were not unionized and hence could not be represented by a tradeunion official, the unreasonable character of union demands, etc., but the reason upon which most emphasis was placed was the effect such recognition would have upon the discipline of the force. The sole purpose of seeking recognition, some felt, was to increase the power of the unions.

The meaning of the word "recognition," as asked for by the tradeunions, is, to my mind, this: It is an undefined something which the railway companies are asked to concede with a view of enabling the trades-unions to coerce nonunionists to join their societies, so as to put them in a position to dictate terms to the railway companies and, if necessary, to declare a strike with every possibility of success.1

Even those railway officials who did not take as extreme a view as this of the purposes of the union felt that to permit a trade-union official, as such, to take any part in the negotiations before they reached the final stage of arbitration would interfere disastrously with the safe and effective working of the railroads.

The commission will know as well as I do that the British railways stand absolutely at the top of the railways of the world as regards safety of working. There is nothing comparable to them in any country of the world, and that is brought about by the very high state of discipline which exists on the railways. If the action of an officer in controlling and directing his staff is to be subject to the criticism of an outsider and the intervention of that outsider, the authority of that officer must be weakened. It is only by the knowledge that the officer has got supreme, direct, and unquestionable control over his men that the discipline which gives the British public the safety they enjoy in traveling can be maintained."

ATTITUDE OF PARTIES TOWARD CONCILIATION.

It will be seen that neither side presented arguments against conciliation in itself. A few witnesses on the men's side declared that their fellow workers had become so disheartened and disgusted by the way in which the plan of 1907 was worked that they wanted nothing more to do with conciliation in any form, preferring to go back to the old method of striking at discretion; but these were very much in the minority. The men in general had not lost their belief in conciliation, but only in this particular method. It will be noticed that the report of the royal commission gives a number of plans, all involving conciliation and most allowing arbitration, which the witnesses for the workers' side suggested as substitutes for the present arrangement. Apparently none of them wished to sweep away

1 Minutes of Evidence taken before the Royal Commission appointed to investigate and report on the working of the Railway Conciliation and Arbitration Scheme of 1907, p. 353. London, 1911.

2 Idem, p. 374.

the existing machinery and have nothing in its place. Among the witnesses on the companies' side, also, there was no inclination to revert to earlier methods. Many of them admitted that they had signed the agreement reluctantly, but, having tried it, they did not wish to relinquish the plan, though they suggested various improvements.

REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION.

The royal commission, after reviewing the evidence, suggested certain amendments to the scheme of 1907 designed to secure promptness of settlement, uniformity of procedure, and finality of decision.1

It was suggested that the central boards be abolished, and that the sectional boards, with some alterations and additions, should perform the conciliation work not settled by direct negotiations between the parties concerned.

All matters of difference dealing with rates of wages, hours of labor, or conditions of service other than matters of management or discipline, if not settled by conference between deputations of the men and the company, should be referred to the conciliation boards. Either side of a board, by 14 days' notice, might ask for a special meeting, submitting the matter to be discussed. A neutral chairman was provided for, to be selected by the conciliation boards from a panel to be prepared by the Board of Trade, the same chairman to act for all the boards on a system during the entire period of office of those boards. The fees and expenses of the chairman were to be paid by the Board of Trade. Any differences arising as to matters to be placed on the program should be decided by the chairman, as well as any question of interpretation not settled by the board.

No steps should be taken to alter existing agreements and awards before July 1, 1912.

The proposed new scheme should remain in force until November 6, 1914, and thereafter be subject to revision as regards any company, by 12 months' notice by the company, or by a majority of the representatives of the employees on all the conciliation boards of the company's system.

The scheme proposed contemplates final settlement at boards by conciliation, if possible without a chairman, but if conciliation fails, then by bringing in a chairman. The representatives of the men on each board shall be at liberty to appoint as their secretary any suitable person, whether an employee of the company or from outside, but he shall not have the power to vote unless he shall have been duly elected a member. Men charged with misconduct, neglect of duty, or other breaches of discipline should be permitted to state their defense, to call witnesses, and to advance any extenuating circumstances before their officers prior to a final decision being arrived at.

1 For the recommendations of the Royal Commission in full, see pp. 105-108.

CRITICISM OF THE REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION.

The report of the royal commission was very far from satisfying the men; in fact, it provoked a storm of opposition. The principal objection was its failure to secure "recognition," i. e., the right of the men to representation by their trade-union officials at all stages of proceedings between them and their employers. The amended scheme provides that the men may choose anyone they please for their secretaries upon the conciliation boards, but leaves untouched the existing rule that only employees of a company may be concerned in the initial stages-the presentation of petitions and the discussion of grievances before the company officials. This representation through their trade-unions the men regarded as almost a sine qua non. They would, for the most part, admit that the first discussion of a grievance or presentation of a request should be carried on between the men and their superiors only, but if this conference failed to result satisfactorily they felt that the trade-union officials should be called in at once. They pointed out that an employee, more used to working than to speaking and wholly unskilled in the art of presenting a case, is at a grave disadvantage as compared with the shrewd and trained officials before whom he must plead his cause.1 He is unable to do justice to the complaint or petition he has to present, and quite apart from any bias on the part of the employers his cause does not get a fair show. More important still, the men, whether rightly or wrongly, seemed thoroughly convinced that the employee who thus puts himself forward in the effort to remedy a grievance exposes himself to petty persecution, to reduction of wages or refusal of promotion, and to possible discharge. Naturally under such circumstances there would be difficulty in getting complaints brought forward, and the original grievance would be augmented by the men's feeling that any attempt on their part to secure a remedy would be likely to result disastrously for them. "The railway men's battle will never be fought," declared one writer, voicing the opinion of his fellows," until the directors are faced by representatives over whom they have no power, whom they can not boycott or blacklist."

They also objected strongly to the ruling that no change in existing settlements could be considered until July, 1912, on the ground that conditions had so changed since these settlements were adopted that they had in some cases become unfair and oppressive. The provision requiring the signatures of 25 per cent of the men affected 2 to any petition for improvements was deemed unreasonably severe, and it

1 How can a workman go forward and arbitrate with his employer, a man with just a common board school education, and on the other side men with the best college education? They can twist and turn your figures as much as they like. (Minutes of Evidence taken before the Royal Commission appointed to investigate and report on the working of the Railway Conciliation and Arbitration Scheme of 1907, p. 328. London, 1911.)

2 See Appendix II, clause 2, p. 109.

was pointed out that the terms of the settlement were in several points so vague that they would almost inevitably provoke dissension when the two sides of the conciliation boards tried to apply them.

The dissatisfaction of the men was so intense that on November 2 the executive committees of the four railway unions wrote to the prime minister asking that a conference be arranged between their representatives and those of the railway companies, with a view to amending the scheme; should this be refused, they could not recommend the adoption of the plan. The prime minister conferred with representatives of the leading railway companies, who refused to agree to the proposed conference, holding that both sides had bound themselves to accept and act upon the findings of the royal commission. Upon receipt of this reply, the joint executives called for a vote of all railway unionists upon two questions: Whether they should accept the report as it stood and whether they favored a strike to secure better terms. The ballot papers were to be returned by December 5.

While this ballot was being taken the matter was brought up in the House of Commons, and a resolution was passed unanimously calling for a conference between the two sides and asking the Government to use its good offices to bring this about. The Board of Trade then sent letters to each side inviting them to confer, on the understanding that the findings of the royal commission were accepted in principle and in substance. The railway representatives agreed to confer on this basis, and the two sides met at the Board of Trade December 7.

AMENDMENT OF THE CONCILIATION SCHEME OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION.

As the result of this conference, several alterations, involving important concessions to the men, were made in the plan proposed by the commission. The employers must receive a deputation, if the men wish to send one, within 14 days of the receipt of a petition. Petitions and answers must be made in writing, thus avoiding some possibilities of misunderstanding. Clause 2, providing that if the employees wish to apply for any changes a petition must be presented, signed by 25 per cent of those affected, was altered to provide that special meetings of the conciliation boards might be held at once, at which the necessary percentage should be decided upon; if the two sides were unable to agree, the 25 per cent should stand. Clauses 5 and 6 were amended to provide that, in the case of a company wishing to alter adversely wages, hours, or conditions of service, it must notify the workers concerned, and the matter must be brought up and passed upon at the next meeting of the concilia

1 For the amendments agreed to in this conference, see pp. 115-117.

tion board, the change not becoming effective until the board had approved it or the chairman given his decision in its favor. Variations in trip rates, if unsatisfactory to the men, might be referred to the next meeting of the conciliation board, and its decision should be retroactive. Alterations in existing settlements might be made at the meeting of the conciliation boards to be held in May, 1912, but should not take effect till July, 1912. A number of other amendments were made, all in the direction of securing a smoother working of the scheme. In addition, the railway representatives present bound their own roads to pay extra and casual men for the time actually worked at rates not lower than the minimum rates paid regular employees for the same work, and undertook to get other companies to adopt the same arrangement. The plan as amended was signed December 11, 1911.

Even with these amendments, the plan was so distasteful to a number of the workers that for a time it was a question whether the members of the executive committees could prevail upon the unionists to accept it. At the present time, however, it seems to have been adopted, and the more moderate element is pointing out the importance of the concessions gained. The union has secured a large measure of recognition, employees have henceforth the right to know the conditions under which they are employed, awards can no longer be made binding for long periods, the possibility of delay has been much reduced, the right to secure prompt interpretation of disputed points has been conceded, and the inclusion of "conditions of service" among the matters coming within the scope of the boards, while presenting opportunities for disagreements, also gives the workers a tenable ground for bringing up any matter they choose. As an additional gain, although the royal commission refused to interfere with existing settlements, the companies, as a direct result of the strike and the resulting publicity, have in many cases altered the terms allowed them, making substantial advances in wages.

ATTITUDE OF PARTIES AND THE PUBLIC TOWARD CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION.

It is as yet rather early to say what has been the effect of the strike upon the attitude of all concerned toward conciliation and arbitration, but on the whole there seems much reason to believe that the movement in their favor gained substantially. A section of the men are, it is true, almost in open revolt against the conciliatory scheme adopted, but they seem to be rather a small minority. The leaders have given strong evidence of their faith in conciliation, and declare that in doing so they represented the real sentiment of their supporters. The attitude of the railway managers is more problematic.