system would have the advantage of placing freely at the commission's disposal all the information that could be gathered by the department,' as well as its full power of inspection and enforcement, without giving up the commission's local autonomy. Its possible disadvantage would be the transfer to the commission of any inefficiency that lurked in the department.

2

4. A most significant centralization in administrative methods (as distinct from organization) that already has taken place in four of our states is the widening in scope of wage awards. As has been pointed out, the fixing of state-wide adult rates, combined with carefully specialized trade provisions for the inexperienced, marks the opening of a new era in scientific standards.

5. A useful precursor to such standardization would be the regular holding of regional conferences for groups of states that face the same economic problems. Such a conference was held tentatively and informally between the three Pacific coast states at the invitation of the Washington Commission, just before that body called together its own war-emergency conference. It is highly probable that it was influential in the subsequent raising of the California and Oregon rates to the uniform Washington level. Similarly, when once the perennially reintroduced New York and Pennsylvania bills become law, a North Atlantic conference between these states and Massachusetts (and perhaps by that time New Jersey) would certainly appear to be in order. In view of the sometimes wide variations of the law between neighboring states it would of course be best not to introduce any formality into these meetings, but to have the understandings arrived at mere "gentlemen's agreements." As such they should go far to allay interstate misunderstandings and break the force of the constantly recurring employers' argument in regard to throttling competition. They should certainly serve as a spur to the laggard states in each group.

1 Most of our existing laws provide that the department shall collect data for the commission upon request, but so long as the two agencies remain separate this is apt to cause friction. The new Texas law overcomes this difficulty by providing that the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics shall himself serve as chairman of the new commission.

2 The new North Dakota law gives the task of wage-setting into the hands of the existing Workmen's Compensation Bureau; while the 1919 reorganization act of Massachusetts transfers it to the three members of the newly created Department of Labor and Industries who form the State Board of Conciliation.

n making all these specific recommendations we have not forgotten that at the basis of all our reforms must lie a growth of public confidence and interest in the work of the commissions. The chain of minimum-wage activity can be no stronger than its weakest link, which is the assistance every commission has to receive from the public-in the form of adequate representation on its boards, attendance at its hearings, support from the courts, and, above all, adequate appropriations from the state legislature. The financial difficulties under which some of our most progressive commissions have been struggling make the degree of their success really astounding.1 The commissions themselves must of course do all they can to extend the field of their publicity. Whenever, as in the case of Massachusetts, they have been blessed with sufficient funds, they have indeed gone into print very vigorously, if somewhat learnedly. But the larger and less dignified task of widespread popular appeal must necessarily rest with the outside friends of the movement. If half the energy that habitually goes to pushing minimum-wage campaigns were carried over and devoted to popularizing the work of the commissions when once they have been established, the whole range of problems we have been discussing would be immensely simplified. DOROTHY W. DOUGLAS

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON

1 Is it, for example, generally known that the Oregon Commission has an annual appropriation for all purposes (including secretary's salary, office expenses, investigations, rent, publicity, inspection, and enforcement!) of only $3500?

XLIV

OPERATION OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES INVESTIGATION ACT OF CANADA1

OMIT

INTRODUCTION

MITTING administrative details, the essential features of the Canadian Industrial Disputes Investigation Act may be expressed in a statement of purpose and scope. The purpose of the act as expressed in the complete title is "to aid in the prevention and settlement of strikes and lockouts in mines and industries connected with public utilities." Although the title thus disclaims restriction of the right to strike or lock out and limits the scope to disputes in industries affecting directly the public welfare, the act provides that a strike or lockout in these industries is illegal until the dispute has been reported on by a board of conciliation and investigation and, further, that industries other than those specified may be brought within the scope of the act by agreement of both parties to the dispute, the right to strike or lock out being suspended during an investigation. This restriction upon the right to strike or lock out pending an investigation has caused the act to be known generally as the Compulsory Investigation Act.

The Canadian Industrial Disputes Investigation Act has been in operation since March 22, 1907.3 The numerous reports appearing as a result of official and personal inquiries in addition to the monthly and annual publications of the Canadian Department of Labor are evidences of the widespread interest in the results of the administration of the act. For the most part, however, reports on the act have dealt with disputes referred to boards for adjustment or in

1 Taken in part from the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bulletin No. 233 (1918).

2 Scope extended March 23, 1916, by order of the Governor General in council to include munitions of war industries.

3 Amended May 4, 1910.

which application was made for such reference and, while directing attention to violations and to disputes in which strikes or lockouts were not averted by reference to boards, have not been concerned in large measure with the question of illegal strikes and lockouts or the enforcement of the penal provisions. Nevertheless, our chief interest in the act as an experiment in government intervention is not in its administration as a conciliatory measure, but in the compulsory investigation and restrictive provisions of the act which serve to characterize it.

Upon this point several observers have expressed opinions. Sir George Askwith, Chief Industrial Commissioner of Great Britain, visited Canada during the latter part of 1912 for the purpose of inquiring into the working of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. Speaking of the suitability of the Canadian act to Great Britain and concluding his observations, Mr. Askwith says:

Where it (the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act) was frankly accepted as a means of preventing disputes it has worked extremely well, but where . . . its introduction has been resented, it has not succeeded to the same extent. In such latter cases where, by the imposition of penalties, efforts have been made to enforce the act the results have not been satisfactory.

The question then arises, What is the real value of the act, and can any points in the act be suitably adapted to this country? Is the restriction upon the right of proclaiming a lockout or strike so much of the essence of the act as to make the act of no effect if such restrictions were not compulsory? And do the penalties which are proposed to be enforced for breach of the restrictions of the act add to its value?

In my opinion the real value of the act does not lie in either of these propositions, and certainly not in the second. The pith of the act lies in permitting the parties and the public to obtain full knowledge of the real cause of the dispute and in causing suggestions to be made as impartially as possible on the basis of such knowledge for dealing with existing difficulties, whether a strike or lockout has commenced or not. This action on behalf of the public allows an element of calm judgment to be introduced into the dispute which at the time the parties themselves may be unable to exercise.

It is claimed, and the claim is backed up by statistics, that the restrictions upon a strike or lockout prior to such a judgment have been of great assistance in causing a calm discussion or investigation at an early date. If the power of giving such judgment had existed without the restrictions, and if the various trades affected had been

gradually educated to see the advantage of discussion prior to a dispute and had had the means by and through which such discussion could take place, it may be that practically similar results would have been obtained, without the difficulty of having a law, the complete enforcement of which is almost impracticable, and which, while it has been accepted in cases where education has existed, has been found very difficult in cases where the law is resented and joint consent has not been in being.1

Writing in 1910 for the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics and under the heading "Suggested Amendments," Dr. Victor S. Clark observes:

If men can strike with impunity in disregard of the law, what is the value of the latter in preventing or postponing strikes? Will the act not fall into abeyance except in those minor and less acute disputes where there is least call for government intervention? Has a law any force at all that operates only by the tolerance of the lawbreakers? It should be recognized that expediency must constantly be consulted in administering such an act; but it would seem that the latter, though it may retain some residuary value as providing convenient machinery for public mediation, must lose its distinctive character and its interest as experimental legislation unless some way is discovered to secure the observance of the clauses deferring strikes and lockouts until after an investigation has been held. Unless these clauses are enforced, the law becomes an ordinary conciliation act, burdened by the discredit of its unenforced provisions.2

The same investigator in a paper before the Academy of Political Science in the city of New York, November 22, 1916, speaking of illegal strikes in Canadian industries, remarked that:

No effort has been made in the past to punish a large body of men for striking. This raises the question of the value of the penal provisions of the law. It is argued that if the act does not put strikers in jail and subject offending employers to heavy fines, these provisions are useless. But even though violations are seldom prosecuted, neither strikers nor employers dare defy the law of the land in disputes prominently before the public and affecting the prosperity and comfort of a large body of citizens. By doing so they

1 Report to the Board of Trade (Great Britain) on the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act of Canada, 1907, by Sir George Askwith, K. C. B., K. C., Chief Industrial Commissioner, p. 15.

2" Canadian Industrial Disputes Investigation Act of 1907," by Victor S. Clark, Ph. D., U. S. Department of Commerce and Labor Bulletin No. 86, pp. 19, 20.