formation of these boards, which, without them, is often wanting, and lay down certain general principles upon which they must be organized and conducted, and, so far, avoid difficulty at the outset. They also give powers to the umpire that at times may be important. They, moreover, assist in enforcing awards. There must be some power to compel acceptance of the decisions of these tribunals or the umpire. Often this power grows out of the relations employers or employed hold to each other, and it is frequently not in the least a physical one. Of such a character is that afforded by these laws. The moral force that attaches to the word law is quite effective at times, and it is possible that the best form of a board of arbitration is the voluntary one, organized under such laws as that of Pennsylvania, with strong conservative organizations of both employers and employed to aid in enforcing awards.

VOLUNTARY

CHAPTER VII.

ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION.

THE second method of arbitration and conciliation is the voluntary one; the boards or committees formed for its application being in their origin and methods purely voluntary bodies, with no taint of law and no powers of distress or commitment. These boards have no legal existence, though they are not unlawful. There is little form at any stage of the proceedings. In them courts and magistrates have no place. There is no compulsory submission of disputes, no forced attendance of witnesses, nor is there any power, except a man's sense of honor, public opinion, and the aggregate honor of such bodies as trades-unions and employers' associations, to compel the acceptance and to give force to the awards.

In their general character and methods, these voluntary boards or committees recognize the distinctions already pointed out between arbitration and conciliation, and to a much greater extent than the legal form, that difference growing out of their duration and continuity of action. There is this difference to be noted between conciliation in legal and in voluntary boards, however. Legal conciliation is always associated with arbitration, and, in view of the constitution of legal boards and the source of their power, necessarily so. Conciliation in voluntary boards may or may not contemplate arbitration. In all voluntary boards, even with arbitration, however, the measure of the power of the board or the umpire is always the voluntary consent of the parties to the issue.

As has been stated, legal arbitration and conciliation have practically no existence either in England or the United States. In England the parties to labor differences persistently decline to avail themselves of the provisions of the several arbitration acts, while the quasilegal boards in this country are legal in name rather than in fact. Whatever of success has been attained in these two countries in applying this principle to labor differences has been chiefly through voluntary boards or committees, the two great English speaking nations presenting in this respect a contrast to the two French states, France and Belgium, in which legal arbitration and conciliation prevail.

A moment's consideration of the causes of the differences which arbitration and conciliation seek to remove, and a clear recognition of the real authority in which power concerning these differences is lodged, and to which ultimately an appeal must lie, is convincing that this voluntary form is the only one that gives promise of success in dealing with those questions that most frequently lead to industrial warfare.

As was pointed out in the first chapter, labor differences arise concerning both past and future contracts, and also grow out of matters of sentiment." From their very nature it is evident that it is only a very limited range of difficulties, chiefly those involving the terms and construction of contracts under which work has already been done, that legal or compulsory arbitration and conciliation, relying as it does upon the state to give effect to its decisions, can deal with any degree of efficiency. It is natural and proper that the parties to such differences, involving as they do work done and money earned, that is, actual property, should be compelled, if necessary, to submit their differences to a competent tribunal, and

when that tribunal has honestly and carefully reached a decision, that the state by all its agencies should give it effect. In dealing with such questions these boards or committees are but courts of law unfettered by their forms or ceremonies.

But it is not concerning past contracts or work done that differences and disputes most frequently arise, but as regards the future,' and here legal arbitration and conciliation is confessedly powerless. Every law providing for legal arbitration formally recognizes its limitations, and provides that the boards or conseils organized under them shall not deal with future rates of wages unless by mutual consent. Even then the awards cannot be enforced unless this consent is renewed after the finding. There is no power in the state to compel the performance of work under the terms of an award without recourse to practical confiscation and absolute slavery. Law cannot force men to work at rates nor upon terms to which they will not agree, nor can it compel an employer to operate his works and furnish employment. In a word, there is no power outside the parties themselves that can give effect to a decision as to a future contract or that can harmonize quarrels over matters of sentiment. It is with them that power is lodged, and to them appeal must ultimately lie. Within the realm of labor to a degree unknown elsewhere, government exists only by the consent of the governed.

'Of the 813 strikes and lockouts reported upon by me in the United States Census Report, fully 90 per cent. of those for which causes were ascertained, which included 93 per cent. of all, related to the future. All but one of the 582 relating to rates of wages were demands for advances or against reductions, 504 of the former and 77 of the latter. All but 7 of the 35 regarding payment of wages related to future methods or time. All under hours of labor concerned the future, as did most of those regarding methods of work.

It is in the complete recognition of this fact at all stages of its proceedings, the submission, discussion, award, and enforcement, that is the strength and justification of the system of voluntary arbitration and conciliation. It is because it furnishes a method and the only one for securing that consent without which no method of harmonizing the relations and settling or preventing the differences between employer and employed can be of any value, that it must ultimately prevail. It is the government of reason, finding its sanctions in the freely given consent, their loyalty to themselves, of the subjects of its reign