of laws for the prevention of strikes among railway employees, therefore, concerns the Imperial Parliament only to a very slight extent and pertains almost exclusively to the separate State parliaments. So far, none of the States have availed themselves of their power to enact legislation subjecting such employees to penalties in the event of their combining for the purpose of a strike.

The legal status of railway workers in the various States of the Empire as regards freedom to strike is thus virtually identical; no law exists under which they can claim to have a right to strike; neither is there any law under which they would incur a penalty for striking. In all the States, however, the rules and practice of the railway administrations are such as to make it extremely difficult, if not indeed impossible, for a strike to be organized. A strike of railway employees has, in fact, never occurred in Germany.

Among the rules for admission to the service of the Prussian and Hessian State railways in the capacity of arbeiter (i. e., workman, as distinguished from official), is one providing that applicants must be able to show "that their past life has been respectable, that they have not been convicted of any offense by the courts, and that they have not been associated with any unions or movements that are inimical to public order." Another rule provides that "Even when not on duty the workman shall behave with dignity and honor, and shall hold himself aloof from all unions and movements that are inimical to public order."

Paragraph 6 of the rules as to employment of workmen on the Saxon State Railways contains, among other stipulations, a provision that the employees shall hold themselves aloof from unions or movements that are inimical to public order. Article 16 of the Bavarian law of August 16, 1908, concerning the rights and duties of officials, states that "No official may take part in a union whose aims or efforts conflict with the interests of the State or the service."

By paragraph 14 of the code of rules governing conditions of employment on the Saxon State Railways, a workman who "incites or persuades others to commit certain acts with the object of forcing the administration to grant higher wages" is declared to incur the penalty of immediate dismissal.

The State railway administrations of Baden and Wurtemberg have no written rules restricting the class of trade-unions to which their workmen may belong, but in the case of such of their employees as have attained the status of "official" membership in a union that advocated strikes would entail dismissal, while in the case of a "work man" membership would destroy his prospects of promotion to that status.

The attitude and practice of the German State Railway administration toward combinations formed among their staff is clearly illustrated by a statement made in the Reichstag on November 13, 1911, by Herr von Breitenbach, the Prussian minister of public works. The minister's observations were made in reply to an interpellation concerning the reasons for the discharge of certain members of the railway staff in Alsace-Lorraine. From these observations it appears that the railway administration always insists on being informed of any proposals on the part of the members of the staff to form a union; that it requires the by-laws of the union to be submitted to

it so as to be sure that the objects in view do not conflict with the fundamental principles of the contract of service; and that it is an established practice for the administration to be furnished in advance with a copy of the agenda of each meeting, failing which a representative of the department is deputed to attend and watch the proceedings.

It was further pointed out in the course of the debate that at least 90 per cent of the organized railway servants belong to unions whose by-laws specifically waive all claims to exercise the right to strike.

Means for enabling the various groups of railway workers other than "officials" to bring their requests and grievances to the notice of the authorities are now established by all the great State railway administrations in Germany under the name of Arbeiteraussche or workmen's committees. The committees are composed of representatives elected by the various groups of the staff in each geographical district or subdistrict into which the railway system of the particular State is divided. The manner of election, functions, and procedure of the committees are prescribed by the railway administration, and special care is taken to keep the committees free from the influence of trade-unions. Thus the rules in force in Prussia and Hesse provide that "members of committees are not permitted to render an account of their doings in the committee to persons not connected with the railway service or to unions or associations, nor may they accept mandates from such persons or unions for their activity."

HOLLAND.

The restriction against concerted action by work people in Holland for the purpose of stopping work was removed by article 3 of the Dutch law of April 12, 1872.

The freedom of action with respect to strikes conferred by this law was enjoyed by railway employees, in common with other classes of workmen, until the year 1903. A general strike in the Dutch railway service, which took place in January, 1903, led to the enactment on April 12 of that year of a special law for the prevention of strikes in the railway service.

Article 1 of this law increased the stringency of the penal code with respect to "offenses against liberty" by providing as follows:

Article 284 of the aforesaid penal code is amended so as to read as follows: "Imprisonment for a period not exceeding nine months or a fine not exceeding £25 shall be incurred by anyone who

"(a) Unlawfully compels another by means of violence or any other forcible action, whether employed against that person or against a third party, to do, or to abstain from doing, or to suffer anything;

"(b) Compels another by threats of insult or defamation to do or abstain from doing anything: Provided, With regard to (b), that the offender shall be prosecuted only on the complaint of the person against whom the offense is committed."

Under article 2 of the law the existing provisions of the penal code relating to offenses in "official employ" were supplemented by the enactment of three new sections directed against the stoppage of railway traffic by the voluntary acts of the employees themselves.

Of these new provisions, one provided that "any official or any person permanently or temporarily employed in connection with the public railway traffic, not belonging to the staff of a railway on which the traffic is conducted exclusively at limited speeds, who, with the object of creating or causing to continue a stoppage of a public service or of the public railway traffic, neglects or, having been lawfully charged therewith, refuses to perform duties to which he has bound himself either expressly or by virtue of his engagement, shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than six months, or by fine not exceeding 300 florins ($121.65)." Another section stipulated that a term of imprisonment of not more than two years should be imposed on any two or more persons who, as a result of a conspiracy, should commit the offense described in the foregoing section. It was further enacted that "if the, object described above (a strike or interference with traffic) shall have been attained, a penalty of imprisonment shall be inflicted, the duration of which shall be from one to four years according to the offense."

As there have been no strikes in Holland since 1903, the foregoing measures have never been put in practice.

Concurrently with the preparation of this law, steps were taken for providing the railway staff with means for adjusting their grievances, and on April 7, 1903, a decree was promulgated requiring the managing boards of railways to prepare, for submission to the Government, codes of rules fixing the conditions of engagement and discharge and the wages of the different classes of railway servants, the procedure of boards of arbitration established for the enforcement of penalties, the division of the staff into groups for the election of delegates authorized to lay the wishes and complaints of the men before the managers, and the conditions for arriving at a decision on the subject of such complaints.

ITALY.

Freedom to combine for the purpose of a strike is withheld from employees of both State and private railways in Italy.

By article 56 of the law of July 7, 1907, all employees of State railways were declared to be "public officials" and are thereby brought under the operation of articles 178 and 181 of the Penal Code. Article 56 of the law of July 7, 1907, is as follows:

All employees on State railways, whatever their grade and duty, are considered as public officials. * * Those who voluntarily leave or neglect

*

to take up their duty, or who perform it in such a way as to interrupt or disturb the community or regularity of the service, are considered as dismissed and are replaced.

The director general, however, with the approval of the council of administration and after having considered the individual conditions and personal responsibilities, can impose the stoppage of an increment of salary or wages or degradation instead of dismissal.

By article 27 of a law of April 22, 1905, the status of a "public official" was assigned also to employees of private railway undertakings. Such employees, therefore, in the event of their striking, would incur the penalties provided by articles 178 and 181 of the Penal Code.

Private railway undertakings, moreover, are required under a law dated June 30, 1906, to draw up and submit to the ministry of

public works a code of disciplinary rules. These must be in harmony with those applied in the service of State railways and must, therefore, provide disciplinary penalties similar to those specified above as being laid down by article 56 of the law of July 7, 1907, for persons who voluntarily leave or neglect to take up their duty or who perform it in such a way as to interrupt or disturb the continuity or regularity of the service."

Under article 178 of the Penal Code as amended in 1889, a public official who on any pretext omits or refuses to perform an act pertaining to his office is punishable with a fine of 50 to 500 lire; if such an offense is committed preconcertedly by three or more officials the fine is from 100 to 300 lire.

Article 181 of the same law provides that—

State officials who to the number of three or more, by preconcerted action, unlawfully abandon their duties are punished with a fine of 500 to 3,000 lire and temporary exclusion from office.

The same penalty applies to public officials who abandon their duties in order to prevent the carrying out of any business or in order to occasion any other prejudice to the public service.

No machinery has been established by which employees may formally present grievances or requests for adjustments.

TURKEY.

A law of the Ottoman Empire, dated August 9, 1909, provided that in the case of public-utility services no strike could take place until the grounds of the dispute have been communicated to the Government and the parties have failed to reach a settlement by means of conciliation applied in accordance with prescribed rules. If the two parties are unable through the process of conciliation to reach an agreement, the employees are free to leave work, but are absolutely forbidden to perform any act or make any demonstration opposed to freedom of action.

If, when the decision of the conciliation board has been put into effect and registered as concerning both the establishment and the employees and workmen, the administration of the establishment nevertheless avoids carrying out the provisions of the award in good faith, it is thereupon warned by the ministry and requested to apply the terms of the award. In case of failure to comply with such request within eight days, the establishment for every day's delay thereafter is compelled under the law to pay a fine ranging from £25 to £300, according to the amount of its capital.

The sum so collected is allocated to the employees and workmen's pension and savings funds, or where such funds do not exist, is distributed among the employees and workmen in proportion to their salaries and wages. In case of a refusal by the establishment to give this compensation voluntarily it is taken by law. Every workman is entitled to sue for his part of the compensation money.

PORTUGAL.

Before the revolution in Portugal, which took place in October, 1910, strikes were forbidden under article 277 of the Penal Code, but the offense was not always followed by its legal penalty.

In one of its first decrees the Provisional Government affirmed the right of employees to strike. This decree was dated October 31, 1910, and was published in the official gazette, Diario do Governo, on the 3d of November. Its publication was followed by a rapid extension of the strike movement and the Government saw itself obliged within a month to publish a further decree modifying and defining the right which they had recently affirmed.

While guaranteeing in general terms the right to continue, for a simultaneous cessation of work, the new decree (dated December 6, 1910) prohibited practices tending to restrict the freedom of work people or employers to carry on their work or industry. (Arts. 1 and 2.) In cases where the public would be deprived of light, water, or necessary provisions, or the inmates of hospitals or asylums would be left without assistance; also in cases affecting any transport service, whether by land or water, no strike or lockout might be instituted without a specified number of days' notice having been given and a statement having been furnished to the authorities, setting forth the exact reason and precise objects of the strike or lockout.

Under article 2 of the decree of December 6, 1910, persons attempting to form or maintain or prevent associations of employers or employees for the simultaneous cessation of work, by violence, threats, or who in any way use pressure tending to diminish the liberty of the employed of employers in the legal exercise of their work or their industry, are, when such an act does not constitute an offense punishable under the code by a severer penalty, liable to a period of imprisonment not exceeding six months, and to a corresponding fine. Provision was made by the decree of October 31, 1910, for a commission to adjust controversies between employers and employees, the decree reciting that the commission should act in such cases "until the Constituent Assembly shall definitely pronounce on a matter of such importance."

The decree sets forth that the duties of the commission "shall be to receive all claims which may arise out of questions and dissensions between employers and employed, and it shall endeavor to bring into harmony all legitimate interests and propose to the Government any measures or steps which it may be considered expedient to take for the attainment of this object."

ROUMANIA.

A decree of the Roumanian Government dated January 1, 1910, contains provisions for the prevention of stoppages of work in any kind of public-utility service whether general or local.

Under this law no official, artisan, worker, and, in general, no person who is paid a salary by the State, or by a department, commune, or public establishment having an economic character, whether industrial or commercial, also no person charged with a public service, may, under any pretext, join a trade union without first receiving authority to do so from the competent minister.

The officials, artisans, and workpeople defined above are prohibited from striking.

Persons contravening these provisions are subject to dismissal from employment and to loss of their claim to any bonuses and contributions to pension funds, whether made in virtue of legal dis