against their desires, and are often unconsciously made so. When

several trades in a certain locality demand and receive an advance
in wages, they are unwittingly making scabs of their fellow-laborers

in that district who have received no advance in wages. In San
Francisco the barbers, laundry-workers, and milk-wagon drivers

received such an advance in wages. Their employers promptly added
the amount of this advance to the selling price of their wares. The

price of shaves, of washing, and of milk went up. This reduced the
purchasing power of the unorganized laborers, and, in point of fact,

reduced their wages and made them greater scabs.
Because the British laborer is disinclined to scab,--that is,

because he restricts his output in order to give less for the wage
he receives,--it is to a certain extent made possible for the

American capitalist, who receives a less restricted output from his
laborers, to play the scab on the English capitalist. As a result

of this, (of course combined with other causes), the American
capitalist and the American laborer are striking at the food and

shelter of the English capitalist and laborer.
The English laborer is starving today because, among other things,

he is not a scab. He practises the policy of "ca' canny," which may
be defined as "go easy." In order to get most for least, in many

trades he performs but from one-fourth to one-sixth of the labor he
is well able to perform. An instance of this is found in the

building of the Westinghouse Electric Works at Manchester. The
British limit per man was 400 bricks per day. The Westinghouse

Company imported a "driving" American contractor, aided by half a
dozen "driving" American foremen, and the British bricklayer swiftly

attained an average of 1800 bricks per day, with a maximum of 2500
bricks for the plainest work.

But, the British laborer's policy of "ca' canny," which is the very
honorable one of giving least for most, and which is likewise the

policy of the English capitalist, is nevertheless frowned upon by
the English capitalist, whose business existence is threatened by

the great American scab. From the rise of the factory system, the
English capitalistgladly embraced the opportunity, wherever he

found it, of giving least for most. He did it all over the world
whenever he enjoyed a market monopoly, and he did it at home with

the laborers employed in his mills, destroying them like flies till
prevented, within limits, by the passage of the Factory Acts. Some

of the proudest fortunes of England today may trace their origin to
the giving of least for most to the miserable slaves of the factory

towns. But at the present time the English capitalist is outraged
because his laborers are employing against him precisely the same

policy he employed against them, and which he would employ again did
the chance present itself.

Yet "ca' canny" is a disastrous thing to the British laborer. It
has driven ship-building from England to Scotland, bottle-making

from Scotland to Belgium, flint-glass-making from England to
Germany, and today is steadily driving industry after industry to

other countries. A correspondent from Northampton wrote not long
ago: "Factories are working half and third time. . . . There is no

strike, there is no real labor trouble, but the masters and men are
alike suffering from sheer lack of employment. Markets which were

once theirs are now American." It would seem that the unfortunate
British laborer is 'twixt the devil and the deep sea. If he gives

most for least, he faces a frightfulslavery such as marked the
beginning of the factory system. If he gives least for most, he

drives industry away to other countries and has no work at all.
But the union laborers of the United States have nothing of which to

boast, while, according to their trade-union ethics, they have a
great deal of which to be ashamed. They passionatelypreach short

hours and big wages, the shorter the hours and the bigger the wages
the better. Their hatred for a scab is as terrible as the hatred of

a patriot for a traitor, of a Christian for a Judas. And in the
face of all this, they are as colossal scabs as the United States is

a colossal scab. For all of their boasted unions and high labor
ideals, they are about the most thoroughgoing scabs on the planet.

Receiving $4.50 per day, because of his proficiency and immense
working power, the American laborer has been known to scab upon

scabs (so called) who took his place and received only $0.90 per day
for a longer day. In this particular instance, five Chinese

coolies, working longer hours, gave less value for the price
received from their employer than did one American laborer.

It is upon his brother laborers overseas that the American laborer
most outrageously scabs. As Mr. Casson has shown, an English nail-

maker gets $3 per week, while an American nail-maker gets $30. But
the English worker turns out 200 pounds of nails per week, while the

American turns out 5500 pounds. If he were as "fair" as his English
brother, other things being equal, he would be receiving, at the

English worker's rate of pay, $82.50. As it is, he is scabbing upon
his English brother to the tune of $79.50 per week. Dr. Schultze-

Gaevernitz has shown that a German weaver produces 466 yards of
cotton a week at a cost of .303 per yard, while an American weaver

produces 1200 yards at a cost of .02 per yard.
But, it may be objected, a great part of this is due to the more

improved American machinery. Very true, but none the less a great
part is still due to the superior energy, skill, and willingness of

the American laborer. The English laborer is faithful to the policy
of "ca' canny." He refuses point-blank to get the work out of a

machine that the New World scab gets out of a machine. Mr. Maxim,
observing a wasteful hand-labor process in his English factory,

invented a machine which he proved capable of displacing several
men. But workman after workman was put at the machine, and without

exception they turned out neither more nor less than a workman
turned out by hand. They obeyed the mandate of the union and went

easy, while Mr. Maxim gave up in despair. Nor will the British
workman run machines at as high speed as the American, nor will he

run so many. An American workman will "give equal attention
simultaneously to three, four, or six machines or tools, while the

British workman is compelled by his trade union to limit his
attention to one, so that employment may be given to half a dozen

men."
But for scabbing, no blame attaches itself anywhere. With rare

exceptions, all the people in the world are scabs. The strong,
capableworkman gets a job and holds it because of his strength and

capacity. And he holds it because out of his strength and capacity
he gives a better value for his wage than does the weaker and less

capableworkman. Therefore he is scabbing upon his weaker and less
capable brother workman. He is giving more value for the price paid

by the employer.
The superior workman scabs upon the inferiorworkman because he is

so constituted and cannot help it. The one, by fortune of birth and
upbringing, is strong and capable; the other, by fortune of birth

and upbringing, is not so strong nor capable. It is for the same
reason that one country scabs upon another. That country which has

the good fortune to possess great natural resources, a finer sun and
soil, unhampering institutions, and a deft and intelligent labor

class and capitalist class is bound to scab upon a country less
fortunately situated. It is the good fortune of the United States

that is making her the colossal scab, just as it is the good fortune
of one man to be born with a straight back while his brother is born

with a hump.
It is not good to give most for least, not good to be a scab. The

word has gained universal opprobrium. On the other hand, to be a
non-scab, to give least for most, is universally branded as stingy,

selfish, and unchristian-like. So all the world, like the British
workman, is 'twixt the devil and the deep sea. It is treason to

one's fellows to scab, it is unchristian-like not to scab.
Since to give least for most, and to give most for least, are

universally bad, what remains? Equity remains, which is to give
like for like, the same for the same, neither more nor less. But

this equity, society, as at present constituted, cannot give. It is
not in the nature of present-day society for men to give like for

like, the same for the same. And so long as men continue to live in
this competitive society, struggling tooth and nail with one another