positions or by rules, or of dispositions arising out of the contract of service.

Under the decree of January 1, 1910, whoever by violence or threats causes partial or total cessation of work, or prolongs such suspension, with the object of reducing the wages of the workpeople or of securing from the employers an increase in wages or conditions of labor different from existing ones, is liable to imprisonment for a period of one month to two years. Should the offender be a stranger to the establishment in which the strike occurs, the maximum penalty is imposed.

No formal procedure was provided for the adjustment of grievances or for the presentation of requests of workmen.

RUSSIA.

The principle of combining by means of a strike to compel an employer to grant improved conditions of labor has never been formally affirmed in Russia.

Under article 1358 of the Penal Code, combinations of workpeople for the purpose of striking in order to secure an increase in wages entailed imprisonment for terms ranging from three weeks to three months in the case of the ringleaders, and from seven days to three weeks in the case of other participants. The foregoing article of the Penal Code was repealed by an imperial ordinance dated 2d (15th) December, 1905, with the result that peacefully conducted strikes not affecting undertakings of a "social or governmental character" are no longer punishable as formerly.

The imperial ordinance of 2d (15th) December, 1905, relates especially to strikes in the railway and telephone service, but its provisions were extended by an ordinance of 10th (23d) April, 1906, so as to cover all undertakings having a social or governmental character if the suspension of work of the workpeople threatens the security of the State or gives cause for fear of a national calamity. The new ordinance makes special mention of "undertakings engaged in maritime and river transport, having for their object the transport of goods and passengers, and also timber rafting and the harbor and docks services, and the maintenance of navigation."

The earlier of the two ordinances provides that whoever causes unrest among employees on railways or in the telephone service (not belonging to the State), or contributes in any way toward provoking a strike or toward interfering with work, shall be imprisoned from 8 to 16 months if the provocation has been effective. If such agitation is the act of a person not working in the establishment, the penalty is 8 months' imprisonment.

The act further provides that whoever is guilty of deliberately inciting the workmen to interrupt, disturb, or fail to resume work shall, if the purpose of such incitement is achieved, incur the penalty of 8 to 16 months' imprisonment. If such incitement is the act of a person not employed in the establishment, or if it results in no interruption, disturbance, or nonresumption of work, the punishment is imprisonment for from 2 to 8 months.

With respect to striking, the act provides that employees of railroads or in the telephone service (not belonging to the State)

who are guilty of interrupting, disturbing, or not resuming their duties shall be punished by detention for three weeks to three months, or by imprisonment for 4 to 16 months. Employees who arbitrarily and by preconcerted plan have stopped work and who have also been guilty of forcing their comrades to suspend or fail to resume work are liable to imprisonment for a term of 4 to 16 months, unless the act shall be found to assume a graver character. These persons are equally liable to this penalty who, arbitrarily and preconcertedly ceasing to fulfill their duties, are guilty of having forced other employees in the same establishment to discontinue, disturb, or fail to resume work.

No means are provided for giving vent to the grievances of employees.

SPAIN.

Until less than three years ago the existence of a right to institute strikes and lockouts in Spain could only be inferred from the absence of any law withholding or limiting that right. All uncertainty on the subject was, however, removed by a special enactment, dated April 27, 1909, relating to strikes and combinations. Article 1 of that law was as follows:

Employers and workpeople may combine, strike, or declare a lockout in defense of their respective interests without prejudice to the obligations resulting from any contracts into which they may have entered.

Articles 5, 6, and 7 of the law deal with strikes and lockouts in public-utility services. Article 5 makes provision as follows:

(1) Strikes and lockouts shall be declared to the authorities eight days beforehand, when they tend to bring about an interruption of the light or water supplies or of the railway service.

(2) When as a consequence of the strike or lockout the sick and persons in institutions of any district are deprived of assistance.

Article 6 requires that strikes and lockouts shall be declared to the authorities five days beforehand when they may tend to bring about the interruption of the street railway service or to cause the inhabitants of a locality to be deprived of an object of general and necessary consumption. In this case, as in that of the preceding article, the declaration to the authorities must make known the cause of the strike. In article 7 is contained the requirement that the principals and leaders of the strikes and lockouts, covered by sections 5 and 6, who shall not have made the prescribed declaration to the authorities with the required notice shall be liable to imprisonment. The effective exercise of the right to strike as well as of freedom to work are guaranteed by articles 2 and 9. Article 2 provides, in substance, that any person who, in order to organize or maintain or prevent combinations of workpeople, strikes or lockouts, shall make use of force, violence, or threats, shall be liable to imprisonment or to a fine of from 5 to 125 pesetas (4 shillings to £5), unless the action should constitute a more serious offense defined by the Penal Code. In article 9 it is stipulated that legally constituted unions may organize or maintain combinations, strikes, or lockouts conformably to the dispositions of the law, but may not force their members to participate in a combination, strike, or lockout by means contrary to the free exercise of rights.

Acts of the kind which come under the head of picketing or intimidation are dealt with under articles 3, 4, and 8. In article 3 it is declared that those who cause public obstruction or assemble with the object of violently compelling anyone to strike, or to declare a lockout, or of obliging them to desist from a strike or lockout, are liable to imprisonment. The maximum penalty is imposed on principals and leaders, if they have taken part in the offensive acts. Article 8 contains the stipulation that meetings and demonstrations organized with a view to declaring, maintaining, or preventing a strike or lockout are covered by the law of public meetings. The offenses punishable under law are assimilated to those covered by the Penal Code as regards the application of the law of public meetings.

SWITZERLAND.

Federal legislation in Switzerland consisting of article 56 of the law of the constitution which was enacted on May 29, 1874, guarantees the general right to strike or concerted action. This article provides that "citizens have the right to form associations, providing there be nothing illicit or dangerous to the State in their object, or in the means which they employ. The Cantonal laws shall prescribe the measures necessary for the repression of abuse."

So far as Federal legislation is concerned, the only enactment which could be considered to involve any limitation (even indirect) of the right to strike is the Federal act of October 15, 1897, "concerning the acquisition and working of the railways on behalf of the Confederation, and the organization of the Federal railways." By article 12 of that act it is stated that

The officials and employees of the Federal railways are subject to the laws which govern officials of the Confederation.

In the regulations issued on the 7th of December, 1899, in pursuance of the foregoing law, it is provided by article 66 that—

When of set purpose, or through negligence, functionaries, employees or workpeople of the Federal railways do not properly fulfill their functions, the authority under which they serve may provisionally suspend them, while withholding their pay, fining them up to 100 francs, or cautioning them.

Anyone so punished may appeal to the authority immediately above that inflicting the penalty.

Should damage result from these failures of service, the culprit may be made to repair all or part of such damage.

There have been no railway strikes in Switzerland since the nationalization of the railways in 1897, nor does there appear to exist a law for the settlement of disputes in the Federal railway service.

Of the 25 Cantons that form the Swiss Confederation only one appears to have enacted legislation involving any limitation of the right to strike, namely, Geneva.

A law enacted by the Canton of Geneva on the 26th of March, 1904, prescribes the methods to be employed for establishing collective agreements regarding conditions of labor in the various trades and for bringing conciliation and arbitration to bear upon disputes incidental to the establishment, modification, and interpretation of such agreements.

Under article 17 of the law, strikes and lockouts are illegal when instituted for the purpose of modifying an agreement actually in

force or violating the award of the official board of arbitration concerning such an agreement. Under article 18 penalties are imposed for making any "public" appeal for a stoppage of work (whether strike or lockout) until the prescribed methods of conciliation and arbitration have been applied, during the time of their being applied, and once a solution of the question in dispute has been arrived at by these means.

Should the parties be unable to agree, an attempt at conciliation must, at the request of either of the parties, be made by the council of state, which may delegate one or more of its members for this. purpose. In case of a difference which affects the whole of a trade, the council of state may of its own initiative make the attempt at conciliation.

The arbitrators selected for the adjustment of controversies, as prescribed by the law, may order the putting into force of a schedule of wages and other labor conditions in a trade only after a delay of at least six months after their decision, unless the parties accept by agreement a shorter delay.

X. AUSTRALASIAN LEGISLATION.

AUSTRALASIA.

The Commonwealth of Australia, the several constituent States, and the Commonwealth of New Zealand have during the past 25 years developed elaborate governmental machinery for the determination of wages and working conditions, the prevention of strikes, and the promotion of industrial peace. The primary object of these laws has been to protect the working classes against rates of pay and working conditions which are alleged to be unsatisfactory and to protect employers, industrial workers, and the general public against the inconvenience and losses arising from industrial warfare. Under these conditions special attention has not been directed toward the transportation industry and the public-utility service. The regulation of wage disputes between public-service corporations and their employees has been subordinate to the broader objects of the industrial program. The different laws and their operation afford, however, a valuable insight into the efficacy of legislative provisions for the prevention of strikes and the compulsory mediation or arbitration of disputes relative to wages and industrial conditions.

THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA.

Authority was granted to the Federal Parliament of Australia to legislate in reference to industrial disputes extending beyond the boundaries of any one State by the constitution of 1900, the law thus authorized being enacted in 1904. The law is of the most inclusive scope as far as employments or occupations are concerned, and the court established by it has cognizance of all disputes, actual, impending, or threatened, which are of a geographic extent to bring them within the Federal purview.

Jurisdiction is obtained by certification by the proper industrial or political authority, by the request of the parties in interest, or by the voluntary action of the president of the court. Conciliation

is, of course, the first attempt, which failing, awards of a binding nature may be made. Cases under consideration by State authorities may be taken over by the Federal court if the extent of the dispute warrants such action.

The system is based on unionism, registers of organizations of employers and employees being kept by an official registrar, whose certifications and records are an essential part of the procedure established by the act. Strikes and lockouts are forbidden under penalties of such severity as to make their occurrence extremely unlikely, while the enforcement of awards is likewise undertaken by levying fines on the offending persons or organizations, members of unions being personally responsible where the union assets are insufficient to meet the fine. Agreements by way of conciliation, when properly authenticated, are binding in the same way as awards. The court has authority to make use of subsidiary bodies and agencies for the securing of data or the decision of technical matters. Amendments extending the authority of the court and strengthening the provisions of the act are evidence that the method is generally approved, though there are, of course, some unwilling submissions. There has not been since the enactment of the law any strike extending beyond the boundaries of a single State.

The definition of "industrial disputes" as amended by an act of 1911 includes:

(1) Any dispute as to industrial matters, and

(2) Any dispute in relation to employment in an industry carried on by or under the control of the Commonwealth or a State, or any public authority constituted under the Commonwealth or a State, and

(3) Any threatened or impending or probable industrial dispute.

The definition in those cases in which a dispute extends beyond the "limits of any one State" includes "employment upon State railways," although the special reference thereto which had been included in the definition of "industrial disputes" in the original act is omitted in the act as amended.

In Part II of the act it is provided that no person or organization shall, on account of any industrial dispute, do anything in the nature of a lockout or strike or continue any lockout or strike.

This section does not apply to anything proved to have been done for good cause independent of the industrial dispute, but on a prosecution for any contravention of this section the onus of such proof is placed on the defendant. In default of such proof, and on proof of the lockout, strike, or continuation of the industrial dispute, such acts are deemed to have been on account of the industrial dispute. In the case of a lockout or strike by any person or association the act provides for the imposition of a fine of £1,000.

Under section 7 of the act where persons with a view to being associated as employers and employees, respectively, in any industry have entered into an industrial agreement with respect to employment in that industry any of such persons who, without reasonable cause or excuse, refuse or neglect to offer or accept employment upon the terms of the agreement is deemed to be guilty of a lockout or strike, as the case may be.

The sole tribunal created under the act is a court consisting of a president appointed by the Governor General from among the