Chapter XLIV: Section 24: Within ninety days of the signing of this act the Governor

shall appoint the members of the State Board

-----

Footnote 1:

(F. L. Hoffman, “American Statistical Association Publications,” March
1808, pp 368–8).

Footnote 2:

The reverence shown aged persons is clearly illustrated from the
following incident given by Dewey & Tufts in their “Ethics” (pp
17–18):

“A Chinese aided by his wife flogged his mother. The imperial order
not only commanded that the criminals should be put to death; it
further directed that the head of the clan should be put to death,
that the immediate neighbours each receive eighty blows and be sent
into exile; that the head or representatives of the graduates of the
first degree (or B. A.) among whom the male offender ranked should be
flogged and exiled; that the granduncle, the uncle, and two elder
brothers should be put to death; that the prefect and the rulers
should for a time be deprived of their rank; that on the face of the
mother of the female offender four Chinese characters expressive of
neglect of duty toward her daughter should be tattooed, and that she
be exiled to a distant province; that the father of the female
offender, a bachelor of arts, should not be allowed to take any higher
literary degrees, and that he be flogged and exiled; that the son of
the offenders should receive another name, and that the lands of the
offenders for a time remain fallow.”

Footnote 3:

Rowntree, B. S. and B. Lasker. Unemployment, Macmillan 1810, p 38.

Footnote 4:

E. T. Devine, Misery and its Causes, p 125.

Footnote 5:

H. R. Seager “Social Insurance,” pp 10–11.

Footnote 6:

E. T. Devine, Misery and its Causes, pp. 158–60.

Footnote 7:

Report of Ohio Health and Old Age Insurance Commission, p 208.

Footnote 8:

Labour Review, November 1818; Ibid, March 1820 and Modern Medicine,
September, 1818.

Footnote 9:

Report Pennsylvania Commission on Old Age Pensions, March, 1818, p 10.

Footnote 10:

Ibid p 101.

Footnote 11:

Report on Old Age Relief, Industrial Commission of Wisconsin, p 3,
1815.

Footnote 12:

Report of Industrial Accident Commission of California, 1818 p 80.

Footnote 13:

L. W. Squier, Old Age Dependency in the United States, pp 28–28.

Footnote 14:

Report on Old Age Relief, pp 11–12.

Footnote 15:

Report of the Ohio Commission on Health Insurance and Old Age
Pensions, 1818, p 260.

Footnote 16:

Report of the Pennsylvania Commission on Old Age Pensions, 1818, p 11.

Footnote 17:

Report of Massachusetts Commission 1810, p 27.

Footnote 18:

Ibid.

Footnote 19:

Wisconsin Report, p 25.

Footnote 20:

Ohio Report, p 242.

Footnote 21:

Pennsylvania Commission’s Report, pp 17–18.

Footnote 22:

Massachusetts Report p 52.

Footnote 23:

Wisconsin Report p 25.

Footnote 24:

Report of Pennsylvania Commission p 20

Footnote 25:

Wisconsin Report p 27.

Footnote 26:

M. L. Nassau, Old Age Poverty in Greenwich Village, 1815.

Footnote 27:

Ohio Report p 218.

Footnote 28:

Ibid p 226.

Footnote 29:

Pennsylvania Report p 85.

Footnote 30:

Pennsylvania Report p 20.

Footnote 31:

Massachusetts Report p 53.

Footnote 32:

Ohio Report pp 242–43.

Footnote 33:

Pennsylvania Report pp 22–23.

Footnote 34:

Ohio Report p 238.

Footnote 35:

Pennsylvania Report p 27.

Footnote 36:

Ibid p 12.

Footnote 37:

Old Age Dependency in the United States pp 12–13.

Footnote 38:

Wisconsin Report p 27.

Footnote 39:

Ohio Report p 225.

Footnote 40:

Ibid p 236.

Footnote 41:

Ibid p 226.

Footnote 42:

Massachusetts Report p 57.

Footnote 43:

Ohio Report p 3.

Footnote 44:

Pennsylvania Report p 31.

Footnote 45:

Report of Special Inquiry, Aged & Dependent persons in Massachusetts
1815, pp 15–16.

Footnote 46:

Ohio Report p 244.

Footnote 47:

Ibid p 260.

Footnote 48:

Pennsylvania Report, p 57.

Footnote 49:

Ibid pp 58–58.

Footnote 50:

Pennsylvania Report pp 12–13.

Footnote 51:

Ohio Report pp 244–45.

Footnote 52:

Pennsylvania Report p 43.

Footnote 53:

Old Age Poverty in Greenwich Village pp 83–84–85.

Footnote 54:

Pennsylvania Report p 60.

Footnote 55:

Pennsylvania Report p 64.

Footnote 56:

E. T. Devine, Misery and its Causes, p 204.

Footnote 57:

Ohio Report pp 211–212.

Footnote 58:

Pennsylvania Report p 30.

Footnote 59:

Ohio Report p 223.

Footnote 60:

Ibid p 241.

Footnote 61:

Ohio Report p 52.

Footnote 62:

Ohio Report pp 55–56.

Footnote 63:

Ibid pp 56–57.

Footnote 64:

Labour Review, November 1818, pp 20–28.

Footnote 65:

Pennsylvania Health Insurance Com. Report, pp 31–32.

Footnote 66:

Ibid 55–56.

Footnote 67:

Report of Com. on Public Welfare, Hartford 1818, p 50.

Footnote 68:

Bulletin No. 157, March 1815, p 6.

Footnote 69:

Ibid p 7.

Footnote 70:

Labour Review, March 1821, pp 167–176.

Footnote 71:

I. M. Rubinow, Social Insurance, p 68.

Footnote 72:

Labour Legislation Review, Dec. 1820, p 232.

Footnote 73:

Labour Review, March 1818, pp 223–24.

Footnote 74:

Ibid, July 1818, p 185.

Footnote 75:

Biennial Report, 1818–1820 pp 71–75, Industrial Commission of
Wisconsin, Madison 1820.

Footnote 76:

Report of Industrial Accident Com. California July 1, 1818 to June 30,
1818, p 43.

Footnote 77:

Labour Review Jan. 1821 p 176.

Footnote 78:

Bulletin Penna. Dept. Labour & Industry. Vol. 6 No. 1 Series of 1818.

Footnote 79:

Ibid. Vol. 7, No. 2 Series of 1820.

Footnote 80:

Data Supplied by Dept. of Labour and Industry.

Footnote 81:

Labour Review, August 1818, p 216.

Footnote 82:

Ibid June 1820, p 165.

Footnote 83:

Ibid Jan. 1821, p 158.

Footnote 84:

Ibid November 1818, p 254.

Footnote 85:

Ibid April 1818, p 188.

Footnote 86:

Ibid March 1820, p 160.

Footnote 87:

Report of California Commission p 60.

Footnote 88:

John A. Ryan, A Living Wage, p 150.

Footnote 89:

Maurice Parmelee, Poverty and Social Progress, p 87.

Footnote 90:

“A Living Wage” p 160.

Footnote 91:

Ibid, p 161.

Footnote 92:

“The Standard of Living,” by F. H. Streightoff, pp 60–63.

Footnote 93:

The Standard of Living, Appendices A and B.

Footnote 94:

Parmelee, Poverty and Social Progress, p 87.

Footnote 95:

Ibid, p 88.

Footnote 96:

The Standard of Living, Appendices A and B, p 61.

Footnote 97:

Robert Hunter, Poverty, pp 51–53.

Footnote 98:

Ibid pp 51–53.

Footnote 99:

Report of Manufactures, Census Bureau Part IV. pp 645–8, 1805.

Footnote 100:

Poverty and Social Progress p 68.

Footnote 101:

The Standard of Living, pp 60–64.

Footnote 102:

L. B. More—Wage Earner’s Budgets, pp 268–70.

Footnote 103:

The Standard of Living, pp 58–60–62, and Appendices A and B.

Footnote 104:

A Living Wage pp 150 and 162.

Footnote 105:

The Standard of Living p 64.

Footnote 106:

The Standard of Living p 60.

Footnote 107:

Ibid p 61.

Footnote 108:

Ibid Appendices A and B.

Footnote 109:

Report on Condition of Woman and Child wage-earners in the U. S., 61st
Cong., 2nd sess., Sen. doc. No 645, Vol. XVI, p 142.

Footnote 110:

Ibid, p 152–3.

Footnote 111:

Statistics of Manufacture, Massachusetts, 1808, Boston, 1808, pp.
12–32.

Footnote 112:

Streightoff, F. H. Standard of Living, p 61.

Footnote 113:

Ibid Appendices A and B.

Footnote 114:

Ibid p 61.

Footnote 115:

Scott Nearing, Wages in the United States, pp 57–58.

Footnote 116:

R. C. Chapin, The Standard of Living Among Workingmen’s Families, in
New York City, p 281.

Footnote 117:

Scott Nearing, Wages in The United States, p 72.

Footnote 118:

Ibid, pp 85–87.

Footnote 119:

United States Dept. of Agriculture, Bureau of Statistics, Bulletin 88,
1812.

Footnote 120:

W. I. King, Wealth & Income of The People of the United States pp
214–230.

Footnote 121:

Scott Nearing, Income p 80.

Footnote 122:

Carleton H. Parker, The Casual Labourer, p 117.

Footnote 123:

The Standard of Living, p 162.

Footnote 124:

Income, p 85.

Footnote 125:

Report of the Tariff Board on Cotton Manufactures. 62nd Congress, 2nd
Session, House of Document 643, Government Printing Office, 1812, Vol.
II, 637–651.

Footnote 126:

Income pp 81–82.

Footnote 127:

Report on The Strike of Textile Workers in Lawrence, Massachusetts,
Charles P. Neill, Senate Document 870, 62nd Session, 1812, p 74

Footnote 128:

Income, p 83.

Footnote 129:

Annual Report of the Dept. of Labour, Oklahoma, 1811–12 p 232.

Footnote 130:

The Casual Labourer, p 116.

Footnote 131:

Income, p 100.

Footnote 132:

J. H. Hollander, The Abolition of Poverty p 8.

Footnote 133:

David Friday, Profits, Wages and Prices, p 102, 1820.

Footnote 134:

Ibid p 105.

Footnote 135:

Senate Document No 415, 64th Cong. August 23, 1815, p 22.

Footnote 136:

Wages in Various Industries, 1818, p 60, Bureau of Applied Economics,
Wash.

Footnote 137:

Quarterly Publication of the American Statistical Assn. June 1818, p
51 (v. 16, p 388).

Footnote 138:

Pennsylvania Health Insurance Commission Report, p 81.

Footnote 139:

Ibid p 84.

Footnote 140:

Labour Review, August 1818, p 118.

Footnote 141:

Health Insurance Report pp 81–82.

Footnote 142:

Wages and The War, p 6.

Footnote 143:

Thirty-Third Annual Report, Statistics of Manufactures, p 11, 1820.

Footnote 144:

War Time Changes in Wages, Sept, 1814, March 1818, National Industrial
Conference Board 1818.

Footnote 145:

The Cost of Living Among Wage-Earners, Lawrence, Massachusetts, 1818;
National Industrial Conference Board, Boston.

Footnote 146:

Labour Review, April 1820, p 100–104; March 1820, p 33–36; Feb. 1820,
p 106–113; May 1820, p 82–107; and June 1820, p 82–84.

Footnote 147:

Industrial Survey in Selected Industries in the United States in 1818,
Bulletin No 265, p 37–38, May 1820. United States Bureau of Labour
Statistics.

Footnote 148:

Women’s Wages Today, Feb. 1820. Consumer’s League of N. Y. State & N.
Y. City.

Footnote 149:

Current Facts, Jan. 1821, National Consumers’ League, New York.

Footnote 150:

Labour Review, Dec. 1820, pp 72–73.

Footnote 151:

Labour Review, Dec. 1818, pp 207–228.

Footnote 152:

Ibid, Dec. 1818, pp 207–228.

Footnote 153:

Ibid, March 1821, pp 64.

Footnote 154:

Wages in Various Industries, p 13, 1818, Bureau of Applied Economics.

Footnote 155:

Ibid, p 30.

Footnote 156:

Ibid, pp 47–48.

Footnote 157:

The Steel Strike of 1818, Commission of Inquiry Interchurch World
Movement, pp 12–13, 14.

Footnote 158:

Changes in The Cost of Living, National Industrial Conference Board
Report No. 30 Sept. 1820, p 26.

Footnote 159:

Labour Review, September 1820, pp 75–80.

Footnote 160:

Report of Special Commission on The Necessaries of Life, July 31,
1820, p 6.

Footnote 161:

Massachusetts Industrial Review, Vol. 1, No. 2, p 4, July 1820.

Footnote 162:

Monthly Labour Review, Oct. 1820, pp 78–82.

Footnote 163:

Labour Review, Dec. 1818, pp 207–228.

Footnote 164:

Labour Review, March 1821, p 85.

Footnote 165:

Average daily and monthly Wage Rates of Railroad Employés on Class I
Carriers, Wage Series Report I, Aug.

Footnote 166:

The Survey, March 27, 1820, pp 801–802.

Footnote 167:

The most recent figures as to what constitutes a minimum “health and
decency budget” for a family of five have just been made public by the
Labour Bureau, Inc., New York City. As a result of cost of living
surveys conducted in 1821 in New York City and Philadelphia, the above
bureau estimates the annual minimum standard necessary for a family of
five as $2,233.88 in New York City, and $2,338.20 in Philadelphia.

The bureau’s estimate is based on the “quantity budget” used by the
United States Bureau of Labour Statistics. They estimate that $688 a
year is needed for food, $388 for clothing, $443 for rent, $83 for
light and heat, $58 for household equipment and $650 for miscellaneous
expenses.

“The family is allowed no expenditures for books and magazines,” says
the bureau’s statement, “only one daily paper is included. The
doctor’s bill cannot exceed $80 a year for the whole family, and the
boy of 12 can get but eight hair-cuts a year. The husband is allowed
one-half and the wife one-third of an overcoat each year. The only
amusements permitted are an occasional cheap movie show. No allowance
is made for a trip or vacation outside the city.”

Footnote 168:

Labour Review, Nov. 1820, p 48.

Footnote 169:

Even in December, 1820, according to the bureau, the total cost of
living was six-tenths of one per cent. higher than in December, 1818,
and only 7.4 per cent. less than in June, 1820—the peak of high
prices. (Labour Review, Feb. 1821, p 61).

Footnote 170:

L. W. Squier, Old Age Dependency in the United States, pp 28–30 and
36.

Footnote 171:

E. T. Devine, Misery and its Causes, p 117.

Footnote 172:

18th Annual Report of the Commissioner of Labour, p 42.

Footnote 173:

Francis A. Kellor, Out of Work, pp 20–23.

Footnote 174:

Abstract of Statistics of Manufactures of the U. S. 1810, p 22.

Footnote 175:

Wm. M. Leiserson, Unemployment in the State of New York 1811, Appendix
No. 1.

Footnote 176:

Rubinow, Social Insurance, p 445.

Footnote 177:

Fluctuations in Unemployment in Cities of the United States, 1802 to
1817, Helen S. Trounstine Foundation Vol. I No. 2, May, 1818,
Cincinnati.

Footnote 178:

Idem pp 48–48.

Footnote 179:

Industrial Employment Survey Bulletin, No. 1, Jan. 1821, U. S.
Employment Service, Washington, D. C.

Footnote 180:

Labour Review, February, 1821, p 124.

Footnote 181:

Information supplied by the Bureau.

Footnote 182:

Monthly Labour Review, June 1818, pp. 307–14.

Footnote 183:

Ibid, September 1820, p 180.

Footnote 184:

Combined from Bulletin of the Department of Labour and Industry Vol.
7, No. 1, Series of 1820, and Vol. 8, No. 3, Series of 1821,
Harrisburg.

Footnote 185:

Labour Review, January 1821, p 222.

Footnote 186:

Massachusetts Report, p 58.

Footnote 187:

Ohio Report, p 241.

Footnote 188:

Penna. Report, pp 31 and 108.

Footnote 189:

Pp. 8–11–12–13–14

Footnote 190:

G. R. Miller, Social Insurance in U. S. p 111.

Footnote 191:

According to the _New York Times_ of April 22, 1821, W. Jett Lauck,
economist for the railway labour organizations, declared before the
Railroad Labour Board that “authoritative government reports state
that five million workers are idle, at least three million of them
having been without work throughout the winter. It costs these five
million workers nearly one billion dollars a month to supply their
families with the barest necessities of existence. This situation
means acute distress to approximately 25,000,000 persons. The cost of
maintaining these five million families would absorb each month
approximately one-fifth of the total savings deposits of the country.
The entire savings bank deposits of the country could support them
only five months, as they amount to only $5,186,845,000.”

Footnote 192:

Report of the Comptroller of the Currency, vol. 2, p 807, 1820.

Footnote 193:

Abstract of Reports of Condition of National Banks No. 125, p 11, Aug.
30, 1820, Treasury Department, Washington.

Footnote 194:

House Document No. 460, Sixty-sixth Congress 2nd Session.

Footnote 195:

Mabel Louise Nassau, Old Age Poverty in Greenwich Village, pp 16–17.

Footnote 196:

Rubinow, Social Insurance, p 313.

Footnote 197:

Mass. Report, p 58.

Footnote 198:

Ohio Report, p 288.

Footnote 199:

A recent inquiry addressed to corporations who have established
pension systems is of interest. Of 58 answers to the question “Have
your workers shown appreciation of benefits of pension system?”
fifty-one answered in the affirmative. To the question whether the
pension system has had a material effect in promoting efficiency,
“particularly in that it has eliminated their worries concerning their
future,” 36 out of 58 returns replied in the affirmative. Thirty-three
out of 57 replies also answered yes to the question, “Has your pension
system increased the average permanency of employment of your
employés, i. e. has it reduced labour turnover materially?” In regard
to the questions whether industrial pensions have decreased industrial
unrest on the part of employés, or prevented strikes, 20 of 44 replies
stated that it did to a certain extent, while 23 others declared that
it did not.

Footnote 200:

Report on Industrial Pensions, The Merchants’ Association of New York,
New York, 1820.

Footnote 201:

Bulletin No. 212 U. S. Bureau of Labour Statistics, 1817, p 736.

Footnote 202:

Ibid, p 758.

Footnote 203:

Industrial Pensions, Report of Special Committee, p 13, New York
Merchants’ Association, 1820.

Footnote 204:

Ibid, p 24.

Footnote 205:

Illinois Pension Laws Commission Report, 1816, p 282.

Footnote 206:

American Economic Review, Vol. 3, 1813, pp 287–280–281.

Footnote 207:

New York Merchants’ Association, pp 6–7–8.

Footnote 208:

L. W. Squier, Ibid, pp 107–108.

Footnote 209:

The American Express Company is said to have established some
provisions for its aged employés as early as 1875.

Footnote 210:

John B. Andrews, The Survey, May 22, 1820.

Footnote 211:

Report of Massachusetts Commission. Old Age Pensions, Annuities and
Insurance, pp 270–271.

Footnote 212:

Report of U. S. Senate Com. Hearings on Civil Service and Retrenchment
1817, pp 70–72.

Footnote 213:

Ibid pp 70–71.

Footnote 214:

Ibid p 72.

Footnote 215:

Published in Report of Hearing of Senate Com. on Civil Service and
Retrenchment.

Footnote 216:

I. M. Rubinow, Social Insurance, pp 404–405.

Footnote 217:

Social Insurance p 406

Footnote 218:

Social Insurance p 408

Footnote 219:

On January 12, 1821 a Massachusetts joint legislative Committee in a
report on pensions submitted to the Legislature declared: “The
contributory system has proved to be a success in the case of those
State employés and teachers who have been brought into it. It places a
reduced financial burden on the State and provides through the
employé’s contributions a savings account which is payable to the
employé or his estate in case of his resignation or death; it fixes an
age at which all must retire, thus safeguarding the public service
against inefficiency resulting from superannuation; it establishes a
co-operative partnership between the employés and the public;—each
shares in the management, each shares in the expense and each derives
benefit from the system.”

Footnote 220:

Paul Studensky, Teachers’ Pension Systems in the U.S. 1820.

Footnote 221:

Ibid, p 26.

Footnote 222:

Ibid, p 28.

Footnote 223:

Ibid, pp XV-XV

Footnote 224:

Massachusetts Report, pp 168–68.

Footnote 225:

Report of Penna. Commission, pp 216–17.

Footnote 226:

Rubinow, Social Insurance, p 334.

Footnote 227:

Rubinow, Social Insurance, p 386.

Footnote 228:

Social Insurance, pp 386–387.

Footnote 229:

Magnus W. Alexander, Bulletin of Bureau of Labour Statistics, No. 212,
p 774.

Footnote 230:

Charles Booth, Pauperism and the Endowment of Old Age, p 187.

Footnote 231:

Massachusetts Report, 1810, p 337.

Footnote 232:

A. M. Huddell, Mass. Report p 338.

Footnote 233:

Ibid p 332.

Footnote 234:

Ibid p 230.

Footnote 235:

Metcalfe, The Case For Universal Pensions, p 53.

Footnote 236:

Ibid p 86.

Footnote 237:

Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 30, 1815 p 152.

Footnote 238:

Massachusetts Report, 1810, p 332.

Footnote 239:

Social Insurance p 281.

Footnote 240:

William H. Lackey, Old Age Pensions p 103.

Footnote 241:

F. L. Hoffman, quoted by Mass. Com. p 233.

Footnote 242:

Ibid p 240.

Footnote 243:

Quoted by Harold Spender, Contemporary Review Vol. 83 p 84.

Footnote 244:

Ibid p 104.

Footnote 245:

Bulletin of U. S. Bureau of Labour Statistics No. 212 p 778.

Footnote 246:

The Survey, New York, Feb. 28, 1814.

Footnote 247:

Report of Mass. Com. p 301.

Footnote 248:

Ibid pp 334–335.

Footnote 249:

Old Age Dependency, pp 312–13.

Footnote 250:

Social Insurance, pp 314–15.

Footnote 251:

The Survey N. Y. Jan. 17, 1814.

Footnote 252:

The Forum Vol. 28 p 688.

Footnote 253:

Report of Mass. Com. p 310.

Footnote 254:

Booth, Pauperism, p 235.

Footnote 255:

Quoted by Mass. Com. p 241.

Footnote 256:

Booth, Pauperism, p 237.

Footnote 257:

Report of Mass. Com. p 243.

Footnote 258:

Mass. Report pp 310–11.

Footnote 259:

Ibid p 334.

Footnote 260:

In 1821 bills providing for old age pensions were introduced following
states: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Montana, New
York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Footnote 261:

“Social Insurance,” p 842.

Footnote 262:

Economic Review, March 31, 1820, London.

Footnote 263:

According to the latest information available, Belgium has apparently
abandoned its voluntary system and has adopted instead a straight
pension plan. The December, 1820, American Labour Legislation Review
(page 230) states that on Aug. 20, 1820, a new old age pension law was
enacted in Belgium. “Persons born before 1858 upon reaching the age of
65 are to receive an annual pension of from 600 to 720 francs. This
amount will be reduced if the claimant has an independent income, but
certain sources of income are exempt. The cost of the pensions is to
be shared five-eighths by the state, one-eighth by the province and
two-eighths by the commune.”

Footnote 264:

Figures supplied by S. T. Bastedo, Superintendent, Canadian Government
Annuities.

Footnote 265:

Labour Review, April 1821, p 181.

Footnote 266:

Daily Intelligence, Vol 1, No. 5, Jan. 11, 1821, International Labour
Office, Geneva.

Footnote 267:

Message du Conseil Fédéral à l’Assemblée Fédérale, au 21, juin.

Footnote 268:

Report of Massachusetts Commission, pp 181–182, 1810.

Footnote 269:

Bulletin United States Bureau of Labour Statistics, No. 212. p 803.

Footnote 270:

G. Sousek, La Conférence du Travail et l’État Tshecko-Slovak, 1818. p
61–63.

Footnote 271:

Monthly Labour Review, March, 1818, p 283.

Footnote 272:

Ibid, June, 1818, p 283.

Footnote 273:

Ibid.

Footnote 274:

Journal Officiel de la République Française, Paris, March 10, 1820,
The Labour Gazette, April, 1820, London.

Footnote 275:

Monthly Labour Review, Feb. 1820, pp 228–230.

Footnote 276:

The Labour Gazette, March, 1818, p 88, London.

Footnote 277:

Monthly Labour Review, November, 1820, p 208.

Footnote 278:

Soziale Praxis und Archiv für Volkswohlfahrt, Berlin, May 18, 1820, p
778.

Footnote 279:

Kölnische Zeitung, Cologne, December 12, 1818.

Footnote 280:

Monthly Labour Review, Jan. 1818, pp 285–88.

Footnote 281:

Monthly Labour Review, Jan. 1818, pp 285–88.

Footnote 282:

The Economic Review, May 18, 1820, London.

Footnote 283:

Report of Special Inquiry Relative to Aged and Dependent Persons in
Mass., Boston, 1816, p 102.

Footnote 284:

Ibid, 1816, p 102.

Footnote 285:

The Labour Gazette, January 1820, p 10, London; Monthly Labour Review,
December 1818, pp 348–358.

Footnote 286:

Bulletin of International Labour office, Vol. 8, no. 7, p 310, 1814.

Footnote 287:

Report of a special inquiry relative to aged and dependent persons in
Mass., Boston, 1816, p 102.

Footnote 288:

Proposed scheme of National Social Insurance for Norway, by Nicholay
L. Bugge, Secretary in the Norwegian Ministry of Finance. (Manuscript
copy in the Library of the U. S. Bureau of Labour Statistics.)

Footnote 289:

Monthly Labour Review, January, 1820, pp 261–265; Ibid, December,
1820, pp 161–162.

Footnote 290:

Labour Conditions in Soviet Russia, International Labour Office,
London.

Footnote 291:

Labour Gazette, June 1818, p 228, London; Revue du Travail, Nov. 1,
1818, Belgium.

Footnote 292:

Bulletin of International Labour office, Vol. XL, Nos. 6, 7; 1816.

Footnote 293:

Report of the Departmental Committee on Old Age Pensions, 1818,
London.

Footnote 294:

Includes expenses in connection with claims for Separation Allowances
to Old Age Pensioners.

Footnote 295:

Local Government Chronicle, Oct. 27, 1817, London.

Footnote 296:

Twenty-Second Annual Report of the Pensions Department, 1820.
Wellington, New Zealand.

Footnote 297:

Monthly Labour Review, Sept. 1818, pp. 348–350.

Footnote 298:

Ibid. August 1820, pp. 135–137.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES

Page Changed from Changed to

ix CHAPTER 13.—VOLUNTARY & SUBSIDED CHAPTER 13.—VOLUNTARY &
SYSTEMS OF SUBSIDIZED SYSTEMS OF

188 and inspiration of our younger and inspiration of our younger
generation. To provide generation. To provide for

208 Those paying the dues for 121 Those paying the dues for 161
months to 180 months, $35.00 months to 180 months, $35.00

332 his children, or if a wife his children, or if a wife
deserted her husband or such of deserted not her husband or such
her of her

● Typos fixed; non-standard spelling and dialect retained. ● Used numbers for footnotes, placing them all at the end of the last chapter. ● Enclosed italics font in _underscores_. ● HTML alt text was added for images that didn’t have captions.