to accept the board's award had been fines. Thus far only employers had been fined. It was found impracticable now to fine the workers. Even impounding and selling their goods and chattels failed. Then, the coal miners asked for increased wages. They were turned down and went on strike. This was after Parliament had strengthened the law after the packing strike had shown its weakness when applied to the workers. Fines being impossible, jail sentences were imposed without breaking the strike. This seemed to show the impossibility of forcing work by the method of compulsory arbitration, and the system became obsolete, though the law was not repealed.

But it is now being revived, especially in South Australia. Since the disastrous shipping strike of last summer in South Australia it has been decided that some legislation was necessary in order to substitute arbitration for the strike as a method for settling labor disputes. A new industrial code was drawn up and presented in the State Parliament last November, which gives far more power to the old Arbitration Court that had been funetioning for the last eighteen years. This new code declares:

66

'Any association of employers or employees, which for the purpose of enforcing compliance with the demands of any employers and employees, orders its members to refuse to offer or accept employment, or to continue to employ or be employed, shall be deemed to do an act in the nature of a strike actually, according to the nature of the case, whether a lockout or strike actually takes place or not. The maximum penalty for lockouts or strikes is fixed at ($2,500)." Strikes are thus pronounced illegal. The machinery or the code is elaborated in 375 clauses. A new industrial court is established called "Board of Industry." It consists of a judge of the Supreme Court, acting as president, and four commissioners, two each for the employers and the employees. This board can declare what is a living wage; can schedule and group industries under certain tribunals. It can be convoked at the request of the Minister of Industry, or of as many as twenty employers or twenty employees or an association with as many members. It can take evidence and its awards are enforceable for three years. It is these experiments in New Zealand and South Australia where Socialism and labor have so dominant a role that we Americans can study with profit.

Of the American moves in the same direction only these have -red notoriety: the Congress railroad bills (Cummins-Esch), the Asas Arbitration Law and the Colorado Strike Law.

The Colorado Strike Law is the least drastic. It merely vides that there must be no strike for thirty days after notice as been given. It is a mere palliative. The Kansas Arbitration Law was the work of Governor Allen. It created a court of ustrial relations which has the power to fix a minimum wage makes the state the adjudicator of labor disputes, giving it right to inquire into industrial conditions and the right to thange these conditions where it finds them unsuitable. The court sists of three judges appointed for three years by the governor at a salary of $5,000. It takes over the duties of the Public Service Commission. It has supervision of food products, clothz mining, fuel and transportations. It is illegal to suspend nufacture or transportation of any of these necessities. In e of a labor controversy in these fields the court shall investizee and amend or change contracts and make awards. In case her party of the dispute refuse to obey the court's award the ate may take over and operate the industry. Collective bargainng is recognized but no interference with non-union labor is lowed. No employee can be discharged for appearing in the urt. Striking in violation of the law is punishable by $500 ne or six months in jail or both. It is a felony to order, call or foment a strike, and this is punishable by five years in the peni***, ry or a fine of $1,000 or both.

The anti-strike provisions of the Cummins railroad bill, which ared such a storm on the part of labor are too well known to

reire comment.

The governmental action against strikes in public utilities in Grt Britain and France that have come to the front have been

under abnormal authority that lapses in peace time. It the Defense of Realm Act that was used by the British governit was the right of the French government to call out every of military age for military service for 35 days each year at was used to break the railway strikes. While the experiment in New Zealand in compulsory arbitrawas the earliest as well as the most drastic, it is an interestfact that compulsory arbitration ended by spreading throughAustralia, practically along the same lines as in New Zealand. There is an interesting statement of the situation in the 1916

company must employ and the strikers must permit it to employ and use labor to perform its public duties, and anyone willing to work for it must be allowed by everybody entire freedom to do so.

"The public, having a great need for services of this character, offered by this public utility, has an enforcible right to demand these conditions of both the company and of those associated with it. This Court is empowered to say to the company: that it must meet its public obligations. Coupled with that power of the Court is the power and duty of laying its prohibitive and punishing hand upon anyone whose wilfully unlawful conduct tends to render abortive the exercise of that power. We can no more say to the company that it must yield to the demands of its striking employees than we can say to them that they must meet the company exactions. The controversy must be carried on, on both sides, without substantial detriment to the company's public service."

"This is a decision so pregnant with the position of the courts toward any 'strike movement' that affects great public utilities that it establishes a precedent which applies vigorously to any future disorders in such industrial zones. The language of injunction orders is very specific, and, as a whole, it is obvious that the opinions of the courts do not favor 'strike movements conspiring under the pretense that they are to increase the membership of a union or to strengthen the principle of force in labor against property rights. A general survey of this issue does not favor the procedure of unions bent upon creating a mass formation of union membership against non-union labor. The courts deny the right of interference by organized forces in the closed shop directed against the employers' right to conduct an open shop if he desires with the liberties of American citizenship to work out individually an economic salvation."

Another case in point is the recent strike on the Brooklyn Rapid Transit System. At that time the Brotherhood of New York Railway Company Employees were approached by an interfering union organization known as the Amalgamated Association of Street and Electric Railway Employees of America, for the purpose of breaking up the brotherhood and inducing its members to go on strike. District Judge Julius M. Mayer notified counsel of the Amalgamated, Mr. Louis D. Fridiger, that the Court would not countenance any interference of the sort.

The most recent, clear-cut case of the closed or open shop issue, and one that when this report was drawn up had not yet been finally decided, is that of the San Francisco metal trades war, which is fully described in the March issue of the National Labor Digest.

We read on page 13:

"Forty thousand strong they went on strike five months ago, and so far the unions engaged in the metal trades and shipbuilding plants around the Bay of San Francisco have not only failed to gain any advantage, but they are still out and have to face the loss of practically full union conditions. under which they worked prior to the strike. The men went out on October 1st last and nothing indicating a settlement is in view. The loss of wages has run into millions of dollars, and the workers have been forced to exist, in most cases, on a miserably small strike benefit.

"Organized labor says it is engaged in a life and death struggle with organized industry, while the employers say they, too, are engaged in a life and death struggle, but with 'short-sighted unionists.' . . . The labor leaders of the country say that if the unions are defeated it will have a farreaching effect on unionism status. This is also the tone of a nation-wide appeal for assistance sent out by the Bay Cities Metal Trades Council. The leaders place the importance of this strike ahead of that of the recent steel strike.

Every movement of the struggle has been followed by employers and organized workmen of the whole nation with. keen interest and the statement has repeatedly been made that upon the outcome of this strike will be determined whether or not organized labor is to continue to remain in the metal trades industry.

"James O'Connell, president of the Metal Trades Department of the American Federation of Labor, in a recent statement said he considered the strike a crucial test of the strength of the nation-wide movement of employers to establish the so-called American plan, or open shop, and to break the control of organized labor.

"Robert W. Borden, president of the Bay Cities Metal Trades Council, has said in a report to the San Francisco Labor Council: If the employers can win in San Francisco, they can win any other battle they may wish to fight in any

other part of the United States. The Bay Cities Metal Trades Council, composed of fifty-three unions, with a membership of 40,000 workmen, has been conceded for twenty years to be one of the strongest units of the American Federation of Labor. The strike is of vital importance to every organized worker in every industry, and we will fight it out until we win.'

"While labor claims that it was deliberately forced out as a part of the countrywide plan to break unionism, the California Metal Trade Association as emphatically asserts that union breaking did not enter into its intention, but admits the result will probably amount to that if the strike is continued. 'along its present lines of violence." "

About twenty thousand men have accepted work under the new plan, the so-called American plan of the open shop:

"We, the members of the California Metal Trades Association, hereby declare the following to be the fundamental principles to govern us hereafter in our industrial relations with each other, our employees and the public.

"We recognize the right of the employees to organize, but will not permit coercive measures to compel membership in such organizations, nor to compel employers to deal therewith. "We are unalterably opposed to the principle of the union or non-union closed shop, as it is un-American and unfair.

"While disavowing interference with the proper functions of labor organizations, we recognize no rules nor regulations restricting production, impairing efficiency or otherwise interfering with the management of the business. No member shall be required to deal with men or groups of men not his employees, or not chosen by and from among them.

"We are strenuously opposed to strikes, sympathetic strikes, lockouts, blacklists, boycotts, and kindred evils. We will resist those selfish interests which through violence, coercion, or otherwise attempt to disrupt the relations of peace and unity existing between employer and employee.

"Since we must take the final responsibility for the work produced by our employees, we must have full discretion to designate the men — journeymen, specialists, apprentices, helpers or laborers we consider competent to perform our work, what machines, tools and appliances shall be used and under what conditions the work shall be performed. The question of competency of the men is to be determined solely by us.