Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 10.djvu/865

 NOTES AND ABSTRACTS 849

state who do not exercise any portion of the public power." This arrangement, which points fairly in the direction of assimilating the relations between the state and its employees to those existing between private persons who stand in the relation of employer and employee, is weighed down with important consequences.

A question which arises at the first consideration of this law concerns the extent of its application. What classes of public servants exercise no portion of the public power, and where exactly should the line be drawn between those who wield public power and those who do not? Without attempting to resolve the quite apparent ambiguity which this formula contains, we may conclude without much hesitation that the class of public servants who impose no act of authority upon other citizens, but simply perform a designated task on behalf of the state, is very far from being a negligible quantity. The employees of the departments of public works of instruction, of agriculture, of posts, of public relief, and of manufactures are all of this sort

The fundamental question which remains, then, is whether it is proper to permit the greater part of public servants, simply on the ground that they do not wield the public power, to form organizations exactly as if they were private employees. In spite of the unanimous decision of the commission upon this point, we believe there are essential differences in the two cases which must not be lost sight of.

The employer and his workmen, in the first place, are equal before the law, and their possibly conflicting interests are only the interests of particular indi- viduals, which are to be adjusted by mutual agreement, that is, by contract. The case of public servants is quite different ; here we find sovereignty and the imperative rights and interests of the entire nation on the one side, and individuals upon the other ; moreover, the conditions, rights, and obligations attending labor performed for the state are fixed, not by contract, but by statute. Shall we then confer by law upon the employees of the state the right to form organizations to oppose the law ?

Labor organizations are weapons of struggle ; and it follows naturally from the right to organize that the demands of public employees in regard to wages, advancement, discipline, political liberty, etc., may be opposed to those of the government, and may be defended by recourse to political influence, the courts of justice, and strikes.

The fundamental difficulty lies in the fact that the line which this law attempts to draw between the function of the state as the guardian of public security, and the work of the state as the promoter of social well-being, is an entirely illusory one. With the increasing extension of functions which character- izes the modern state, the present moment seems to be poorly chosen in which to maintain that public employees not charged with the more personal authority of the state have no other duties than those which they would have in the employ of a private person pursuing an individual interest.

In short, the common law governing private employment is not fitted for the government of public servants, of whatever sort they may be. A most important duty devolves upon the legislator, therefore, to define clearly by law the relations which the servant of the public is to sustain to his superiors. The employee of the state does not serve his chief, but together with his chief he serves the wider interests of the state.

Now the actual organization of the personnel in our public service does not answer to the ideal here indicated. There is an absolute lack of unity, and more serious still the opportunity is constantly afforded for arbitrariness and favoritism. This calls for an effectual remedy. But, instead of instituting between the state and its servants a sort of antagonism, such as develops in ordinary labor disputes, it is from the state itself, out of an intelligent perception of the relations existing between them, that we would wish to obtain these guarantees. Being the most exacting master, the state ought to show itself the most just and reliable. G. DEMARTIAL, " Les Employes de I'Etat et les syndicats professionnels," Rnmt politique et parlfmentaire, March 10, 1905. E. B. W.

Observations on the Cameroon District. Great care must be taken in seeking information from the natives to avoid all suggestion of an answer, for the