disinterested work of this kind done by citizens of good standing and influence in their own communities may not be so immediately conspicuous as in some other kinds of public effort, but such efforts are nevertheless intelligently directed, and if continued must necessarily be productive of good results to the whole Commonwealth. The Board has taken cognizance during the year of controversies involving persons whose yearly earnings are estimated at $1,036,360. The total yearly earnings in the factories, etc., involved, under ordinary conditions, are estimated at $3,840,800. The expense of maintaining the State Board for the year has been $10,397.87. REPORTS OF CASES. WILLIAMS, CLARK & CO.-LYNN. Early in December, 1896, an application was received from the employees of Williams, Clark & Co., of Lynn, shoe manufacturers, in the departments of heeling and beating-out. The action of the Board is sufficiently set forth in a decision rendered on January 25, as follows: In the matter of the application of employees of Williams, Clark & Co., of Lynn. PETITION FILED DECEMBER 2, 1896. HEARING DECEMBER 17. In this case the employees of Williams, Clark & Co., of Lynn, shoe manufacturers, have made application to this Board, as prescribed by law, asking the Board to investigate certain reductions in the price of labor in their factory, and advise the parties "what, if anything, ought to be done or submitted to by either or both," to adjust the dispute. There has been no strike. In fact, these proceedings have been resorted to in order to prevent strikes in the city and to substitute a more rational and business-like method of settling such disputes. Immediately upon the filing of the application, it was laid by the Board before the firm in a personal interview, and they were asked to join in the application so that both parties might be bound by the decision. After due deliberation, the firm declined to join in the application, for the reason as stated by them, that they could not afford to pay more than the wages indicated by their reduced list. Upon being questioned more particularly, they said that their meaning was, that, in view of the wages paid by their competitors, they could not afford to pay more than the reduced list. The Board proceeded to give notice in the newspapers, as well as a special notice to the firm, of a public hearing which was had at the City Hall in Lynn, on December 17. The firm did not appear at the hearing, but most of the workmen immediately interested, and some from other factories, were present and gave their testimony. An investigation was then made by the Board, with the aid of sworn expert assistants, into the prices and conditions prevailing in other factories which were supposed to be competitors of Williams, Clark & Co. Ten factories were named by the firm as competitors, and others were added to the list either by suggestion of the Board or of the representatives of the workmen. The firm admitted that they had no sufficient knowledge of the prices paid by their competitors, but such information has been obtained by the Board in all but two of the factories on the list. Throughout these proceedings the firm, although for reasons of their own not willing to join, technically |