Almanach des cahiers pour l'an 1903

NINTH CAHIER OF THE FOURTH SERIES

Almanac of the Cahiers

FOR THE YEAR 1903

CAHIERS DE LA QUINZAINE

appearing twenty times per year

PARIS

8, rue de la Sorbonne, ground floor

To learn what the Cahiers de la Quinzaine are, one need only send a money order for three francs fifty to Mr. Andre Bourgeois, administrator of the cahiers, 8, rue de la Sorbonne, Paris. One will receive as samples six cahiers from the second and third series.

We put this cahier into commerce; we sell it for one franc.

Almanac of the Cahiers

Spring begins on Saturday, March 21, at 7:24 in the evening;

summer begins on Monday, June 22, at 3:14 in the afternoon;

autumn begins on Thursday, September 24, at 5:53 in the morning;

winter begins on Wednesday, December 23, at 12:29 in the morning.

[Calendar tables for each month of 1903 with sunrise, sunset, moonrise, moonset times, and lunar phases follow in the original.]

Report on the Journaux pour Tous

Georges Colomb

[The following is a report by Georges Colomb, president of the Journaux pour Tous, to his committee, detailing a protracted dispute with Charles Peguy and the Cahiers de la Quinzaine regarding shared premises at 8, rue de la Sorbonne.]

Gentlemen,

When Monsieur Boivin, visiting the new premises of the work, at 8, rue de la Sorbonne, on the very day of the move-in, was able to observe that we were being offered, for 250 francs per year, a narrow corridor, quite insufficient, barely two meters wide and which we had to share, moreover, with the administration of Jean Pierre. Furthermore, the common door of the shop, divided for the occasion into three very unequal portions, opened into our corridor. So that all the persons who had business either with Pages Libres or with the Cahiers de la Quinzaine were obliged to cross our domicile which thus became a public passage, our secretary being the concierge or, if you prefer, the signpost of the establishment.

It is certain that under these conditions our files, our addresses, most of them confidential, and our correspondence were no longer safe. You found, gentlemen, that this installation was neither convenient nor dignified; that our meetings became impossible, as did the oversight of operations, and you decided on the spot that we must immediately seek more suitable and safer premises.

Mr. Mascart even declared “that he would not set foot in the Journaux pour Tous as long as they were installed there!” He kept his word, and Mr. Alfred Alexandre gave his provisional resignation as administrator of the work. I was quite tempted to follow Mr. Alexandre’s example; but I considered that having put the work in difficulty, it was my duty to get it out. I therefore undertook to seek to give satisfaction to the legitimate observations of the committee and I promised to set out in search of new premises. I did however ask to make the fair trial that Mr. Boivin requested, legitimately anxious about the question of whether elsewhere it would be possible for him to have at hand, in the same premises, the two works that provided his livelihood; namely the newspaper Jean Pierre, of which he is secretary, and the Journaux pour Tous, of which he is also secretary.

The trial was attempted and after a few months, it became evident that the work could not be done properly under these conditions. It was even physically impossible to install oneself in the corridor-passageway in order to review the correspondence and the needs of the work, as well as to oversee the operations of the secretariat.

It was then that I entered into negotiations with the School of Higher Social Studies and inquired whether, if the occasion arose, they would consent to allowing us to install ourselves in the room left free, on the second floor, by Mr. Charles Peguy and the Cahiers de la Quinzaine, or in any other room convenient to the administration of the school.

If I had not taken this step earlier, it is because I still harbored against the School of Higher Social Studies prejudices which I was expressing somewhat energetically in my letter to Boivin, prejudices which, better informed, I found to be erroneous.

All obstacles on this side being removed, we are therefore leaving your premises, but in a spirit of conciliation, yielding to friendly advice, the Committee decided this very day that I would hold at your disposal, until October 1904, except in the case of the disappearance of the Journaux pour Tous, the sum of 150 francs per year, payable quarterly and in advance. I say one hundred and fifty francs because it is the figure originally agreed upon by me in my letter to Boivin. I therefore think that you will no longer oppose Boivin packing up as quickly as possible and I conclude by assuring you of all my consideration.

Georges Colomb

P.S. — One more word: I do not reclaim the original of the very familiar letter I was writing to Boivin and of which only the passage recopied in this one concerns you. I shall not even reproach Boivin for the lack of tact he showed in communicating to you a letter of which several passages could rightly be considered confidential. This abstention on my part will show you, I think, that I am a better “boss” than you are “good friends.” For, in sending me a copy of the letter in question, you proved to me that Mr. Boivin had parted with it in your favor. This could have compromised Boivin in the eyes of the Committee and caused him unpleasantness for which you alone would have been responsible. Another man might not have had my patience and that is how the “bosses” of the Journaux pour Tous understand “coups de force” against “their workers” (in the plural). Allow me to laugh.

You will understand, Gentlemen, the meaning of this postscript, if I remind you of the note published by Mr. Charles Peguy in the Cahiers de la Quinzaine (June 1902) and where it was said (I quote from memory, not having the exact text before me):

We learn that the bosses of the Journaux pour Tous are contemplating a coup de force against their workers. We shall keep the public informed of this incident.

The “coup de force” was the move. The “bosses” were us and our workers (in the plural), Mr. Emile Boivin.

[The report continues with further correspondence detailing the dispute, including Peguy’s furious reaction to the proposed move, his confrontation with Colomb at the School of Higher Social Studies, and the eventual resolution.]

Mr. Charles Peguy persisted in being furious without reason.

Mr. Charles Peguy, to whom, I repeat, no one had ever given a thought, burst into invectives against the Committee composed “of his personal enemies,” accusing the Committee of having directed against him a cabal (the cabal of the move, no doubt). Then he threatened me, saying: “You want to move? Well then! Move! March!… I am waiting for you.”

I had, at the beginning, started by joking, but when it became evident that Mr. Peguy was not joking and that he was on the verge of an imminent apoplexy, I stopped laughing: “But after all,” I said, “at least let me know why you do not want us to move. Do you have complaints to make, objections to raise? Come now! Speak! We ask nothing better than to satisfy everyone.”

“March!” repeated Mr. Peguy, still pacing and at the paroxysm of fury. “March! I am waiting for you. My means of defense are there, in MY pocket.”

“But no one is attacking you!”

“Yes. You are all MY enemies.”

Then he left, greeting the two persons present.

“Goodbye,” I called out to him.

“Farewell!” he replied in a curt manner.

Such was my interview with Mr. Charles Peguy, and before witnesses, on Wednesday May 28, I believe, at the School of Higher Social Studies, 16, rue de la Sorbonne.

[Further correspondence follows, including Peguy’s letter to a justice of the peace explaining that Andre Bourgeois was away at a thermal establishment in Dax with his sick mother, and other details of the legal proceedings.]

I believe, Gentlemen, that moderation and patience have been on our side, as was our right, since to spare old friends, we took more than two and a half months, from May 9 to July 25, to obtain an authorization that morally and legally could not be refused us since we consented in effect to pay the due and current terms.

As for the personal attacks of which I am the object on your part, as for the insults that flow quite naturally from your inkwell and which are equally personal to me, you will allow me not to take them into account — for the time being.

Moreover, when I see who those you insult are, when I consider that from Henry Berenger to de Pressense, passing through Tery, your “victims” are the best servants of democracy, I cannot help feeling something like a gust of pride rise to my brain at the idea that you have judged me worthy of being nailed to the same pillory as they.

Certain persons advised me to “pay you back in kind.” I have beak and claws and I believe it was not beyond my means; but, you see, at my age, one does not remake oneself: although, according to you, I am merely a gross pornographer, I have nevertheless retained enough dignity and self-respect to believe myself more honored to be among the insulted than among the insulters. It is a habit I acquired during the Dreyfus Affair; you, Sir, changed camps.

And that is why I beg you to accept all my condolences.

Georges Colomb

I recall, for the record, that Mr. Bernard-Lazare, administrative auditor of the Work of the Book for All, has, by registered letter addressed to Mr. Georges Colomb, president of the new Journaux pour Tous, at the New Society of Publishing and Editing, 17, rue Cujas, Paris, proposed to constitute arbiters; and that I have asked to be heard as a witness by these arbiters on all parts of the dispute.

Charles Peguy

General Strike of the Miners

Jean le Clerc / Bulletin de l’Office du travail

December 4, 1902

My dear Peguy,

The Bulletin of the Office of Labor for November 1902 contains an account of the general strike of the miners. I am sending it to you by this post. It is bare fact and less entertaining than a serial novel by Zevaco. Perhaps you will judge, however, that this fact would interest your readers since — depending on the color of their newspaper — they have heard only about the good miners and the wicked companies, or conversely about the dreadful strikers and the generous Committee of Coal Owners.

Jean le Clerc

The general strike of miners, decided in principle at the congress of Lens (April 1901), postponed by the National Committee of the Federation of Miners of France upon the announcement that proposals had been filed in the Chamber concerning two important demands of mine workers (modification of the pension system, limitation of the duration of work), had again been voted, in March 1902, by the congress of Alais, then postponed following a referendum.

The convention signed at Arras, on October 31, 1900, by the workers’ and employers’ delegations of the Nord and the Pas-de-Calais, increasing miners’ wages by 10%, ceased to have effect on May 31, 1902. Three meetings took place, on May 15 and 26 and June 9, between workers’ delegates and representatives of the Companies. The latter consented not to reduce the increase beyond 5%; the workers’ delegates declared they could not accept this transaction. However, as the question of the general strike was on the agenda of the national congress of Commentry, whose meeting, set for the first half of August by the congress of Alais, had been pushed back to September 24, the unions of the Nord and the Pas-de-Calais resolved to wait for this date.

On July 31, 1902, the Loire Mining Company, soon followed by all the mining companies of the basin, had a notice posted at the approaches to the shafts notifying the workers that in view of the decline in the selling price of coal, the 9% premium on wages, granted by the arbitration sentence rendered on January 6, 1900, following the last strike, and maintained beyond the fixed deadline (June 30, 1901), would be lowered to 3%, starting August 16, 1902.

The regional committee of the Federation of Miners of the Loire complained that the Companies had not communicated their decision through three months’ notice, the sentence not having been denounced on June 30, 1901.

From that moment, strong agitation in favor of a strike manifested itself in the Loire basin. On August 25, the federal committee set September 12 for the cessation of work, if the date of the Commentry congress was not advanced. This resolution, voted by four votes against four, was not favorably received by the various unions and the strike was again postponed.

The congress met at Commentry on September 24; but from the first day, it learned by telegram that the miners of the Escarpelle company, at Dorignies (Nord), had gone on strike, about 500 in number, without waiting for its decision. The delegates of the Nord region at the congress hastily sent a telegram to Dorignies ordering the workers to resume work. The response arrived at two o’clock in the afternoon: the workers refused to return to work and begged the congress to take an immediate decision on the general strike.

On September 27, when the Congress, having voted unanimously for the general strike, left it to the committee of the National Federation to set the day for the cessation of work, there were already 3,423 strikers in the Nord and the Pas-de-Calais.

The national committee, in accordance with the decisions of the congress, addressed on September 30 a letter to the President of the Council and one to Mr. Gruner, secretary of the Committee of Coal Owners of France. In its letter to the President of the Council, it asked the government to work to bring about the passage of the bills or proposals responding to the demands of the corporation (reduction of the workday to 8 hours; pension of 2 francs per day at age 50, after 30 years of service; minimum wages; modification of the laws of 1890 and 1898; creation of miners’ labor courts).

To the Committee of Coal Owners, the national committee proposed that an employers’ delegation be charged with discussing with the workers’ delegation, already designated, questions relating to wages, the organization and regulation of work.

The President of the Council, in his letter of October 3, reminded the national committee that the questions of pensions and the limitation of work were on the agenda of the Chamber and the Senate.

The president of the Committee of Coal Owners replied on October 6 to the national committee. He declined the offer of negotiations, on the grounds that the statutes of the Committee of Coal Owners excluded “from the deliberations of the association the conditions according to which its members see fit to manage the economic, technical, or commercial operation of their enterprise.”

By that date, there were already 32,000 strikers in the Nord and the Pas-de-Calais. The national committee, assembled at the Labor Exchange of Paris on October 7 and 8, voted unanimously for the general strike of the corporation for the morning of the 9th. Its decision had been anticipated by the miners of the Loire and the Center, who had stopped work on the 8th.

On October 19, the strike reached its maximum intensity. It was general in 11 departments; there were 111,266 strikers, belonging to 51 companies.

The strike had fairly serious repercussions. The coal-unloading workers of the ports, who from October 11 had proposed to the miners that they declare a solidarity strike, had stopped work on October 21 at Dunkirk and Calais; on the 23rd at Marseille. They numbered about 5,000, of whom nearly 4,000 were in Dunkirk. In the latter city, on October 22 and 23, disturbances broke out so violent that the Workers’ Union of the Port and the Federation of Workers’ Unions of Dunkirk protested vigorously, declined all responsibility, and invited the workers to observe the greatest calm and to return to work. This advice was followed: the return to work, voted by referendum on the 24th, took place on the 25th.

At the invitation telegraphically addressed to them by the President of the Council, the prefects of the departments affected by the strike invited the Companies to accept arbitration. In the Nord and the Pas-de-Calais, the Companies considered that the proposal for arbitration was premature, but consented to enter into negotiations. Meetings took place between the workers’ and employers’ delegations: for the Pas-de-Calais, at Arras, on October 31; for the Nord, at Lille, on November 2. On the various questions, the solutions of these two meetings were nearly identical: the Companies undertook to “examine with great benevolence the mitigating circumstances” for the reinstatement of strikers; on the suppression of overwork, it was agreed that long shifts would be optional and announced at the latest the day before by posted notices; regarding wage oversight, it was resolved to ask the Mining Administration to communicate periodically statistical information allowing this oversight to be established; finally, the Companies offered an increase in pensions. But agreement could not be reached on the question of wages, which was left to the decision of arbiters whose sentence would be final.

The arbiters chosen met at the Ministry of Public Works on November 3 for the Pas-de-Calais; on the 7th for the Nord. The two sentences concluded that there was no grounds, under the terms of the conventions known as the Arras conventions (that is, calculating the level of wages according to the rise or fall of the selling price of coal), to raise the premiums currently in effect.

This sentence caused keen disappointment in the mining centers of the Nord and the Pas-de-Calais. A congress, held at Lens on November 8, decided to continue the struggle and appointed a new delegation charged with entering into negotiations with the Companies. But these, considering that the arbitration had ended the conflict, rejected the offers of discussion. A second congress, assembled at Lens on November 13, voted the return to work.

In the Loire, it was decided to resort to arbitration to settle the question of premiums. The workers requested and obtained the appointment of a third arbiter, Mr. Ballot-Beaupre, first president of the Court of Cassation. The convention setting the conditions for the return to work, submitted by the prefect to the delegates of the Companies and the workers, was signed on November 21. The Companies recognized the federal committee of miners, undertook to ensure the equitable distribution of work, to attempt the experiment of the double pay slip, to pay fines to the relief funds, and to grant the broadest amnesty. The arbiters were left “the exclusive mission of settling the dispute that has arisen on the question of whether the wage premium should be eliminated, reduced, maintained, or increased,” for a period not to extend beyond June 30, 1904.

On November 22 the arbiters began their work. On the 24th, having been unable to reach an agreement, they called upon the third arbiter. He, after having proceeded, in accordance with the arbitration sentence of January 6, 1900, to a careful study of “the conditions of the mining industry,” rendered, on November 28, a sentence comprising the following three clauses:

1. The wage premium, reduced from 9 to 3% since August 16, 1902, shall, until June 30, 1903, be raised to 5% of each worker’s wage, without being either less than 20 centimes or more than 35 centimes per working day;

2. It shall be 4% for the second half of 1903 with a minimum of 15 centimes and a maximum of 25 centimes;

3. It shall be 3% for the first half of 1904 with a minimum of 10 centimes and a maximum of 20 centimes.

This sentence was accepted by both parties. Work had been resumed, throughout the basin, that very day.