the carrying out of the prime function of the national unions--the
nationalization of membership. The leaders in the trade-union movement
of this period were interested chiefly in strengthening the relations of
the local unions. They saw, therefore, in the local benefits a hindrance
to the accomplishment of their aims. By 1860 it had become a fairly well
accepted doctrine that a trade union should not attempt to develop
beneficiary functions. It was argued that since the expense of
maintaining benefits made the dues of members higher, persons who might
otherwise join the unions were prevented from doing so. The leaders of
the Iron Molders for years opposed the introduction of beneficiary
features on the ground that the development of such activities was
likely to interfere with the trade functions of the organization. In
1866 President Sylvis for this reason vigorously opposed the
introduction of a national sick benefit.[2] As late as 1895 the veteran
president of the Iron Molders--Mr. Martin Fox--counselled the Union
against developing an extensive beneficiary system.[3] The same views
were entertained by the leaders of the other more important unions of
the period.

[Footnote 2: Iron Molders' Journal, Vol. I, p. 309.]

[Footnote 3: Proceedings of the Twentieth Session, 1895, Report of the
President.]

Shortly after the close of the Civil War the rapid growth of mutual
insurance companies attracted the attention of many trade unionists. The
formation of insurance associations under the auspices of the national
unions with a membership limited to the members of the unions was
discussed in the most important organizations of the day. In many of
them voluntary associations of one kind and another were inaugurated.