forty per cent., and the number of local unions decreased from 105 to
60, in the great depression of 1893-1897 the membership fell from 31,379
in 1894 to 28,096 in 1897, a loss of only ten per cent. Part even of
this small loss was due to the withdrawal of the pressmen and
bookbinders from the organization. It thus appears that the
Typographical Union with a death benefit of sixty-five dollars and a
home for the aged held its membership almost as well as the Cigar Makers
with their much more highly developed beneficiary system. The change in
the power of the Typographical Union to retain its membership was
obviously due not so much to the establishment of beneficiary features
as to the greater support which it gave its members in collective
bargaining.

A comparison of the effect of the depression of 1893-1897 on the
Typographical Union and on the Brotherhood of Carpenters makes the point
still clearer. In 1893 when the depression set in the per capita
expenditure of the Typographical Union for beneficiary features was
$1.50, while that of the Carpenters was $1.40. The death benefit in the
Carpenters' union was graded in such a way as to offer an additional
incentive to retain membership. The two unions were, as far as the
development of benefits is concerned, on about the same plane. As has
been noted above, the Printers lost almost none of their members. The
Carpenters lost from 1893 to 1895 over half of their membership. The
following table shows the membership of the Carpenters by years from
1890 to 1900:

1890....53,769 1894....33,917 1898....31,508
1891....56,937 1895....25,152 1899\
1892....51,313 1896....29,691 ...68,463
1893....54,121 1897....28,209 1900/