come in free of duty. The percentage will be increased by the Republican party in the future as circumstances demand. But that party will not permit the protective tariff, which has brought the nation to the high commercial eminence it now holds, to be swept away on any false pretence, nor will it permit the prosperity of the nation to be checked and threatened with reversal by an utterly uncalled for tariff agitation. The inexcusableness of this Babcock talk of abolishing the tariff to remedy the trust evil is clearly demonstrated in our Washington letter. It would be like killing a patient to cure a cold.

LABOR IN PORTO RICO.

The difference between a daily life of a farm laborer in Porto Rico and in the United States is, according to Secretary Wilson, very marked. The usual hours of work in the field of Porto Rico farm hands are from 6 A. M. to 6 P. M. Most of them begin work in the morning without having eaten anything. What is more remarkable, the report says, is that many of them eat very little till the close of the day. A few take early coffee. At eleven o'clock half an hour is allowed for those who desire to eat breakfast and who can afford to do so. The meal consists of rice and beans, bread and cheese, or sweet potatoes and fish. Where the plantation boards the hands, as sometimes occurs in the sugar harvesting seasons, the daily ration consists of one-half pound of rice and one-fourth pound of beans, or three pounds of sweet potatoes and half a pound of dried fish, or one pound of bread and one-fourth of

a pound of cheese. The laborers on the coffee estates rarely eat meat, except on Sundays.

The customary wages were thirty cents a day in gold prior to the changes in currency. In most cases the payment was made by giving an order on the local store, which really reduced the wage value about one-third. In coffee picking time the women are able to earn from fifteen to twenty-five cents per day. Coffee planters generally permit their laborers to eat the bananas on the farm, and in certain cases they permit them, if they care to do so, to cultivate small tracts for vegetables, but generally the laborers have complained that they had no time to keep a garden. Work on the sugar plantations continues four or five months and gives employment both to women and children. The laborers on sugar and coffee plantations lead practically a wild life. They live in the mountains, often with no shelter, and the children go nearly naked. There are no schools, settlements, roads or other evidences of civilization. When the time comes for work on the plantations they come out of the woods, to which they return when the harvesting is done.

There are doubtless many Americans, as there are Cubans, who care more for the material prosperity than for the political autonomy of the island, who would be glad to avail themselves of any subterfuge to secure the annexation of Cuba to the United States, but no citizen who recognizes the obligations of honor can dream of annexation, except as coming through the untrammeled and spontaneous vote of the Cuban people after the termination of the American military occupation.-Brooklyn Times.

THE deep concern of the public in

labor troubles turns thoughtful attention to the practicability of measures for the peaceful and equitable settlement of differences between employers and employees. Nearly all of the manufacturing states of the North have laws bearing upon some method for the settlement of such disputes; and twenty-four states have made some statutory provision for mediation of one kind or another. But great difficulty is encountered in the precise application of any method that is circumscribed in its operations, and though these laws in some states have produced beneficial results in averting strikes, in most cases they have been practically inoperative. With the exception of the compulsory arbitration law in Kansas, none of the state laws have much force unless both parties to a controversy agree to accept the finding of the arbitration board.

In the pacification of labor troubles the utility of state boards of arbitration is brought much in question. Mr. James M. Gilbert, of the New York state board, in his testimony before the Industrial Commission several weeks ago said he considered trade arbitration, where the differences were adjusted directly by the men and their employers, better than arbitration by state boards; but he

favored a compulsory arbitration law for cases where employers and employees failed to settle their disputes by friendly discussion, and thought the law would be especially valuable in case of strikes on transportation lines and strikes involving such public utilities as telephone, telegraph and electric lighting services, where the public had large interests at stake and where strikes were a great public inconvenience. Mr. Mackin, labor commissioner of New York, told the Commission that the arbitration board of that state had been able to settle about ten per cent of the strikes within its jurisdiction, a record which did not favorably impress him with the utility of state boards. He recognized the impracticability of compulsory arbitration unless labor unions were incorporated so that they could be held to the performance of any contract they undertook on behalf of their members. The real question is how a decree of the arbitrating tribunal can be enforced against the individual workers if they do not like it.

The general secretary of the National Brotherhood of Electrical Workers appeared before the Commission and favored compulsory arbitration, believing it was practicable. His idea was to make an employer show why he had to reduce wages,

and that if an employer refused to arbitrate the matter he should be forced to do it. The representative of the Knights of Labor also favored compulsory arbitration and "a law that should compel both sides to abide by the decision of the arbiter."

On the other hand, the president of the Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers said his association was not in favor of compulsory arbitration, for the reason that fair treatment could not be obtained from a board appointed by the government. This conclusion was based on the treatment received from courts in the interpretation of laws passed with favorable intent to working people. Many representatives of labor organizations opposed incorporation of labor unions because it would place them in a position to be sued and mulcted in damages; but others favored incorporation in the belief that it would make labor organizations and employers feel a greater responsibility in the institution of strikes, because damages could be fixed and indemnity for them could be enforced. The majority of labor unions are not ready for any change in this direction; and at the last convention of the Federation of Labor a report disapproving of compulsory arbitration and favoring voluntary arbitration was unanimously adopted.

As all labor troubles and strikes inflict more or less injury upon the community, it would seem that the public has some rights in the premises and is entitled to protection against the disturbance caused by

labor dissensions. Public sentiment would, therefore, sustain any method for the settlement of labor disputes which would be effective, provided that it should be just and equitable to all parties. It is evident that conciliation is the true principle that should govern in the settlement of controversies between employer and employee; and it may be the only method that is wholly practicable under present conditions. The plan of conciliation or voluntary arbitration that has thus far met with most favor is contained in an agreement made several months ago between the National Metal Trades Association and the International Association of Machinists, which provides that in all disputes arising between members of these respective organizations (that is, an employer and his employees) every reasonable effort shall be made by both parties to effect a satisfactory adjustment; failing in this, either party shall have the right to ask its reference to a committee of arbitration. This shall consist of the presidents of the two organizations, or their representatives, and two other representatives from each organization appointed by their respective presidents. The findings of this committee of arbitration by a majority vote shall be considered final as regards the particular case at issue. Pending adjudication, there shall be no cessation of work at the instance of either party to the dispute.

How far it is possible for legislation to proceed in the matter of arbitration is the much mooted question.

A national arbitration board or court has been suggested; but it would have to be composed of men who have mastered the intricacies and technicalities of the many kinds of business embraced in our industrial system, for otherwise they would not be fully competent to render an intelligent and just decision in all cases. Probably Superintendent Lathrop of the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company had this in mind when he said of the arbitration idea: "A great corporation having millions of dollars of property could not place its interests in the hands of outsiders who know nothing about the property nor about the manner of conducting the business. They might arbitrate to the ruination of the company's interests. There is too much at stake, too many details of business which a board of arbitration would know nothing about, to make arbitration possible."

At the request of the New York Commercial some time ago, Henry Wood, the well-known economist, furnished this forcible statement of his views on the arbitration problem:

First-Boards of conciliation and arbitration should be composed of members who are not politicians, but rather distinguished for their knowledge of human nature, their judicial turn of mind, and who have had practical business experience. In other words, their efficiency depends upon their individual and collective character.

Second-Voluntary moral, ethical and conciliatory methods are preferable to any interference which can be inau

which is in the nature of a voluntary and businesslike arrangement, or properly the subject of preliminary negotiation, should be sacredly observed.

Fourth-I do not believe in compulsion. The right of independent contract on both sides is inviolable and constitutional.

Fifth-I do not believe in any law for enforcing the decisions of state arbitrators. Such laws would strike at the fundamental principles of American liberty.

The only way by which labor unions can be held to the fulfilment of their contracts (provided such contracts were advisable and practical) would be through their incorporation and the ownership of some tangible assets.

General education and the cultivation of the judicial spirit are the only real remedies. The natural law of the unity of interest between the employer and employee must be more generally recognized. Frictions are not the result of any "social system," custom or external institution of any kind, but of the ignorance and prejudice in human character in its present state of development. There is no patent or rapid panacea or legislative cure-all. Only the persistent gradual and general cultivation of higher moral ideals will solve the so-called problems.

Similar views are expressed by Professor Taussig of Harvard University and by many leading representatives of various industrial organizations; and Mr. Perkins of the Cigar Makers' International Union of America declares that "compulsory arbitration, if carried to its logical conclusion, would mean industrial slavery."

It thus appears that the proposition to make arbitration compulsory by law gets little support from labor or

hand of legislation.

Third-Any such contracts which relate to wages, hours or to any detail

would be regarded by most employers as a dangerous experiment. In fact

the constitutionality of such a law is seriously in question. It would seem to be practically impossible to compel arbitration by law and to force an acquiescence in the decision by the contending parties. It is not easy to imagine how an employer can be compelled to carry on his business at a loss if an arbitration tribunal shall decide that he must pay the higher wages demanded by his employees, and this increase happens to be more than his business can stand; or, on the other hand, how employees can be compelled to work for inadequate wages if the tribunal should so decide. It is possible that the arbitrators would never make any unreasonable awards, but of this no certain assurance can be given. Nevertheless, there is a considerable sentiment in this country that arbitration to be effective must be made compulsory; and when objections are made to this method we are referred to the fact that compulsory arbitration of labor disputes is in successful operation in New Zealand, and should be made as effective elsewhere.

The system in force in that country is one of local conciliation boards, one for each colonial district; and each board is composed of an equal number of masters and workers. The trades unions are granted the privilege of incorporation, and can accord ingly hold land, sue and be sued. Appeals from the decisions of a local board go to a central arbitration court, composed of a president who is judge of the supreme court, and two assessors, one elected by the employ

ees and the other by the federation of unions. The penalty for refusal to acknowledge a decision of this tribunal is £500, but up to this time penalties of only £30 or £40 have been imposed and since 1894 there have been only about fifty cases before this court. A peculiar feature of the system is that no recognition is given to unorganized labor. This fact is dwelt upon in a report to the Department of State by Hon. Frank Dillingham, United States consul at Auckland. He reports Sir Robert Stout, chief justice, as declaring that a non-associated workman has no status under the statute. "The status of individuals may be changed and the rights of persons affected, and there is no appeal to any other court in New Zealand." Therefore, under the statute the court has power to declare that trade unionists shall have a preference over workmen not belonging to a trade union. Mr. Justice Williams affirms that a non-unionist has no legal right to demand employment; he can sell his labor at what price and on what terms he chooses, provided he can find an employer able and willing to acept his terms. other words," Consul Dillingham says, "it would appear that the nonunionist can sell his labor if he can. get an employer to run the risk of encountering vexatious and expensive legal proceedings instituted by some union for engaging him instead of a unionist." So it is evident that the compulsory arbitration law in New Zealand has not prevented abuses, and that it unjustly discriminates against

"Iu