still the "arbitration idea" has become more generally recognized by statesmen and diplomats than ever before. The permanent international laws of arbitration, proposed by the Hague Conference of 1899, came into existence with the ratification of the conference's action in 1900, and the subsequent appointment of members by the fifteen signatory powers. On April 14, 1901, Dr. W. H. de Beaufort, the Netherlands minister for foreign affairs, and ex-officio president of the new tribunal, notified the powers that the court had been duly constituted. The heads of the delegations named by the fifteen countries were announced as follows: Austria-Hungary, Count Frederic Schonborn, president of the imperial royal court of justice; Belgium, M. Beernaert, former prime minister; Denmark, Professor L. Matzeen, president of the Copenhagen University and president of the Landsthing; France, M. Léon Bourgeois, ex-minister for foreign affairs; Germany, Herr Hingner, president of the imperial high court at Leipzig; Great Britain, Lord Pauncefote, ambassador at Washington; Italy, Count Constantin Nigra, ambassador at Vienna; Japan, Mr. I. Montono, minister plenipotentiary at Brussels; Netherlands, Professor T. M. C. Assen, formerly professor of international law at the University of Amsterdam; Portugal, Count de Macedo, minister to Spain and ex-minister of marine and colonies; Roumania, M. Theodore Rosetti, ex-president of the high court of cassation; Russia, M. Pobiedonostzeff, procurator of the holy synod; Spain, Duke of Tetuan, ex-minister for foreign affairs; Sweden and Norway, Mr. S. R. D. K. d'Olivecrona, ex-associate justice of the supreme court of Sweden; the United States, ex-President Benjamin Harrison (died March 13, 1901). The other American members of the court named were Melville W. Fuller, chief justice of the Supreme Court; John W. Griggs, at that time United States attorney-general, and George Gray, exsenator from Delaware and a judge of the United States Circuit Court. An Administrative Council, permanent at the Hague, comprises the Netherlands minister for foreign affairs as president, and the diplomatic representatives of all the signatory powers at that capital. The Council will have the functions of an international bureau, acting as a medium of communication between the powers, and employing the requisite minor officers necessary for carrying on the routine work of the tribunal.

The only appeal made to the court during 1901, that lodged by the representatives of the Boer republics in Europe, was disposed of by the Administrative Council without submission to the court. The Boers urged that the court take action on the ground that Great Britain had continuously violated the rules of civilized warfare. The Administration Council, replying on October 1, declared unanimously that it was without power to initiate an arbitration between the Boer republics and Great Britain. The international court, it was pointed out, is not a court higher than all governments, empowered to summon nations to its bar for judgment, but is a body having power to act only when both parties voluntarily and formally agree to submit their difference to it. Suggestions were made at two other times during the year for the submission of international questions to the court, but neither of them were acted upon. One was the proposal of Mr. W. W. Rockhill, special commissioner of the United States to China, that the question of the amount and the equitable division of the Chinese indemnity be submitted to the court. Although Japan apparently favored the proposition, the other nations would not agree to it, and nothing was done about it. Later in the year it seemed possible that the court might be called upon to give a decision in two minor disputes between France and England. Arrangements had already been made, however, by the two governments to submit the matter to Baron Lambermont, the Belgian minister for foreign affairs; and although there was some protest that this action was irregular, and that the powers, being signatories of the Hague conventions, should have laid their disputes before the permanent international court, no change was made.

Most of the sessions of the Pan-American conference (see MEXICO) in the cny of Mexico, between its organization on October 26, 1901, and December 31, following, were consumed in discussing a plan of international arbitration similar to that adopted at the Hague conference, to be binding on the various countries of North, South and Central America. On June 17, 1901, the United States and Chilian Claims Commission, completed its work after having heard arguments on seventeen cases against Chile and two against the United States. The Commission allowed $28,062 on a total of $3,400,000 American claims. One of the Chilian claims for $3,000 was allowed, and the others dismissed. Provision was made in 1901 for the submission of several other South American disputes to the arbitration of commissions or individuals. A commission began in August to examine into the demarkation of the boundary line between Brazil and Argentina; on November 6 a treaty was signed between Great Britain and Brazil, by which the King of Italy was made arbitrator in the boundary dispute between British Guiana and Brazil; a protocol was signed at Le Paz on November 26, submitting to arbitration the pending questions between the two republics of Bolivia and Peru, and the differences between Argentina and

Chile, which threatened to precipitate hostilities, were referred to the same British commission appointed in 1896 to settle other disputes.

In November a British-Italian commission, appointed to settle the boundary dispute between the Italian colony of Eritrea and the Soudan, began its sittings at Rome. Efforts were made by the Siamese government several times during the year to secure the consent of France to submit to arbitration some of the questions involved in the territorial dispute between Siam and French Indo-China (see SIAM). The proposal made by Siam, of the Czar of Russia as an arbitrator, was rejected by France; the Russian minister at Bangkok also opposed the plan, allowing it to be understood that the Czar would decline to act.

The seventh annual conference on international arbitration met at Lake Mohonk, New York, in the first week of June, 1901. After a discussion of many questions relating to war, and taking a very optimistic view of most of them, the conference decided to use every influence to get nations into the habit of using the newly established international court of arbitration. Much stress was laid on the point that, if the powers should get into the way of using it as a means of settling their minor disputes, they would be more likely to have recourse to it than to war when more serious differences should arise.

ARBITRATION, LABOR. The strike (See articles STRIKES and STEEL TRUST STRIKE) of most of the members of the Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Plate Workers who were employed by the United States Steel Corporation, and the breaking by the Amalgamated Association of contracts which it had signed with various of the constituent companies of the Steel Trust, raised anew in the United States the discussion as to the best means of averting such controversies between labor and capital, and especially as to the inherent but generally overlooked rights of the public in the premises. It was suggested in the first place that labor organizations ought to be duly incorporated concerns, with power to sue and be sued as such, thus giving them a corporate standing before the courts and permitting employers to obtain redress from the unions when contracts were broken without a just cause, instead of compelling the employers, as at present, either to suffer an absolute loss or fruitlessly sue the individual members of the labor organizations. In the second place, a considerable portion of the press considered that in strikes of such magnitude as that of the Amalgamated Association, where the public suffered heavily through the wholesale suspension of production, boards of arbitration should be appointed by State or federal authority, with power to examine and render a decision upon the facts and merits of the case. If the board was an able and impartial one, its decision when made public, even if the decision was not held binding upon either party, would have great weight in directing public sentiment and would thus tend to force concessions from one or both of the parties to the dispute. A portion of the more radical press, however, thought that the arbitrators' award should be made binding for a time specified by law, and that until the expiration of this time a resumption of work should be forbidden except upon full compliance with the board's findings. In objection to this plan it was pointed out that if the parties who alone knew intimately the condition and complications prevailing, and who penalized themselves heavily by continued misunderstanding, were still unable to arrive at a satisfactory agreement, there was but little chance that outsiders could do so. Moreover, employers could not be expected, merely upon an ex cathedra ruling, to continue to run their plants at a loss, or if they thought that under it they would be subjected to continual annoyance, nor would employees remain at work if they believed themselves underpaid or overworked or unjustly treated. Speaking for organized labor in this connection, President Mitchell, of the Anthracite coal miners, said in Scranton in October, 1901, that compulsory arbitration of necessity implied a resort to some judicial tribunal; that the laboring men believed the judiciary to be prejudiced on the side of vested interests which they were constantly engaged in conserving and defending; and that under these circumstances the decision of a tribunal of arbitration would work to the prejudice of the workingmen. On the other side, from the standpoint of unorganized labor, it was pointed out that compulsory arbitration would be equally disadvantageous; for if the law did not actually require it, yet the effect, in practice, would be that only labor unions, as such, would have a standing before the court. Unorganized labor, therefore, would be, as it were, outside the pale of the law, and consequently unorganized laborers would either be forced against their will to join a union or else to remain unprotected in their disputes with their employers. As instancing both this point and also the generally unsatisfactory working of compulsory arbitration, the effect of the arbitration laws in New Zealand was frequently adduced. But however the action of this court may appear to outsiders, it should be added that its workings seem fully endorsed by those most immediately concerned. A special commissioner appointed by the government of New South Wales

to examine the system reported very favorably upon it in 1901, as follows: "The act has prevented strikes of any magnitude, and has, on the whole, brought about a better relation between employers and employees than would exist if there were no act. It has enabled the increase of wages and the other conditions favorable to the workmen, which, in the circumstances, they are entitled to, to be settled without that friction and bitterness of feeling which otherwise might have existed; it has enabled employers, for a time at least, to know with certainty the conditions of production, and therefore to make contracts with the knowledge that they would be able to fulfill them; and indirectly it has tended to a more harmonious feeling among the people generally. A very large majority of the employers of labor whom I interviewed are in favor of the principle of the act." The results of four years' operation of the New Zealand law appear in the following table:

But whether or not the New Zealand method of preventing labor disputes was to be finally adjudged as the best, it was generally recognized that arbitration in some form was becoming necessary to the United States, and various efforts were made during the year to solve the problem, at least in part, both by State governments and by private individuals or associations. Some interesting State laws passed in 1901 and bearing on this subject will be found in the article LABOR (paragraph Labor Legislation). The most notable unofficial movement looking toward the possible settlement of labor disputes will be found in the following paragraph dealing with the National Civic Federation.

Organization of the National Civic Federation.-A meeting of the National Civic Federation was held in New York on May 7 and 8, 1901, to consider the report of the national committee on conciliation and arbitration created at a convention held in Chicago in December, 1900. A large number of prominent representatives of labor and capital were present. The scope of the committee was defined as follows: "The committee will secure the fullest possible information as to methods and measures of arbitration in vogue throughout the world; it will put itself into communication with all representative bodies of men and employees, inform them as to its purpose, offer its services and secure their cooperation and good-will if possible, asking particularly of general organizations that whenever any specific questions are arising where there is no established method of joint consideration and settlement existing, the national committee be informed, in order that it may use its influence before trouble occurs. This method may be extended to local organizations when the committee may find itself sufficiently equipped to do so." A second meeting of the federation was called in December, in New York City, to consider the same subject. At this meeting the following board of arbitration was appointed:-Capitalists: Marcus A. Hanna, United States senator; James A. Chambers, president National Association of Store Manufacturers; S. R. Callaway, president American Locomotive Company; Lewis Nixon, president and owner of the Crescent Shipyard, Elizabethport, N. J.; Charles M. Schwab, president United States Steel Corporation; H. H. Vreeland, president Metropolitan Street Railway Company; Charles A. Moore, president of the Machine Manufacturing Company; John D. Rockefeller, Jr.; E. P. Ripley, president Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fé Railway; Julius Kruttschnitt, general manager Southern Pacific Railway; Marcus M. Marks, president National Association of Clothing Manufacturers. Labor Leaders: Samuel Gompers, president American Federation of Labor; John Mitchell, president United Mine Workers' Association; Frank P. Sargent, grand master Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen; Theodore J. Shaffer, president Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel, and Tin Workers; James Duncan, secretary Granite Cutters' Union; Daniel J. Keefe, president International Association of Machinists; Martin Fox, president Iron Moulders' National Union; James M. Lynch, president International Typographical Union; Edward E. Clarke, grand master Brotherhood of Railway Conductors; Henry White, secretary Garment Workers of America; Walter MacArthur, editor Coast Seamen's Journal, San Francisco. For the General Public: Ex-President Grover Cleveland, Archbishop John Ireland, Bishop Henry C. Potter, Mr. Charles Francis Adams, Hon. Cornelius N. Bliss, President Charles W. Eliot, Mr. Franklin MacVeagh (Chicago), ex-Con

troller James H. Eckels, Colonel John J. McCook (New York), Mr. John G. Milburn (Buffalo), Mr. Charles J. Bonaparte (Baltimore); Hon. Oscar S. Strauss, chairman of the conference; Mr. Ralph M. Easley, secretary ex-officio. A subcommittee of the general committee, consisting of II members, was also established, to be known as a labor court. Of this committee Senator Hanna was appointed chairman. The official statement of the plan and scope of this committee is as follows: "This committee shall be known as the industrial department of the National Civic Federation. The scope and province of this department shall be to do what may seem best to promote industrial peace, to be helpful in establishing rightful relations between employers and workers, by its good offices to endeavor to obviate and prevent strikes and lockouts, to aid in renewing industrial relations where a rupture has occurred. That at all times representatives of employers and workers, organized or unorganized, should confer for the adjustment of differences or disputes before an acute stage is reached, and thus avoid or minimize the number of strikes or lockouts. That mutual agreement as to conditions under which labor shall be performed should be encouraged, and that when agreements are made, the terms thereof should be faithfully adhered to, in both letter and spirit, by both parties. This department, either as a whole or as a sub-committee by it appointed, shall, when requested, act as a forum to adjust and decide upon questions at issue between workers and their employers, provided in its opinion the subject is one of sufficient importance. This department will not consider abstract industrial problems. This department assumes no power of arbitration unless such powers be conferred by both parties to a dispute. This department shall adopt a set of by-laws for its government."

Report of Industrial Commission on Arbitration.-The United States Industrial Commission, in October, 1901, published a summary of its forthcoming report on labor organizations, labor disputes, and arbitration. The report was prepared by Mr. Charles E. Edgerton and Mr. E. Dana Durand. The introduction to the summary presents a general view of the subject of arbitration. The two chief classes of industrial difference which may be settled by peaceful methods are: (1) those which concern the interpretation of the existing terms of employment; (2) those which are concerned with the terms of future employment and which are usually of greater importance. The most common method of settling such disputes does not involve a resort to arbitration or conciliation, and is known as collective bargaining. or peaceful negotiations between organized labor and the employers, usually carried on by "joint conferences " and confirmed by written agreements. When for any reason the method of collective bargaining cannot be relied on to settle the dispute, resort is naturally had to “conciliation," which is a term applied to the disinterested action of a third party in bringing together the two parties to the dispute for a friendly discussion and possible settlement of differences. When no agreement can be reached by this method, the next recourse is to the judgment of a third party, the arbitrator, who hears both sides and gives his decision, which the parties to the dispute may either reject or accept where the arbitration is voluntary, or which may be enforced by the courts where compulsory arbitration is the rule. A variation of this method is found in the decision of particular issues in dispute by boards composed of an equal number of representatives of employees and employers, who are not immediately concerned in the dispute and are therefore largely free from personal bias or animosity. This method is called "arbitration within the trade." In cases where an open breach has occurred, "mediation" is resorted to. This is the intervention of outside parties presumably acting in the public interest to bring about a conference and a resort to some means of peaceful settlement. "The most important results which have been accomplished by collective bargaining, conciliation, and arbitration have been in preventing cessation of employment. Differences which do not lead to open rupture are less conspicuous to the general public than prolonged strikes and lockouts, and the enormous importance of those settlements which are effected without any cessation of labor is often overlooked." The other topics treated in the report are as follows: I. Local collective bargaining; arbitration and conciliation, largely of an informal character. II. Formal systems of collective bargaining and agreements, between central organizations of employers and employees: (a) methods of adopting agreements by joint boards and committees; (b) terms of joint agreement as to time of duration, regulation of apprenticeship, rights of unionists, shop committees, and working cards, exclusive employment of unionists, and the union rate of wages. III. Local arbitration, conciliation, and mediation; (a) method of selecting arbitrators; (b) method of procedure in arbitration proceedings; (c) policy of disputants in regard to wages or employment pending decision and methods of carrying out decision. IV. Formal national systems of collective bargaining and arbitration; (a) extent of collective bargaining systems which are general in strong unions, by methods of organization and procedure in collective bargaining,

either by customing practice or agreement,-(1) methods of selection and number of representatives on each side, the method being usually representative and the number of workingmen necessarily greater; (2) methods of discussion and agreement usually by joint session with reference of disputed points to separate sessions; (b) nature of agreements as conditions of labor,—(1) either uniform or less frequently varying with special conditions, (2) involving sliding scale or fixed wage, (3) nature of recognition of union (a) arbitration as to specific disputes, of a union and local character where provision is made for settlement within the terms of the general agreement. V. Collective bargaining and trade arbitration in Great Britain, where there were in 1899, 53 regularly established joint boards or conferences in operation, and where in 1899 disputes affecting 379,285 persons were settled. VI. Governmental arbitration in the United States; (a) State arbitration organized in 14 States; (b) local boards of arbitration and conciliation; (c) United States statutes, 1888 and 1898, the latter providing for reference of disputes on interstate transportation lines to the chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission and the United States commissioner of labor, who may appoint a third arbitrator, their decision being binding; (d) working of State boards of arbitration, which is stated to be very imperfect, the boards in only a few States being active, largely because of a general ignorance of their existence. VII. Governmental arbitration in foreign countries, as yet of little consequence outside of Australia and New Zealand, where its operation is stated to be generally satisfactory.

ARBUTHNOT, FORSTER FITZGERALD, English Orientalist, died in London, May 25, 1901. He was born in England in 1833, and was for many years a member of the Council of the Royal Asiatic Society. It was at his suggestion and with the help he gave that the society's annual publication of Oriental translations was revived in 1888. Mr. Arbuthnot was editor of the series until shortly before his death, and had published under his own name a number of works, one on Arabic literature, and another on The Credibility of our Accepted Chronology.

ARCHEOLOGY. I. Babylonia.-Though exploration and excavation have continued in Babylonia during 1901, as in previous years, the published results are practically confined to the German expedition under Dr. Koldewey at Babylon, whose frequent reports are published in the monthly Mitteilungen der deutschen Orientgesellschaft. The work has been carried on at three of the great mounds which cover the site of the ancient city, El Kasr, Tell Amrân and near the modern village of Jumjuma. El Kasr covers the palace of Nebuchadnezzar and the complete excavation will consume a long time, but gratifying results have already been obtained. Stone was scarce in Babylon and the alabaster reliefs which adorned the palaces of Nineveh were replaced by enameled bricks, such as were already known from the excavations of Dieulafoy at Susa. From the mass of fragments which had once lined the inner wall the figure of a superb lion has been completed, 1.95 m. long and 0.90 m. high. The background is dark blue, with yellow stripes and white rosettes, while the lion himself is white. Of the palace, a large court has been discovered, richly decorated with glazed bricks, showing flowers and tendrils, and others having the outlines marked by glass threads, while the body of the design is filled with colored enamel. More important still is the latest report, according to which Koldewey has found the actual throne-room of the king, a huge hall 18 m. broad and 52 m. long, with a niche at one end for the throne, and at the other the great entrance door. The decorations are said to be well preserved, and of the greatest importance for the history of art. From the outside of the palace ran the great street of processions in honor of Marduk (or Merodach), which was rebuilt by Nebuchadnezzar, as the inscriptions on many of the limestone paving-slabs declare. It was about 25 m. wide, and was over a quarter of a mile in length, though its entire course is not yet cleared. The building of this street, Aibur-shabu, from the gate of the palace to the temple of Ishtar (of which the site has also been determined), is mentioned in an inscription of Nebuchadnezzar, now in England. In the mound Amrân, it has been necessary to dig deep in order to reach important results, but the toil has been rewarded by reaching the famous Esagila, a Babylonian Pantheon, where around the temple of the great god of Babylon, Marduk, were grouped the shrines of many lesser deities. New material for a railroad, so necessary for the removal of rubbish from deeply buried ruins, has arrived and the work at this great sanctuary is to be pushed with vigor. At the third point, near Jumjuma, the most important discovery seems to have been a mass of inscribed clay tablets, containing letters, contracts, dictionaries and hymns, all of much importance for the language and religion of Babylonia, and for the better understanding of the Old Testament. Among the smaller objects found is a tablet containing a representation of the Babylonian Hades, with an inscription of some length, and a tablet with the hymns or prayers sung when Marduk returned from a solemn procession to his temple. In general, the excavations have yielded a comparatively small number of small