pute between them. Would that be fair? One or the other must have owned the land, and to take from him half in order to pacify the other contestant would sure

ly be wrong. A board of arbitration should decide either for one or the other of the disputants.

Arbitration boards have so commonly resorted to the method of compromise that disputants have been taught to demand more than they expect to receive, more than they believe is just. They have been

concerning arbitration have been selected :

Concilation, negotiation, reason, patience, consideration-these have settled many differences and established good feeling-but arbitration has never settled anything. As we have said many times, the state of mind which will lead both sides to submit to fair arbitration and accept its results, will enable them to get together without arbitration. There are proper subjects for arbitration. One is, certainly two questions which are never whether either party may break his contract; the other is, whether any man shall

or shall not be permitted to work for a living. Railway and Engineering Review.

Once the principle is recognized that wages, etc., can be arbitrarily fixed by a court or a commission, and we will have taken up our march to Socialism in

earnest.

If one set of men can have their wages fixed by a commission, all other sets of men are entitled to strike and to demand a commission to determine their wages. What is the result? State regulation of wages and hours. But commissions or organized labor or any other body composed of the best wisdom and experience in the country can not correctly take into consideration the effects on the profits of industry, on the development of trade and on the tax to the consumer that their wage arrangements would have, and when the employers' wage barrels begin to run dry, then, I suppose, we may expect the next step to be commissions to fix prices of commodities, output, income on capital, etc., and, finally, as a natural sequence, would come State control of industry in general. The truth is that arbitration, to employers, means a surrender to the demands of labor as surely as yielding to them direct. Will the employers of this country allow the apparent peace bought at the price of arbitration lull them into a feeling of security? If they do, they will awaken some day to find their rights have been stolen while they slept.

Arbitration is only putting off the day of reckoning. It means that more arbitrations are to follow, that the peace purchased in the first instance must be repurchased over and over again and that the price paid will be higher each time.D. M. Parry.

There is only one way in the present constitution of society to secure industrial peace in this country. That way is by calm and fair-minded discussion of the points at issue. Certain it is that were the ground cleared of prejudices on both sides, agreement between labor and capital would be simple enough. The vast majority of men intend to do right. When the right is clearly laid before them, they will accept it willingly. The man who is willing to do wrong for temporary advantage and do it in cold blood is the exception. Employers as a class unquestionably desire the gcod of their men. The men do not at heart desire evil for their employers. The trouble is, as it always has been, that employer and employe do not understand each other and for the greater part of the time work at cross purposes and with friction.-Wall Street Journal.

Mr. Douglas has studied the labor problem ever since he began the manufacture of shoes. There is a committee of three or five men in each department of his factory, and full liberty is given to all employes to present their grievances to F. E. Drake, the assistant superintendent. Should he fail to make a satis

Whenever the fact shall be fully and generally accepted that the labor unions have come to stay, and that both employes and employers have equal rights to organize each for its own protection, then it will be possible to establish judicial tribunals to settle their differences, just as there are courts to settle questions of right between man and man. But just as long as organizations on each side believe they can crush out those of the other, there will be no peaceful, permanent arbitration system, but, on the contrary, controversies will be as numerous and as acrimonious as ever.-New Orleans Picayune.

Ancient and Modern Methods.

In the early centuries of the Christian era might was right, and all things belonged to him who had the power to take. Murder, rape and robbery were the practices of the wealthy and "noble" class. If a neighboring baron had trespassed upon the game preserves of a mighty man of old, or had given some other offense, real or imaginary, a trusted servant was sent to seek amends, and a knife-thrust in the dark, or a silent arrow from the green roadside settled the account. my lord while riding abroad chanced to see a comely girl, a daughter of his peasantry, a stealthy tread, a muffled scream,

If

guard, and appropriate his wealth, or else hold him for ransom.

And yet these early "captains of industry" were Christian men, men who prayed and who employed holy men to pray for them.

In order that the church might teach morality, and a punishment of hellfire for sin, it was necessary that some provisions be made for the saving of the souls of these rich murderers, rapists and robbers, for woe be to any priest who taught a saving creed from which the ancient Carnegies, Morgans and Rockefellers were excluded.

The nut to crack was, how could the church teach morality and preach eternal

venience of practicing Christianity. If a rich man murdered his neighbor, raped a virgin, or robbed a traveler, he could square himself with his God by erecting a monastery, or contributing liberally of his wealth to the Crusade.

And these same practices are in vogue to this day. We find Carnegies building libraries and Rockefellers endowing colleges throughout the English-speaking world, presumably in exchange for an "indulgence" which has been or will be granted for the coining of his millions from the blood and flesh of the poor fellows shot by Pinkerton thugs at Homestead.

But there is this improvement upon the methods of the old “captains of industry;" the barbarian failed to get any special advertising out of the monastery that he built, while our own Carnegie sees to it that his name is chiseled in the stone that goes above the front door of every library he erects as a penance for his wrongdoing. A mighty smart man, that man Carnegie. If he fools the Lord as he has the American people he will secure a custom's tariff on heavenly harps, and then form a trust which will have a monopoly of making them.

Supply and Demand for Labor.

In opposition to the principle of settling wage disputes by arbitration rather than by strikes the New York Commercial says:

"An arbitration board may fix wages, but can not compel manufacturers to continue business at a loss. Neither can they compel labor to accept the wage scale. The price of labor, like everything else, must depend at last upon the law of supply and demand. Anything that may be done in contravention of this law must come to naught."

The demand for labor is regulated by the volume of business transacted in the many industries, and this volume of business ebbs and flows as the tides of the

sea.

Evidently the Commercial would have wage scales conform to these tides of prosperity and panic. It can not be denied that so far as the workers are concerned this would be more equitable than the attempt of the master class to reduce wages when panics approach and organize "associations for the prevention of wage increases" when prosperity returns.

But what of the "supply" of labor that the Commercial refers to? According to the report of Commissioner General of Immigration Frank P. Sargent, 730,797 foreigners, most of whom were laborers, were brought into the United States by the steamship companies in 1902, and 921,315 were introduced within our borders in 1903. These statistics are for the fiscal years ending June 30th. With the least falling off in business the master class will find at hand a "supply" of labor that, according to the philosophy of the Commercial, makes necessary general wage reductions. That the master class will take advantage of the "supply" those who remember the experiences of 1893 and 1894 have not the least doubt.

Most all of this immigration is induced

by representations made by agents of steamship companies and agents of "protected American industries." The steamship companies care not what becomes of the impoverished foreigner after they have secured the passage money. The "protected American industries," feeling safe in the presence of such a great "supply" of labor, forthwith reduce the wages of their employes, expecting and hoping that they will strike so that cheaper, unorganized foreign labor may be substituted, and the "supply" be maintained.

If the wage question is one of supply and demand, why do not those politicians and "statesmen" who are running the Government for the "protection of American labor" curtail the supply? The answer is easy. Those "statesmen," although elected by the votes of laborers, know that their personal interests require them to provide "protection" for the manufacturer from foreign manufacturers and "free trade" in the "supply" of cheap foreign labor. Great heads! those "statesmen."

Collective Bargaining and the
Open Shop.

The inconsistency of those who oppose labor unions on general principles, and yet attempt to convince themselves that they are fair, is made noticeable in the discussions concerning labor contracts and union shops. We have almost reached a stage in the relations between master and servant when the former gives assent to the justice and propriety of wage contracts. It is only because there is no legal guarantee that the servants will observe contracts when made that causes many masters to hesitate in entering such contracts. These masters fear, or pretend to fear, that the contract will be violated by the servants and, therefore, they call loudly for legislation that will compel labor organizations to incorporate, and thereby make them amenable to the laws of contract.

Let us presume that the masters are right in these contentions. Let us suppose that they have their way about it, and all labor unions are incorporated and bound by statutes to observe all contracts made with masters. What will become of the "open shop" contention, now being pressed by Mr. Parry and his kind? If there are to be no "union shops" how are wage contracts to be made? Separate contracts with each servant has been tried and found a failure. Collective bar