which would accrue to them from the colonial policy of the government. Glowing pictures of the might of Great Britain, due, it was pointed out, to her comprehensive colonial policy, were played up before them. These chords were harped upon, as we shall see, with considerable success.

Social Democrats make no compromises with the bourgeois. They agree to nothing that will not radically change the present system; and the rulers, knowing that they cannot placate them by passing small reforms, are now awake to the fact that if they are to continue their present power, they must crush socialism. The socialists in parliament had, in some cases, opposed small measures of reform as being inadequate, and their opponents were not slow to misrepresent this action to the workers, telling them that the socialists did not want or intend to pass measures for their benefit. The trade unions look to the socialist members to support reforms in their interest sometimes without regard to Social Democratic principles, and occasionally the socialists in parliament have not done so, preferring to oppose reform measures which only tend to stanch and not to heal injustice caused by the present system. It is easy for the other parties to turn to their own advantage such action on the part of socialists. Besides these "constitutional " methods of attacking socialism, the reactionary parties used others.

It would seem almost unbelievable that in modern Germany methods were used to coerce people to vote against their convictions and interests. Nevertheless, that seems to be the fact, and it has since been proved that the governmental machinery was used to carry out a great scheme of intimidation against the workers.

As

we know, there is no such thing as free speech in Germany. Every political meeting is under the superintendence of a "gendarme," who may declare a meeting illegal if he considers the speeches dangerous to the powers that be. It is therefore a very simple matter for those in authority to break up and prevent socialist meetings. As this power was used to its greatest extent in the last elections, the socialist campaign was greatly handicapped. Many saloon-keepers were forced by brewers and rich proprietors to refuse to let their rooms to socialists, and meetings were dispersed on the flimsiest pretexts. The socialists in many places took to holding meetings in the open air, but the season was against them. As an instance of really tyrannical intimidation may be cited a case in the industrial town of Saar, where the employers engaged men, armed with cudgels, to attack socialist propagandists.

So much for the battle carried on against the socialists. The figures of the parliamentary strength of the chief parties before and after the election may be given as follows:

From these figures it will be seen that the government gained a striking parliamentary victory, but it would be a mistake to think that the socialists suffered defeat.

The strength of socialism in Germany cannot be measured by the number of its parliamentary representatives, because its parliamentary strength depends largely on the electoral law. At present this does not permit the socialists to show their real strength, and the electoral law might be so changed that it would be impossible for them to capture a single seat. These electoral changes have little significance, however. The vote is a better test, as the number of convinced socialists alone is the true measure of the real power of the movement. In the judgment of the leaders the socialists actually gained a great victory. The first reason for this belief is that in the face of a terrific campaign they increased their vote by 250,000. The second is that they have finally forced the more advanced sections of the bourgeois parties into the conservative ranks. In other words they have been fortunate in this campaign in compelling the other parties to form a block to fight unitedly the interests of the working-class. The Liberals, only too glad to throw in their lot with the government, have therefore ceased to be an opposition party; and now that they have sided with the government in favor of reaction, their influence with the people will diminish. This forcing of other parties into the ranks of the reactionaries is a great gain for the socialist cause, for in the next elections hundreds of thousands of voters will see that there is no longer any hope of reform from these other parties.

The loss of socialist seats, then, is not due to a diminution of socialist strength. It is the result of the coöperation of all parties, excepting the Clericals, against socialism, and the bringing to the booths of a

great mass of apathetic citizens who seldom vote. Whatever could be done by the government to weaken the suffrage of socialists was done; but these methods have their limit, as "Vorwärts" said immediately after the first election. From 1877 to 1884 the socialist vote only increased from 493,288 to 549,990, but from 1884 to 1903 the party gained an increase in votes of 2,500,000. In the five years 1898-1903 they increased. nearly 1,000,000. But these million new voters were not all grounded socialists, while those in the late election, some three and a quarter million, who gave their support to socialist candidates were, it is fair to assume, no raw recruits, but thoroughgoing socialists. All but the very surest were swept away in the tumult of jingoism created by the other parties.

Figures are sometimes illuminating, and the preceding table will show clearly the growing power of the socialist movement in Germany.

No comment is neces

sary, but it may be of use to the reader if he will compare for the various years the electoral strength with the number of representatives sent to the Reichstag. It will be observed that this is not the first time the socialists have increased their votes and lost seats. In 1887 they lost over half their parliamentary representation, and yet they gained an increased vote of nearly

200,000.

These figures show a remarkable and significant growth, and it is natural to ask what use have the socialists made of this increasing power? It is generally known that within the last thirty years Germany has developed a daring policy of State Socialism. Municipal and national ownership of public utilities and natural resources has proceeded at a pace that has amazed the rest of Europe. At the same time labor legislation for the protection of the workingclass has been developed until it is a model for Europe. Social and industrial conditions have been revolutionized. The conditions of the working-class in Germany have been changed so that what were among the worst in Europe are now the best. Some mighty force has wrought this change. No one, so far as I know, believes that it is due to superior benevolence on the part of the upper classes of Germany, or that they are more humane than the like classes of other nations. Indeed, it is sometimes doubted that the German capitalists are, as a rule, as philanthropically inclined as, for instance, those of England. And yet the fact remains that despite the lack of unusual concern for the welfare of the masses, Germany has evolved an exceptional and admirable code of legislation which has materially improved the condition of the masses.