As the wages paid were already higher than on any other railway on the continent, the company stood firm in refusal. During September the operators applied for a board of conciliation, to which Messrs. Shortt, O'Donoghue, and Nesbitt were chosen as before. Great difficulty was experienced in reaching a settlement, and at one time the outlook was so pessimistic that preliminary strike orders were issued by the executive. Finally, however, the strenuous efforts of the arbitrators succeeded, to great public relief. Their decision, which was accepted by both parties, granted an increase of fourteen per cent in the payroll, but refused other concessions demanded by the men.

Inevitably the Act was at first regarded with intense suspicion in many labor circles, particularly in the Rocky Mountain mining district. While it was being passed through Parliament a dispute was being waged between the Western Coal Operators and the United Mine Workers over the terms of renewal of the annual contract. No agreement was reached, and early in April the men applied for intervention. A board was at once appointed, with Sir William Mulock as Chairman. Unfortunately, some legal quibbling by the operators over technical irregularities in the men's application confirmed the latter's suspicions that the board was to be used as a pretext for delay. Before investigation was begun the men went on strike, or rather, in their own fine distinction, they "quit work;" as the officials of the union were opposed to the action, and no strike pay was given, it was perhaps not technically a strike. Without waiting for the board to take action, Deputy Minister King intervened, and, after explaining the provisions of the Act to the men, many of whom were foreigners, succeeded in inducing them to return to work under a two years' agreement granting a slight increase in wages. Provision was made for the establishment of a permanent joint committee of miners and operators. As Chairman of this committee, the Minister of Labor has recently selected the Rev. Hugh R. Grant, the original of Ralph Connor's Sky Pilot. While the success achieved in this case is to

be credited chiefly to the Department's men rather than its measures, there is no doubt that the prospect of an investigation contributed powerfully to bring both sides to terms.

The soundness of the faith placed in the power of an informed public opinion was well illustrated in a longshoremen's dispute in Montreal during May. Under the apprehension that the Act did not apply to them, about fifteen hundred longshoremen struck for higher wages. Mr. F. A. Acland, Secretary of the Department, explained its provisions to the men, and a week after striking they returned to work and applied for a board of conciliation. The board, of which Archbishop Bruchesi was Chairman, recommended that half the increase demanded by the men be granted unconditionally, and the other half as a bonus conditional on remaining at work all season. The longshoremen's union rejected the settlement. Their action immediately alienated the good will of press and public, by whom the settlement was regarded as eminently fair, and under the force of their disapproval the men were compelled to capitulate after two or three days' resistance.

The acceptance of the Act is compulsory only on quasi-public industries. Provision is made, however, for the inclusion of other lines of industry if both parties to a dispute so agree. A strike in the cotton mills of Valleyfield, Quebec, involving over two thousand employees, gave opportunity for the application of this provision. The good offices of Messrs. Acland and De Breuil, of the Department of Labor, led to a temporary agreement under which work was resumed and the chief matters in dispute referred to a board. of conciliation. The board reached a satisfactory conclusion on the existing grievances, and provided for the reference of future troubles to a local committee.

In the opposite scale to these successes must be weighed several instances of failure. The most important arose out of a dispute in the Cumberland coal mines at Springhill, Nova Scotia. The machinery of the Act was duly called into play; a board of conciliation was appointed, made an investigation, and

issued its report. Pending the inquiry the men remained at work. The settle ment proposed did not satisfy them, however, and, as the Act permits, they went out on strike to enforce their full demands. Three months passed before agreement was reached and work resumed. The specific points at issue were insignificant, but they brought to a head the irritation that had been accumulating between the company and the workmen for years. Unfortunately, the board seems to have considered itself bound, as in a court of law, to consider only these specific issues, and made no effort to grapple with the broader aspects of the dispute. Naturally, the settlement proposed, while a strictly judicial finding, failed to present an enduring basis of agreement between the parties concerned, or a clear guide to public opinion.

The

Two additional instances may be cited of open violation of the Act. The recent telegraphers' strike in the United States led to a sympathetic walkout by a small number of operators in the employ of the Great Northwestern Company, with out any attempt being made to secure the intervention of the Department of Labor. No action was taken to punish this infraction. Again, in Cobalt, Ontario's silver field, a difference as to wages between the managers and a recently organized branch of the Western Federation of Miners led to three thousand men going on strike last July. men were not alone in violating the Act, as the managers had also clearly infringed one of its provisions by posting a change of wages without giving the required thirty days' notice. An attempt was made by the Department of Labor to procure a settlement, but without effect. The matter was not pressed, as it was felt that no serious public inconvenience was being caused. Silver mines, while coming within the letter of the law, are scarcely to be classed with those vital quasi-public industries to which alone the measure was meant to apply. The strike has not yet formally ended, but acceptance of the men's demand, in some instances, and substitution of nonunion miners in others, has restored normal conditions. In September the mining companies invoked the penal

clauses of the Act. Charges were laid against James McGuire, President of the miners' union, and Robert Roadhouse, its organizer, of inciting employees of the various mines to go on strike, and against William Hewitt for going on strike. The local police magistrate found James McGuire guilty on the first of the charges preferred, and sentenced him to pay a fine of five hundred dollars, or in default to undergo six months' imprisonment with hard labor. This case has been appealed to the High Court, and pending the appeal decision has been reserved on the other charges. If the sentence is confirmed, the miners threaten to bring suit against the companies for their infraction.

An encouraging feature of the situation is that the attitude of the labor world to the new legislation has grown more favorable with actual experience of its working. When the measure was introduced in the House, it was strongly opposed by the railway unions particularly, but, except in procuring some minor amendments, their hostility proved ineffectual. Many railway men still persist in their opposition, but the majority seem to have come round at least to benevolent neutrality. The official pronouncement on the subject was given at the annual session of the Trades and Labor Congress in Winnipeg in September. In spite of the denunciation of the measure by several delegates, a revolution expressing approval carried by four to one. Even more significant was the action of the Congress in voting by a three to one majority, and in face of an adverse report by the committee, in favor of extending the operation of the Act to all industries. Several minor amendments were suggested-the elimination of the clause penalizing inciting to strike or lockout, the admission of other than British subjects to membership in the boards of conciliation, and the alteration of the penalty section so as to make the employer liable to fine for each employee locked out.

It is not probable that any extensive changes will be made in the Act until it has been tested by further experience. One weakness which may call for amendment is the anomalous provision for

enforcing the penalty clause. The Government was more discreet than valorous in leaving the initiative in this matter to private action. Yet it should be recog nized that the existing arrangement has the merit of flexibility, especially desir able in the experimental stage. Legal proceedings are likely to be taken only when the violation entails serious consequences. The logic of the situation, however, would seem to necessitate that the Government should eventually assume responsibility for enforcement.

The omission of any provision for interpreting the award of the temporary boards of conciliation may yet cause trouble. Inevitably differences of opinion will arise regarding the meaning or scope of various provisions, no matter how carefully the award be drawn. In the case of localized industries the solution is comparatively simple: in the settlement of the Alberta coal mines and the Valleyfield cotton mills disputes, local committees were established for this secondary arbitration. The problem presented by awards covering the relations of railway companies and their employees the continent across is more difficult. The board which originally gave the award would naturally be most capable of interpreting it, but, if it were to be reconvened every time the necessity for expounding some special clause arose, its character would be radically changed. This possibility. in fact, brings up the question of the relative merits of permanent or professional versus temporary or amateur boards. The abortive measure of 1902 provided for permanent boards, one in each province and a general one

for the Dominion, while under the present Act the boards are selected anew on each occasion. The permanent board has the incalculable advantage of experience; the temporary permits greater scope in choice and avoids the accumulation of distrust of any individual member. Hitherto it has proved possible to combine these advantages by choosing for repeated service those members who had gained general confidence. The obvious drawback to the continuance of this policy is the difficulty of procuring good men whose business or professional interests permit such frequent breaks.

Aside from a change in the constitution of the board, a solution may be hammered out by the extension of the practice of collective bargaining, by joint agreement between the parties involved without outside intervention. It is, in fact, one of the chief merits of the Canadian measure that it is not only compatible with direct negotiation between employer and employee, but encourages it. The practice of collective bargaining is steadily making its way in America, however temporarily checked by the excesses of those unions which persist in coupling it with the demand for a closed shop, and of those reactionary manufacturers' associations which, under the cloak of attack on the closed shop, endeavor to thwart all union activity whatever. Government intervention succeeds best when designed as a supplement to this more organic and enduring agency of industrial peace, rather than, as in the New Zealand development, a substitute for it. The arbitrator is, after all is said that can be said, a deus ex machina.

T

HERE are two great reasons why Professor A. F. Pollard's "Factors in Modern History "is to be regarded as a most important contribution to recent historical writing. In the first place, it presents with excep tional clearness some fundamental but often misinterpreted facts in the development of modern society. And, secondly, it brings out with equal force the qualifications indispensable to the successful historian. It is the merest truism to say that the lessons contained in the experiences of past generations of mankind are valueless to present and future generations unless they are set forth so as to command widespread attention, appreciation, and acceptance. History, in other words, to be useful must be studied, to be studied it must be read, and to be read it must be written lucidly and attractively. Narrative skill, the art of telling a story in a way that will appeal to the interest and stimulate the imagination of the reader or hearer, is thus the greatest requisite of the historian.

Yet it is notorious that the present-day historian is largely indifferent to narrative skill. His concern, rather, seems to be to trace out relationships of cause and effect through the accumulation of a mountain of facts, the manner of presenting these relationships and these facts being of quite secondary consider ation. The result to the so-called general reader--to whom, after all, history should primarily be addressed-is a succession of arid, uninteresting, almost meaningless volumes. Not that the historian should disregard facts. On the contrary, it is his business to collect, scrutinize, and co-ordinate them-always, however, remembering that, as Professor Pollard insists, facts and figures are dry bones into which life can be breathed only by the exercise of imagination. And he well defines imagination as "the power of realizing things unseen, and of realizing the meaning of things seen."

It follows, too, that the successful historian, the writer who would and does

Factors in Modern History. By A. F. Pollard. G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York.

deal with the facts of history understandably and convincingly, must be an adept in the dangerous art of generalization. It may be objected that a general statement is never entirely accurate, never perfectly true, that there are always qualifying particular exceptions which should be taken into account. But the thinker who permits such exceptions to terrorize him into doubt and uncertainty with regard to the great general truths persisting in spite of them will only imperfectly instruct and persuade. The chances are that his audience will not

listen to him. "When a fact is generalized," to recall Sir W. Hamilton's pithy saying, "our discontent is quieted and we consider the generality itself as tantamount to an explanation." In the volume before us general statements are very much in evidence. And, not infrequently, exceptions to them occur instantly to one's mind. For all of this, in the majority of instances, careful reflection will show that they remain essentially true. Besides being characterized by bold yet not rash generalization, Professor Pollard's work is distinguished by a method of treatment that can hardly fail to stimulate the reader to do some thinking for himself. This is, perhaps, particularly apparent in the admirable chapter on the advent of the middle class, whose development during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries was, in Professor Pollard's opinion, one of the greatest factors in transforming the mediaval into the modern world. To quote, by way of illustrating the ability with which he states and expands a central thought:

Nearly every movement of this period is a symptom of this middle-class development. The Renaissance represents its intellectual aspect; art, science, and letters had hitherto been ecclesiastical; the Renaissance is a secular and sometimes even pagan revolt against this sacerdotal monopoly. The Reformation is its religious counterpart, the rebellion of the middle-class laity against the domination by the Church over the relations between God and man. Socially, we see rich burghers competing with feudal lords for rank and title. Michael de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk, in Richard II.'s reign, is the first Englishman who owed his peerage to wealth derived from trade; knighthoods are won in