with more in prospect. In Germany, for instance, there is the monster metal workers* union, with 1,800,000 members, ranging from jewelry workers to shipbuilders and steel makers. The German railroaders, who are organized chiefly into two unions, are also about to combine (if they have not already done so) with the telegraph, telephone and postal workers, which will give this great transportation-communication organization more than 1,500,000 adherents. The British mine workers' union numbers almost 1,000,000 members. Practically the entire Belgian working class is organized in twelve industrial unions, and now a plan is being put into effect to combine all these industrial unions into one gigantic all-inclusive organization to cover the whole working class. The Australian trade unions went on record recently for a similar project. The possibilities of labor unions outstrip even the dreams of orthodox craft unionists.
All these great combinations of labor, and many more that could be mentioned, have grown gradually through voluntary federation and amalgamation. They are the fruits of practical experience. The rapidity with which they are growing and multiplying is a standing proof of their superiority over the primitive, narrow types. The workers composing them have learned through actual practice that only by massing themselves into such enormous aggregations can they properly defend their interests. No, the argument about size will not serve. If European workers can successfully construct such large organizations, so can American workers.
A more powerful objection to amalgamation, however, than any of the foregoing is one that is never expressed by those holding it; viz, the fear of the higher officials of the craft unions concerned that in the new, more economically operated industrial union they will lose their authority, and probably their very jobs. This fear is by far the most serious hindrance to amalgamation; it always does more to block the fusing of labor organizations than any
