Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

T u p ----- J| I ' n ** •'" B R jES? ~ 3 ‘ ~ IN ~ THC VOLUME ONE. NO. TH IEEY- NI NE. Common Kindness a Commercial Commodity. By S. T. DALSHEIMER. OR many years there has been woven into our national life a grave and grow ing problem; a problem which has wrecked other nations as powerful as our own; a problem on which the great intellects of famous scientists have labored long, but with questionable re sults. Ponderous books have been writ ten and the eager public has waited F anxiously for the last word, or the enlightening word, regarding the ever present question of the conflict between Capital and Labor. The gigantic and rapid increase of wealth in the United States has creat ed almost as distinct a class “aristocracy” in America as that of any monarchy of the Old World, with, however, a vital difference —Here, the “aristocracy” is one of wealth alone, and be ing largely derived from commercial sources and also being in a great measure dependent on the steady continuance of the industries which produce wealth, there is, necessa rily, in America a much closer and a much more significant dependence of Capital on Labor than anywhere else in the civ ilized world. It ;is this dependence which has made the problem almost one be tween man and man, and because of this peculiarly personal characteristic it seems as though it might be solved at last by spe cial rather than by gener al means. Trades Unions are in some measure responsible for the clearly defined lines of demarcation be- tween labor and capital— the employer and the employe. Good has been done by the education of the laborer toward an understanding and appreciation of his value, but the evil has resulted in his misunderstanding and lack of appreciation of what is due his employer as well as of his own “rights.” Naturally, a chasm of antagonism has yawned between labor and capital—-a chasm which has never yet been Ay ■ '.a ; . w K wOlm f / ■ ■■<>-- I? Art r*r Jr^W// jsl'j Jr~~H PR. H IKLw.® '' MMFbK?4h b JEF ■ / \ 'JB\ iSHBSI-. TVfWLjHSSw mh / ’F s '* / MM %t a< jgp' ' 7 PI 1 ”. /MBMMMtayc'Mm, 'A. w/ \h | A > SML ■Walk ifeOAMt: a>J3M/ . ~Cj7r A " i™EShEw%i dfter the Improvement. ATLANTA, GA., NOVEMBER 15, 1906. safely crossed. But at last we can welcome the faint glimmering of the flag of truce floating from the one camp to the other—the dawn, as it were, of a day which shall usher in a reign of humanita rianism in the light of which antagonism shall be forgotten and the employer shall stand as friend as well as master to those who labor for his ends. ‘‘Social Service.” The explanation of this “dawn of a new day” A “Bad Beginning For a “Day’s Work. The Industrial and Normal School of Colorado Fuel and Iron Co. can best be given by a sort of definition of a term which has recently crept into our language and our current literature, and which has often passed with out challenge but also without adequate understand ing. Yet, in the great city of New York there ex ists today “The American Institute of Social Serv ice” and this central association has agents and branch organizations in every part of the country, each branch endeavoring to promote the work of the parent association. The originators of this association were thirty or more students of social economics who met in New York City about eight years ago with the earnest desire to find some way in which both the employer and the employe might learn to do his part one toward the other, and which should eventually result in the industrial ad vancement of both. The way suggested to accom- Hoorn Tor Improvement. or she may make so many cotton sacks or guide the knitting machine over so many garments a day, but how will the output of the factory which employs her compare with that of other factories employing more skillful labor? The Suggested Remedy. These thoughts were present in the minds of so- TWO DOLLARS A YEAR. TIVE CENTS A COPY. plish this end was that of giving better service for the wages received on the one side, and of deserving better service on the oth er. Both conditions seem to demand active reform ation of existing methods. While granting that the employer of many hun dreds of men or women is often indifferently served, although the wage earner demands the same return as for careful and intelli gent work, the question arose, “What else is being done for the laborer save the actual paying of mon ey?” In the intelligent answer to this question we find the germ of the whole “social service sys tem.” Men and women are not machines; they are fitted to accomplish only a cer tain amount of physical labor during a day or week or month; this amount to vary according to the strength of the la borer. In many cases they are paid for only as much as they accomplish, and the employer runs no risk of loss. This is apparent on the surface, but again comes the question—“ls it all in the quantity of labor? Does quality count not at all?” A woman may turn out so many pieces of laundry work,