An instance of what happened in Highland, New York, will illustrate the power of leadership on the part of a camp leader and the coöperative instinct of a group of city boys who have considerable familiarity with the principles of strikes, lockouts, picket duty, and street-corner oratory. The boys were being paid one and one-half cents a quart for currant picking. In years past this had been the usual rate. They could, on the average, pick about 40 quarts a day, which brought them $3.60 a week, assuming that they worked for six days in the week and there was no rain or other interruptions. Meanwhile each boy's proportion of the board at camp amounted to about $3.50 a week. At this point a combination of training in school debating, listening to speeches of industrial disturbers, and a knowledge of trade-union methods came into play, for these boys gathered together and determined to demand two cents a quart. They held a meeting and voted to strike for two cents. They marched around the berry-storage houses, each wearing an empty berry basket as a cap, on which was marked "two cents" and which was decorated more or less artistically with bunches of currants. A meeting of all farmers of the district was called by the general camp supervisor of the district. The boys had presented their arguments to the individual camp leaders, and in turn the supervisor presented them to the farmers. The farmers, in turn, presented their difficulties. They said they could not afford to pay more; talked about middlemen, commission-men, express rates, greater cost of baskets and crates, mortgage on the farm, and everything, in fact, except the federal income tax. But the boys won out, and the meeting resulted in a new price never before paid for picking currants. And the boys who, up to then, had been able to pick only 40 quarts a day, were able to gather many more after the advance in rate, picking 60 quarts a day instead of 40 quarts. There are people who can read into this short story an economic principle. It is absolutely necessary to have a clear understanding between the boy-camp group, through its leader or the organization sending the camp, and the individual farmer or the group of farmers employing the boys, as to fundamental points of remuneration, type of work expected, length and permanency of service. The boy-camp-group problem is wholly different from the problem of the individual boy who works for an individual farmer and has no established relations with any camp. The latter is a contract relationship between the boy and the farmer. The farmer usually hires the boy by the month for general farm work, and the duties incident to such a job are familiar to everyone. The hours may be long or short, the work hard or easy, the food good or bad, the boy's room clean or unsanitary; but there is nothing unusual in this problem.