performance of the official duties or to the position of the members or to the organization of the service.

Since the first establishment of railways in Belgium there has been no serious strike in the transportation industry. As a consequence in this connection article 236 of the penal code has never been applied. The absence of strikes on the Belgian State railways is, however, stated to be due to the facts that posts on the railway are more and more sought after. Men who could earn higher wages in other branches of trade, it is stated, enter the service of the railways because of its stability, the prospect of a pension, advantages for their children, and on account of the prestige which they enjoy as public employees and officials.

DENMARK.

Recent Danish legislation for the prevention and settlement of labor disputes is embodied in two acts dated April 12, 1910. Under one of these laws provision is made for the appointment of a permanent arbitration court, composed of members of the existing national federations of employers and work people, respectively, together with a president and a vice president, each of whom possesses the qualifications of an ordinary judge. It is the business of this court to endeavor to make the parties to a dispute respect any agreement concerning arbitration into which they may have entered. The court has power to inflict fines on the party or parties adjudged guilty of violating the terms of an agreement. Witnesses summoned before the court are bound to appear, and its awards are final and enforceable as verdicts of the ordinary courts.

The arbitration court, in cases brought before it under the law, is required to decide how far the conduct complained of constitutes a violation of existing agreements and how far a decision complained of and found to be in violation of existing agreements is void. The party 'or parties responsible for the conduct complained of may be sentenced to a fine, which, if injury has been caused to anyone, shall accrue to the party by whom the injury has been actually suffered and in other cases to the plaintiff. Unless otherwise stipulated beforehand, the organization as such incurs legal liability only when it has made itself a party to the conduct of which complaint is made.

The arbitration court, in determining the amount of the fine, is governed by the magnitude of the injury, having due regard to the extent to which the offending party may have acted innocently. Where specially extenuating circumstances are found to exist the court may decide to inflict no fine.

Specially aggravating circumstances are deemed to exist where the offender has refused, although bound by his agreement to accept, arbitration, or where he has acted contrary to the terms of a legally pronounced award or of a judgment given by the arbitration court to which the law relates.

The second of the two laws enacted in 1910 provides for the appointment of a Government conciliator, holding office for two years at a time. Whenever a serious strike or lockout has either taken place or appears likely to do so, and negotiations between the disputants have proved unavailing, the conciliator may, on his own initiative or on the application of one of the parties, summon them to a conference, and the parties are bound to obey such summons.

FRANCE.

The principle of liberty both for employers and for work people to take concerted action with a view to the cessation of work has been formally recognized in France since the amendment, by a law dated May 25, 1864, of articles 414-416 of the penal code. In their amended form these articles imposed penalties only when the strike or lockout is brought about by "threats or fraudulent devices." Even in its amended form, however, article 416 of the penal code prevented the effective exercise of the right to strike until the passage of the trade-associations law of March 21, 1884. The consequences of such repeal are described in a ministerial circular of August 25, 1884, in the following terms:

(a) The fact of having concerted measures with a view to preparing for a strike is no longer an offense either as regards associations of employers or workmen who are not members of an association.

(b) Fines, prohibitions, prescriptions, or interdictions pronounced in pursuance of concerted measures are no longer considered an attempt to prevent the free exercise of industry and labor.

A further obstacle to the effective exercise of the right to carry on strikes and lockouts was removed by those articles of the trade associations' law of 1884, under which freedom is granted to form trade associations without first obtaining formal sanction from the Gov

ernment.

The only limitations upon complete freedom to strike in the railway service in France are contained in a law of July 15, 1845, of which article 20 is as follows:

Any engine driver, guard, or brakeman who shall desert his post during the progress of a journey shall be punished with imprisonment for a period of six mouths to two years.

A law dated July 22, 1909, authorized the Government to suspend during a period of strike or lockout the operation of certain laws whereby vessels sailing under the French flag enjoy a monopoly of the trade between the ports of continental France and those of Algeria and Corsica. This law was enacted in consequence of the frequent interruptions of maritime communications between France and the ports of the countries mentioned, by reason of strikes of French seamen, and it may be regarded as indirectly prohibiting strikes and lockouts of seamen engaged in that particular trade under the threat of a suspension of the monopoly.

It may be added that the same law provides for the establishment of a permanent arbitration board for dealing with disputes between the shipping companies and their seamen.

In 1910 a general strike was attempted by railway employees in France, but it was declared off after six days because the Govern ment called the striking employees to the colors and placed them under military orders. An order was then issued requiring them to maintain and operate the railways.

GERMANY.

In Germany the State railway system, with the exception of about 1.000 miles of line in Alsace Lorraine, is owned and administered by the governments of the various constituent States. The enactment

69098-16-13

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:

66

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