But, if there were no conscious bias on Dr. Devine's part in his sweeping indictment of the State free employment offices, should not the admittedly hasty, and therefore superficial, nature of his investigation have prompted him to exercise caution before sending broadcast, under the auspices of the Sage Foundation, such statements as that, "so far as I can ascertain," these offices are "everywhere in politics"?-—a charge that, so far as Massachusetts is concerned, we are confident, is entirely without foundation. Reference is also made to what is alleged to be "the peculiar relation between organized labor" and the State employment bureaus and to the temptation to utilize the bureaus "merely to make it appear that the administration of the day is 'doing something for labor,'" which are said to constitute "apparently ineradicable obstacles in the way of efficient service." Here, again, however true this implied indictment of these offices in other States, it cannot be supported by the slightest evidence as regards the Massachusetts offices. There is no such "ineradicable obstacle in the way of efficient service," so far as the Massachusetts offices are concerned and for the reason that no such obstacle exists to be eradicated. That every effort is made by the administration of these offices to treat all applicants for work with absolute impartiality, and that no discrimination is shown union over non-union applicants or vice-versa, Dr. Devine is scarcely competent to dispute, while it is a matter or record that, of the 10,707 individuals for whom the Boston office secured positions in its first year, not more than 441 were known to be trade unionists.

A remarkable discovery, also, is that of the private commercial agency which has "obviously done more work in finding remunerative and permanent, although largely seasonal employment, than all of the Free State Employment Bureaus put together." How "obviously"? No figures or other data are given in support of this assertion, so that, however accurate it may be, its truth is certainly not obvious. In fact, if Dr. Devine or any one else can compile any reliable statistics showing the amount of work done by the State free employment offices of the country, he will render a most important and interesting service. The present writer confesses to having tried it without success, one reason being that the offices in the various States do not keep their statistical records upon a uniform basis. Dr. Devine himself reflects upon the statistical methods of the free employment offices; but does the fact that their records may not be kept with sufficient regard for accuracy quite justify the sweeping assertion that one private agency in a single city has done "more work in finding remunerative and permanent, although largely seasonal, employment [and, we are moved to parenthetically inquire, is employment which is "largely seasonal" to be regarded as synonymous with that which is permanent?] than all of the Free State

Employment Bureaus put together?" These number in the aggregate the country over some thirty-three offices, one of which alone, that in Boston, we know by records believed to be reliable, procured 14,480 positions in the year ending Nov. 30, 1907; 9,941 in 1908; and 5,437 in the first six months of 1909, and of a character both remunerative and permanent as well as undoubtedly "largely seasonal." We should, in all candor, be grateful to Dr. Devine for some statistics of the private agency to which he alludes, and for information as to the method followed in procuring and tabulating the same, together with such totals showing the aggregate work performed by the State offices as he may have used as a basis for his comparisons. Specifications as to the respects in which "the municipal bureaus in Duluth and Seattle appear to be free from the defects of the State Bureaus" would likewise be most interesting. By producing these data, a real service would be rendered. those charged with the responsibility of administering the State offices, some of whom, at least, would welcome practical suggestions, based upon experience, from any quarter, public or private, which would promote increased efficiency both in service and in statistical methods.

Dr. Devine's method of assembling and presenting his material is straightforward and concise, and the reader is enabled thereby readily to grasp the nature of the problem considered. It is all the more to be regretted, therefore, that the facts or opinions upon which the compiler's conclusions are based should have been so hastily assembled, and should not have been more maturely digested before being given to the public.

CHARLES F. GETTEMY.

BY SCOTT NEARING, INSTRUCTOR IN ECONOMICS, UNIVERSITY OF
PENNSYLVANIA.

A discussion of unemployment necessarily relates only to those persons who are normally engaged in what the census describes as "gainful occupations." The literature on unemployment abounds in attempts, some fortunate, but more calamitous, to accurately limit the field to which the term "unemployed" should apply; but for the purpose of this paper no subtle distinctions will be drawn, nor will any attempt be made to define "unemployed" further than to say that those who are normally engaged in gainful occupations, and who for any reason are temporarily not so engaged, are unemployed. This broad construction of the term is justifiable in view of the fact that such a definition of unemployed forms the basis upon which the available statistics have been gathered.

What is the extent of unemployment in the United States? Much has been spoken and written on this theme; but, so far as the writer has been able to discover, no careful attempt has heretofore been made to compile the available facts and furnish a definite answer to the question. Most of the articles on the subject discuss the causes and effects of unemployment and analyze its remedies; some articles deal with specific cases; but the facts, so far as they exist, are referred to piece-meal or not at all.

This article represents an attempt to present, in a connected manner, the various available figures showing the extent of unemployment. While the writer has sought to point out certain relations between the groups of figures, the broad deductions and generalizations to which they may lend themselves are reserved for other papers and other writers.

The Massachusetts figures are the only available general statistics of unemployment before 1900. They were collected with the data for the Massachusetts censuses of 1885 and 1895, and they cover the regular occupations of those gainfully employed, as well as special or secondary occupations, to which the unemployed may have turned during periods of temporary idleness.

Table I presents a group of Massachusetts figures. The most surprising thing shown by the table is the lengthy period of idleness reported for those unemployed during 1885. For the state at large the average period of idleness is four months. In the individual towns it is slightly less. Equally remarkable is the high percentage of unemployment, which is nearly 30 per cent. for the state at large and twice as much for Fall River, the town showing the highest percentage.

These early figures are valuable, not because of their intrinsic worth, but because they throw the later figures into perspective. They show that unemployment is by no means a new phenom