wages"-by the community in which he attempts to practice. It apparently needs no union to produce this effect.

When, however, we consider the mechanical planes of occupation, commonly classed as laborious, we find that the public fails, either instinctively or with definite purpose, to set up any such test; and therefore organizations in these vocations have addressed themselves to the protection of their class from indiscriminate competition.

These organizations have very good ground for their assertion that trade schools tend to demoralize the trades when managed on the "wideopen plan"- that is, free to anyone who wishes to attend, regardless of whether he is committed to a trade or not, and with no control or supervision set up, within or without, to prevent him from passing himself off as a full-fledged practitioner. This possibility, which, as I have already indicated, has in practice developed almost into a certainty, is surely not. to be looked upon with complacency, even by the intelligent tho unaffected observer, and therefore it is not to be wondered at that those most affected should demur and somewhat strenuously criticise the source from which the possibility springs. They may well claim that if the learned professions, such as the medical and legal, and sometimes others, are safeguarded with greatest care, in the skilled trades there should be some method of control which will at least guarantee that insufficiently trained workmen shall not be given full standing and full wages simply because they have passed thru, or perhaps only partly thru, the courses of a school.

While this attitude is natural and perhaps defensible, it is not at all reasonable or wise to condemn the trade school itself; for I think it can be conclusively shown that upon schools of this character the trades, as such, must depend for their own preservation. The effort should be, not to destroy the trade school, or blindly to oppose it, but to modify its. methods and then utilize it as a means to regulate and control the output of workmen which is really the point at issue, as far as trade unions are concerned--and to protect the community as well against the untrained. and inexperienced. Under existing conditions- for some of which the trade unions themselves are to a considerable extent responsible-the public is in some danger of losing altogether the all-around artisan, the mechanic skilled and interested in his calling.

I have said that the preservation of the trades themselves depends upon the proper development of the trade-school idea. This is evident for two reasons: one, the passing of the old method of apprenticeship, and the other, specialization in the trades.

There is no probability that the old method will be re-established. Strenuous efforts, it is true, are being made in Germany to preserve the apprenticeship system in those trades for which it is adapted, much legislation having been enacted in this direction, in recent years; but, while it is possible, under a government as paternal and positive as that of Ger

many, to reinstate even the old guilds with all their power and influence, it is hardly conceivable that under freer forms of government employers can be commanded in such matters to the extent that they apparently are in some of the European monarchies - Germany in particular.

Specialization has sought out almost all the trades, even those connected with building, where it has seemed least likely to get a foothold. That these two movements, which may both be classed as commercial movements, threaten the trades, as trades, is beyond question, and under the commercial demand it seems to be inevitable that the trades will be split up endlessly, so that no one workman will eventually be capable of doing more than a fragmentary portion of a trade. The trade school furnishes the one measure of protection by and thru which these separate portions may be kept in one consistent whole, and the relation of the parts be so taught, and the capacity to combine the parts be so developed, that all-around men, capable of understanding and executing a whole trade, will not entirely pass out of existence.

It behooves the unions, as custodians of the interests of the workmen in the trades, to look more deeply into the function of the trade schools, and to consider more carefully how much the interests they have in charge depend upon the existence and operation of these schools; and it behooves employers to concern themselves more effectively, to the end that they may reap the benefit which will surely come thru their wise administration.

It is evident that there are some weaknesses in trade schools as at present developed. I am inclined to think that one of these is indicated in the somewhat crude objections made by unions. I am convinced that a comprehensive and effective system should be established, utilizing the trade-school idea, which shall prevent floating upon the market an unfinished product which, if it ever becomes finished, becomes so in spite of conditions, rather than by virtue of or purpose in them.

I do not believe for a moment that our privately established trade schools were ever intended or expected by their founders to produce too large a supply of mechanics and thus flood the market, or to incite young men to half perfect themselves and then deceive the public; but the function and purpose of the schools were distinctly expressed to be "to furnish as systematic and favorable a method of instruction and training as possible," to fill a void created by the decay of an old system which, while sufficient in its day and generation, had vanished, never to return. This function and purpose, to my mind, are more emphatically evidenced year by year, and as this instruction and training can best proceed in conjunction with. practice in real work in which employer and workmen are engaged, I believe that the most complete method of operating that function and realizing that purpose lies, as I conceive it does in all matters affecting labor, in a more complete co-operation between organizations of employers and organizations of workmen.

The policy of this co-operation should be to create good workmen the best, the most skillful, the most complete-and then to have the unions composed of these and these only. By carrying out a policy of this nature, which could be carried out only by a joining of hands of employers and workmen in the management and direction of trade schools with this end in view, the unions would be relieved of the most telling criticism now used against them, and their reason for being would be more clearly evident. By this measure the unions would be strengthened by "recognition" in the best sense, inasmuch as they would become the gauge and standard of excellence; and instead of coercion. being necessary, as now, to keep the organizations up to that efficiency which numbers are felt to indicate, membership would be eagerly sought because desired as a sign of selection, and as a safeguard against being herded together, as now, in one mass of good, bad, and indifferent. The "non-union" man would then be the inefficient, the unreliable, the dishonest, the quarrelsome, the disturber, the dissolute, and the generally unworthy; and non-union he would have to remain until he should so reform as to make himself desirable. Then would there be the true line of demarkation between union and non-union -a natural and proper one, not the artificial and dangerous one which now exists. Unions would then become clearing-houses for workmen, as a sure source of supply of trustworthy, efficient, and skilled workmen; and not, as now, an aggregation of anything and everything that will simply swell an army, the leaders of which assert that "labor is a force militant," and that "as such its victories are to be achieved." Until this dispensation, labor has been supposed to be of the essence of peace and not of war; and it has not been until the forces of labor, as demonstrated thru cheaply conceived, unrestrained, or poorly administered organizations, have been diverted from their true channel, that the world has witnessed the commission of acts, under the impulse of this force, which have been unworthy of humanity, and which have roused the self-respecting in all our communities to most determined resistance.

It is my belief that the trade school, properly utilized as suggested, supplemented by further intelligent co-operation of real employers and real workmen in all affairs of mutual concern, may be one of the greatest conservators of safety. But these agencies for good must not be left to dilettante exploitation, nor to the equal danger of too general usage. Let employers and workmen engage in this service with the glad seriousness of conviction, and hope will succeed despair in all these relations.

In conclusion I would state that in my opinion the trade school does not offer a privilege which anyone should be permitted to enjoy without judicious supervision and control. It is an opportunity which should be chiefly available for those who determine upon a trade as their life-work and have a reasonable degree of fitness for it. In other words, the trade

school should be considered a training field for actual workers, and its operation should be reasonably restricted and controlled to the end that its graduates may have definite standing and the community, as a whole, be protected against partially perfected workmen.

DISCUSSION

FRANK KEYES FOSTER, editor of the Liberator, Boston, Mass.-Before one undertakes the possibly somewhat hazardous task of presenting to this audience what has been called, for the sake of argument, the negative side of the trade-school question, from the tradeunion point of view, it appears only fair to insist upon a precise definition as to what constitutes a trade school.

It is not assuming too much to assert that the idealized trade school so highly commended in the very interesting paper of the secretary of the Master Builders' Association is not antagonized by thoughtful trade-unionists. The organizations of labor have to do with the actual and present condition of affairs. The trade-union conception of trade schools is in the concrete rather than in the abstract form. When, therefore, Mr. Sayward advances as his general premise the statement that "trade unions as a rule are opposed to the trade-school idea,” I am inclined to believe that the assumption is not warranted by the facts in the case. Opposed, with good reason, to certain specific incidentals of trade-school management and practice, they unquestionably are, but the records of the trade-union movement of America may be thoroly searched in vain for any declaration of opposition to the trade-school idea.

The purpose of the trade-unionist is to maintain the American standard of living for wage-earners, and to elevate this standard wherever possible. The general diffusion of education has developed in the American wage-earner a standard of wants, desires, and aspirations beyond that of workmen in any other country, while our superior natural resources and free institutions have furnished him with larger resources with which to resist the bearing-down pressure on the wage-rate.

The trade-unionist is not so blind as to fail to realize that knowledge is power. His contention is not against the man who knows or the institution which teaches greater knowledge; it is solely against the individual who thru gross ignorance or selfish malice, lends himself to the breaking down of that defense, erected laboriously and painfully, by associated labor against the forces in the industrial world which make for the lower levels of living. If we are expected to welcome in free competition those who enter the artisan world by the short way, may we not fairly insist that these newcomers shall not lower the standard of craftsmanship or of recompense of craftsmen? As has been accurately noted by Mr. Sayward, the professions are jealously guarded against the influx of those who would enter them except thru the accredited paths and with the passport of approved competency.

The present attitude of trade-unionists as to trade schools has an analogy in their attitude toward the introduction of labor-saving machinery, once so bitterly opposed by them. Now no up-to-date labor organization attempts to prevent the extension of machine work. Its endeavor-as in the case of my own trade, the typographical-is directed toward securing for the machine workman a portion, at least, of the benefits accruing from the cheaper processes of production, and in this it is in a degree successful. The union recognizes the inevitable. It knows that the introduction of a machine which performs the work of several hand craftsmen causes distress for a time, during the transition period, the period of industrial adjustment, to many individuals who have had their trade capital abolished by new methods.

In like manner, the trade union is willing to make the most of trade instruction, when

the instruction is honest and competent, and not a mere recruiting station for the forces which tend to neutralize the uplifting work of the union. Hence the desirability of the definition insisted upon at the opening of the address.

SAMUEL F. HUBBARD, superintendent of North End Union, Boston, Mass.- Mr. Sayward's statement of the attitude of trade unions toward trade schools is, I think, eminently fair and impartial. The situation, briefly stated, appears to be this: We, who are outside of the trades, believe that workmen require the training of trade schools to fit them properly for their vocations. To me, the attitude of trade unions toward trade schools is one of hope, rather than one of discouragement. The mere fact that trade schools are opposed by those whom they are designed to benefit is no new experience. Most reforms, whether of theology, education, politics, or what not, have had their strenuous opponents; but when once their adoption became general, the marvel is that there was ever any opposition to them.

Trade schools, like the Williamson School of Pennsylvania, or the Lick School of San Francisco, that have a four-year course of day work, that give thoro instruction in the theory and practice of a trade as well as instruction in academic branches, and whose graduates are received into the trades as junior workmen to get the necessary practical insight, do not need to place the same limitations upon their applicants as do the evening trade schools. I am of the opinion that all evening trade schools should be limited to those already engaged in the trades. My reasons are: (1) There should be no doubt in the mind of the boy that the trade chosen is the one he intends to follow thru life; the best assurance of such decision is that he is already in that trade. (2) The boy, so committed, has an eye singly to the purpose in view, and he will work to achieve it. (3) He has a chance, during the day, to observe in actual practice, and possibly to apply, the principles taught in the school, and, being in the atmosphere of his trade all day, he more readily comprehends the work of the school. (4) Being in the trade, he does not have to look for a job on leaving school, which otherwise he would be obliged to do, with most discouraging results. The work of the schools should be in keeping with the best practices of the trade. To insure this, each trade taught should have its board of supervisors, composed of the best men in the trade, both of employers and workmen.

The trade schools thus far established in the United States have, with few exceptions, been started and are maintained by private means. In all probability not one of those who have contributed the money for them, or have been instrumental in promoting them, will ever be benefited, directly or indirectly, by the instruction given. These men are not to be charged with an unwarrantable interference by doing that which of a right properly belongs to others, or with meddling with things which are none of their business.

These experimental stations will continue to do their work of developing and refining the processes of trade-training, until such time as organizations of employers and of workmen shall realize their value, shall reach out the glad hand to possess them, and shall say: "This is our work; henceforth we will do it." When that day shall come, the National Educational Association will not be discussing "The Attitude of Trade Unions toward Trade Schools."

CRAFTSMANSHIP IN EDUCATION

LESLIE W. MILLER, PRINCIPAL OF SCHOOL OF INDUSTRIAL ART,
PHILADELPHIA.

Of all the tasks which have been set for the school-teacher since the beginning of recorded time, probably none would have sounded more strangely to him a couple of generations ago than the statement that he