board of arbitration of the existence of strikes and lockouts. It is but natural, however, that these officers should often neglect their duty in this regard, and, indeed, they have no special facilities for ascertaining the existence of disputes, especially in their earliest stages. Since promptness of intervention on the part of the State board is often an essential condition of success, the inability to secure immediate information of the breaking out of a difficulty is evidently a serious drawback.

(4) The fourth conspicuous fact regarding the action of State boards of mediation and arbitration is the extremely small number of cases in which the boards formally arbitrate disputes and render binding decisions. Figures on this subject are presented a few paragraphs below. The comparative fewness of the cases of resort to arbitration by State boards is not indeed surprising. The work of trade boards of arbitration, such as have been described above, also consists primarily in conciliation in leading the parties to an amicable agreement rather than in the rendering of formal and binding decisions.

The value of the results accomplished by State boards of arbitration and mediation must therefore be judged largely by their success as mediators and conciliators. Unfortunately, the reports of the boards are not sufficiently full to enable us to reach a conclusive judgment as to the precise degree of success. The number of cases of intervention by the board is not ordinarily compared with the number of strikes and lockouts in which it has not intervened, nor is there any means of comparing ordinarily the importance of the disputes with which the board has concerned itself with the importance of the others. Finally, it is especially difficult to judge from the reports the precise nature and importance of the results accomplished in the cases in which the board does succeed in getting into touch with the disputants. Often it is recorded that, some time after the intervention of the board, a settlement was reached by the parties more or less in accordance with the lines recommended by the board, or that under the influence of the board the parties were led to hold conferences. In such instances it is always uncertain whether practically the same conferences might not have been held and the same settlements reached, perhaps with a little more delay, in the absence of intervention. Nevertheless, a careful perusal of the reports of the State boards of arbitration leaves no doubt that in many instances, particularly in Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, these boards have been able to bring about conferences and settlements which would either not have taken place at all or which would have been greatly delayed. There can be no question that they have accomplished not a little in the furthering of industrial peace.

For the reasons above indicated, statistics compiled from the reports of individual cases can not be considered to present a really satisfactory view of the work of State boards of arbitration. Nevertheless it will be profitable to notice these statistics in a general way. The Illinois board of arbitration reported a total of 49 cases of its action from 1895 to 1899. In 11 of these cases the board arbitrated and rendered a formal decision of the points at issue. In one instance the employers refused to accept the decision, and in three instances the workingmen refused to do so. There were 22 cases in which the mediation of the board was followed by a settlement between the parties without arbitration, while only 13 cases are reported of unsuccessful mediation (it is possible that other minor cases are unrecorded). In three cases the board, at the request of one of the parties, made a formal investigation, taking testimony, and reported publicly its conclusions as to the merits of the dispute. This last is in all the States a comparatively rare form of action, and is, of course, intended to bring the influence of public opinion to bear in forcing the parties to a settlement on lines which seem to the State board just.

The Indiana labor commission, as the arbitration board in that State is called, intervened in about 50 cases during the 4 years from 1897 to 1900, inclusive. In no case apparently was there formal arbitration. In somewhat more than half of the disputes the mediation of the commission was followed by a satisfactory settlement.

The Massachusetts board of arbitration is in some ways the most successful of all. Its reports show no less than 232 labor disputes in which it has been active during the years from 1894 to 1900. Out of the 54 cases in which the board has rendered formal decisions on the application of both parties for arbitration, there has been only one instance of a refusal to abide by the decision. Most of the cases arbitrated by the Massachusetts board, however, are of a relatively minor character, especially having to do with fixing the details of the wage scales in the boot and shoe industry, where the general basis of the scale is understood and agreed upon by the parties. The mediation of the board in cases not accompanied by arbitration seems to have been successful in 72 disputes, while in 106 disputes no particular results followed from the board's intervention. In 6 cases this board held formal hearings and made a public report of its findings.

The New York board of arbitration and mediation has also been quite active. It has reported 157 cases of intervention during the years 1894 to 1900. Its mediation proved successful in 76 cases, and unsuccessful in 50. In only 5 cases did the parties submit to formal arbitration, while in 18 cases the board felt itself forced to make a formal public hearing and a report of its findings. In 10 of these 18 cases apparently the disputes were settled more or less upon the basis of the findings of the board. In 8 cases in New York local boards of arbitration have been constituted, through the influence of the State board, for the settlement of particular disputes.

According to the reports of the Ohio board of arbitration its mediation has been successful in promoting a settlement of disputes in 35 cases during the years 1893 to 1899, while in 44 cases the efforts of the board proved fruitless. In 6 instances the board made recommendations after a formal investigation, but in only 1 instance did it render a decision by agreement of the parties to arbitrate. In 3 cases, however, local boards of arbitration were constituted for the settlement of disputes.

GOVERNMENTAL ARBITRATION IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

Foreign countries have not followed the example of the United States in establishing central governmental boards of arbitration and conciliation. In two of the three Australasian colonies, to be sure, we have such general boards, but their nature and powers are entirely different from those of the boards in the United States. Doubtless it is felt in the larger countries that a single central board could do little to settle labor disputes throughout an entire country with a population many times as great as that of most of the American States. On the other hand, several European countries, as well as some of the English colonies, have passed statutes for the voluntary establishment of local boards of arbitration and mediation. In most cases these statutes appear to have accomplished little, doubtless for the reasons already set forth as explaining the ineffectiveness of American laws providing for voluntary local boards. As far back as 1867 Great Britain passed a statute permitting masters and workingmen to establish temporary or permanent boards, and making the awards of these boards legally enforceable. Practically no results followed from the operation of this statute. In 1896, however, a law was passed which, in addition to providing for the registration of boards voluntarily formed, also authorized the labor department of the board of trade to inquire into the causes of disputes, or to endeavor to influence the parties to meet together and to effect an amicable settlement, or to submit to arbitration by boards created for that particular purpose by the agreement of the par, ties. The labor department may also, at the request of either party to a disputeappoint a person or persons to act as conciliators, and on the application of both parties it may appoint an arbitrator. This law permits the department to exercise a considerable degree of initiative in conciliation and in endeavoring to persuade the parties to disputes to submit them to arbitration. The decisions of arbitrators are not legally enforceable. It appears that, from 1896 to 1899, 26 disputes were settled by concilia

tion and 15 by arbitration under the influence of this act. In only 7 cases was there a failure to effect a settlement.

New South Wales in 1899, and the Dominion of Canada in 1900, passed acts almost identical with that adopted by Great Britain in 1896. The operation of these acts up to the present time has been relatively unimportant in both countries. New South Wales had provided earlier (by act of 1891) for the establishment of councils of conciliation in each of 5 industrial districts into which the colony was divided. These were to be permanent bodies with authority both to conciliate and arbitrate. Apparently, however, almost no use was made of this earlier statute. In South Australia a law of 1894 provides for the voluntary creation of local boards of conciliation and arbitration. These boards were to be of a permanent character when once established, and were to have power, in case the parties to a dispute agreed to arbitrate, to render enforceable decisions. This law also provides for a state board of conciliation, and the governor of the colony, on the recommendation of this board, may compel the parties to any dispute, which seems to affect the general welfare, to submit to arbitration by the board. Very effective provisions, closely similar to those under the compulsory-arbitration laws of New Zealand and Western Australia, exist for the enforcement of decisions in cases where binding decisions are rendered. Nevertheless, there seems to have been little of importance accomplished under the law.

France early in the century (1806) established tribunals, known as conseils de prud'hommes, or councils of experts, which, however, by no means correspond to arbitration boards. Their functions have to do with the settlement of disputes between individual workmen and their employers, such as might often be brought before law courts, and not with the settlement of general labor disputes. These councils of experts are created for particular localities and industries. There must be an equal number of members representing each side, elected by vote of all the employers or employees concerned. The councils are permanent bodies, the term of service of members being 6 years. The boards have authority to render binding decisions regarding minor disputes, but a considerable proportion of their work consists in leading the parties to voluntary agreement. It is reported that in 1897 these various boards had to do with no less than 67,000 disputes.

Belgium and some of the Swiss cantons have bodies for the settlement of minor disputes very similar to the conseils de prud'hommes in France.

France has more recently (1892) authorized the establishment of boards of arbitration and conciliation for the settlement of industrial disputes of a more important character. The law is quite similar to those in some of our own States, providing that the parties to a dispute may, through a justice of the peace, establish boards of conciliation. If these committees of conciliation can not agree, each side may select an arbitrator, and if these still can not agree, an umpire may be appointed by a judge of one of the higher courts. Justices of the peace are directed to take the initiative, if necessary, in persuading the parties to follow this procedure. Decisions of arbitrators are not legally enforceable. It appears that this law, perhaps because of the general disposition of the French people to resort to governmental action, has been very frequently applied in the settlement of disputes. In most cases, the procedure has been initiated only after strikes and lockouts have actually occurred. From 1893 to 1898, inclusive, there were 2,630 strikes reported in France, while in no less than 581 of these cases efforts at settlement were made under the law of 1892. In only 248 of these 581, however, was a satisfactory adjustment brought about by the application of the law.

Belgium, in 1886, provided for the establishment of permanent councils of industry and labor in different industries and localities, but it appears that very little has been accomplished by them in the settlement of labor disputes.

In Germany a law of 1890 permits local public authorities to establish tribunals of arbitration and conciliation, the statute regulating their procedure in a general way. The president of such a tribunal is to be appointed by the local authorities, and there are to be an equal number of "associates" selected by employers and by employees, respectively, in the locality or industry concerned. These boards have power to render binding decisions as regards minor matters growing out of the interpretation of the labor contract. Indeed, a large proportion of their work apparently is similar to that of the French councils of experts. These tribunals also, however, have power to act as boards of conciliation when requested by the parties to a dispute jointly. Formal decisions may be rendered if the parties can not be led to agree, but these decisions are not binding.

VI. COMPULSORY ARBITRATION.

The wide-reaching influence of the greater labor disputes upon the general public interests has led many persons to advocate compulsory arbitration, at least as regards certain classes of strikes and lockouts. As yet, however, legislation establishing compulsory arbitration has been enacted only in the Australasian colonies of New Zealand and Western Australia. In both of these colonies the system has been made very wide reaching. The New Zealand act dates from 1894, while that of Western Australia was only passed in 1900. The parliament of New South Wales also had under consideration in 1900 a bill very similar to the New Zealand law, and it was strongly advocated by the attorney-general of the colony and by many others, although it failed of passage. The experience in Western Australia, whose act is almost identical with that of New Zealand, has, of course, been so short as to afford few lessons. The New Zealand experience, however, deserves more careful consideration.

The New Zealand law authorizes the formation of organizations of employers and organizations of employees, or the registration of existing organizations. By registration the organizations become corporate bodies with power to sue and to be sued, and to make enforceable agreements regarding the conditions of labor or other matters. The provisions of the law regarding trade agreements are especially significant. Such agreements, if made between duly organized unions and either individual employers or associations of employers, are enforceable before the court of arbitration, subject to the same penalties as infringement of the decisions of that court.

The law makes provisions for conciliation by local boards and for the authoritative decision of disputes by a central court of arbitration. The colony is divided into several districts, in each of which there is a board of conciliation of 4 or 6 members, half elected by the employers' unions in the district and half by the registered labor unions. Unorganized workingmen and employers have no share in the election; and indeed unorganized workingmen are not subject to the jurisdiction of the boards at all. The central court of arbitration consists of 3 members appointed by the governor, 1 from candidates recommended by organizations of employers, and 1 from among those recommended by organized workingmen, while the third is a judge of the supreme court of the colony.

Any employer or association of employers may apply to a board of conciliation as regards a dispute with duly organized employees, and organized employees have the same right. The boards of conciliation may compel both parties to appear, and have ample power to summon witnesses. Their chief function is to ascertain facts and to endeavor to reconcile the disputants. They can not render binding decisions. If no settlement is reached the board makes a recommendation in writing, and either party may appeal to the court of arbitration for a further investigation and for a binding decision.

If the decision of the court has regard to an organization of employers or employees, all persons who are members thereof at the time, or who thereafter become members, are bound by the decision. Any employer or any organization or member of an organization violating the terms of an award is subject to penalty, the amount to be determined by the court of arbitration. The penalty which may be assessed against any person or organization shall not exceed £500, nor shall the aggregate of penalties against all parties exceed the same amount.

Under this law the New Zealand boards of conciliation and court of arbitration have actually exercised a very powerful influence during the past few years upon the conditions of labor. About 100 cases had been brought before these authorities up to March 31, 1900. It appears that comparatively few settlements have been made by the boards of conciliation, the possibility of appeal to a higher authority leading the parties to give but little attention to the lower boards. In some instances, of course, amicable agreements have been effected through the boards of conciliation or the court of arbitration, but in a very large number of instances binding decisions have been rendered. Many of these decisions are highly elaborate, fixing the general wage scales, hours of labor, and working rules for all organized workingmen in a trade in a given locality, and in a few instances decisions have related to a trade throughout a colony.

Opinions as to the advantages and disadvantages of the law differ greatly, and it is practically impossible to form a conclusive judgment. Workingmen apparently have been very generally satisfied. They are to a large extent organized and in a position to take advantage of the measure. A very large majority of the cases have been initiated by the laborers, and a large majority of the decisions also have resulted to their advantage. It is, however, to be especially noted that the past few years have been years of great prosperity in New Zealand and of advancing prices. Whether the workingmen will be equally satisfied when conditions are less prosperous and when, perhaps, reductions in wages will be made, is more doubtful. Employers have, in many instances, expressed themselves against the arbitration system, but apparently it has gradually increased in favor with them. The fear expressed by the opponents of the law at the outset that it would drive capital out of the colony and close up industries seems not to have been justified; although it is impossible to know whether the prosperity of recent years has been actually enhanced by the system or whether it has been due entirely to other causes, and, perhaps, even in despite of a retarding influence from compulsory arbitration.

It is also to be remembered in judging the significance of the New Zealand experience that the entire population of the colony is only about 800,000 persons, and that its industries are chiefly agricultural, in which labor organizations and labor disputes are not likely to be found in any country. Furthermore, the newness of the country and the relatively small population, as compared with the natural resources, makes the average per capita wealth higher than in most cases, and narrows the gap between the employing and the working classes.

The representatives of employers and workingmen, who have testified before the Industrial Commission, have almost uniformly opposed compulsory arbitration. Their arguments are more fully set forth in the digests of testimony of various reports of the commission. (See volume 4, p. 149; volume 7, p. 127; volume 12, p. clvii.) Several State boards of arbitration in the United States have also, from time to time, expressed their opinion against compulsory arbitration as a general principle, and one or two of the boards have specifically opposed it in any form. These boards in New York, Indiana, Ohio, and Illinois, however, have favored compulsion in certain cases, especially as to disputes which, on account of their bitterness and violence, endanger life and the public welfare, or which, like those on great railroad systems or on street railways, entail great inconvenience and loss upon the