows the number of births and the mortality rate per 1,000 births included in the Johnstown investigation classified according to the annual earnings of the father:

The conclusions reached by Mr. Henry H. Hibbs, Jr., in his study, Infant Mortality: Its Relation to Social and Industrial Conditions, published in 1916 by the Russell Sage Foundation, are:

"It appears, then, that the fundamental cause of the excessive rate of infant mortality in industrial communities is poverty, inadequate incomes, and low standards of living with their attendant evils, including the gainful employment of mothers. The employment of the mother in gainful occupations is simply the remedy for these evils or adverse conditions which the working people in industrial communities have adopted. Undoubtedly, this recourse has had an important effect on the problem, in many cases actually tending to reduce the rate of infant mortality, while in others having just the opposite effect. The primary question in considering the social causes of infant mortality is whether the employment of mothers and married women in extradomestic occupations is, from the viewpoint of society as a whole, a good remedy for poverty and an acceptable means of mitigating its influence on the health and mortality of babies and young children. From the point of view of the individual poor or poverty stricken family, the fact cannot be escaped that this effect may be both good and bad; bad, in that it causes the baby to be artificially fed, forces the mother to be absent from home, and in other ways lowers her efficiency as a mother; good, in that it increases the family income and decreases the influence of poverty. We are, thus, forced to conclude that the fundamental economic and industrial factor of infant mortality is low wages. The fundamental remedy

is obviously higher wages. Other remedies, such as legislation restricting or regulating the employment of mothers before and after confinement, day nurseries, the instruction of mothers and school girls in domestic economy, and the like, all have their place; but the chief thing remains the provision of an adequate family income."

THE COMMISSION ON INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS.

A congressional commission that received the widest publicity for its work was the Commission on Industrial Relations created by act of Congress, dated August 23rd, 1912. It is generally understood that the one great fact that animated Congress in its desire to provide an agency to "inquire into the general condition of labor in the principal industries of the United States," and to do other related things, was the confession of the MacNamara brothers in December, 1911. There was a general feeling that all was not well. The resolution of Congress was an indirect result of that feeling, and the desire to diagnose it.

Section 4 of the Act defined with great clearness what the Commission was to investigate. It read:

That the commission shall inquire into the general condition of labor in the principal industries of the United States, including agriculture, and especially in those which are carried on in corporate forms; into existing relations between employers and employees; into the effect of industrial conditions on public welfare and into the rights and powers of the community to deal therewith; into the conditions of sanitation and safety of employees and the provisions for protecting the life, limb, and health of the employees; into the growth of associations of employers and of wage earners and the effect of such associations upon the relations between employers and employees; into the extent and results of methods of collective bargaining; into any methods which have been tried in any State or in foreign countries for maintaining mutually satisfactory relations between employees and employers; into methods for avoiding or adjusting labor disputes through peaceful and conciliatory mediation and negotiations; into the scope, methods, and resources of existing bureaus of labor and into possible ways of increasing their usefulness; into the question of smuggling or other illegal entry of Asiatics into the United States or its insular possessions, and of the methods by which such Asiatics have gained and are gaining such admission, and shall report to Congress as speedily as possible, with such recommendation as said commission may think proper to prevent such smuggling and illegal entry. The commission shall seek to discover the underlying causes of dissatisfaction in the industrial situation and report its conclusions thereon.

The Commission, as appointed by the President, was designed to include three Labor men, three employers of labor, and three members representing the general public. The chairman was Frank P. Walsh, a noted attorney of Kansas City, who had taken a deep interest in civic affairs, and had served on various civic bodies. Representing the

public, besides Walsh, were Professor John R. Commons, the celebrated economist of Wisconsin University, and Florence J. Harriman, a wealthy lady who had devoted a good deal of energy to public affairs.

The labor men were John B. Lennon, Treasurer of the American Federation of Labor, and a member of the Journeymen Tailors; Austin B. Garretson, President of the Order of Railway Conductors, and member of the executive committee of the Civic Federation; and James O'Connell, Vice President of the A. F. of L., President of its Metal Trades Department and former President of the International Association of Machinists. The three labor men were recognized as of the conservative wing of the labor movement, the radicals not being represented at all.

The members representing manufacturers were Harris Weinstock, a department store magnate of California, S. Thurston Ballard, a flour miller of Kentucky, and Richard H. Aishton, Vice President of the Chicago and Northwestern Railway.

The methods used by the Commission were numerous. They held hearings in all parts of the country, and heard men and women on all sides of every question that came up for public discussion. For instance, at the time of the outbreak of the Bayonne strike, the Commission sent two investigators to the scene of the trouble, who took testimony from all sides. In Texas, testimony was taken on the condition of the farmers; in other parts of the south, child labor was investigated. In Colorado the situation that led to Ludlow was gone into thoroughly, and Mr. John D. Rockefeller, Jr., was quizzed in Washington and New York. The matter of the great "foundations" was investigated; in New York, the leaders of the Socialist Party, the I. W. W., and the American Federation of Labor were asked their opinions of their various methods of solving the social problem. The debate between Morris Hillquit and Samuel Gompers was one of the high spots of the investigation.

The Commission submitted three reports. The main report was written by Director of Investigations, Basil M. Manly, and was signed by Commissioners Walsh, Lennon, O'Connell and Garretson; in addition to the report, there were supplemental statements by Walsh, by Garretson, and a third, signed by Lennon and O'Connell. The "minority report" of Commons and Mrs. Harriman, was signed by Weinstock, Ballard and Aishton. There were dissenting opinions on various of the points by Weinstock, Aishton and Ballard.

Results of Investigation.

Manly stated that the main line that he pursued was that indicated by the last phrase of Section 4; namely, "to discover the underlying causes of dissatisfaction in the industrial situation," although he said, the other lines were not neglected.

The report asserts that the great problem before the nation today is the problem of the relations between the people, called generally industrial relations. There are but two things that give promise for better things, either a great system of bureaucratic paternalism, from which all Democracy is excluded, or voluntary organization by the workers, with all arbitrary obstacles to such organization 'removed.

"The lack of proper industrial relationship and the existence of bad labor conditions is a matter of the most serious moment," said Manly (page 18).

Distribution of Wealth.

The wealth of the United States, the Commission found, increased in the years 1890 to 1912, from 65 to 187 billions, or 188 per cent. This increase was not generally spread over the whole of the population but was localized within the capitalist class. The aggregate income of the workers in manufacturing, mining and transportation increased in the years 1889-1909 95 per cent, or from 2,516 millions to 4,916 millions. The increase in population must be taken into account. The incomes of two thirds of the families of the American working class were less than $750 a year; the incomes of nearly one third of the families were under $500 annually. These figures are based upon what Manly calls "the most exhaustive investigation ever made." The report decided that the least figure upon which an American family can live in anything approaching decency is $700 per year. (Page 22.)

The unit of the family is breaking up, the investigators found; 79 per cent of the fathers of working class families earned less than $700 per year. "In brief, only one fourth of these families could have supported their families on the barest subsistence level without the earnings of other menbers of the family, or income from outside sources" (p. 23). Thirty per cent of the families kept boarders in order to eke out their incomes. In 77 per cent of the families two or more persons occupied each sleeping room; in 37 per cent, three or more; and in 15 per cent, four or more.