spirit which will represent the international courage of its people.

THE "REVISTA UNIVERSAL "

The "Revista Universal," or "Universal Review," a Spanish illustrated monthly magazine which has been published in New York City for two years, has recently changed hands. It may not be apparent at once why this fact should be recorded in The Outlook, but the new owners of this review have announced a policy all too rare among any periodicals, and so rare among Spanish-American periodicals that we consider it noteworthy. Though the new owners of the magazine are admittedly in sympathy with the cause of liberalism in Mexico as represented by Carranza, they have undertaken to publish a journal of impartial and independent views designed to promote more intimate relations and good feeling among all the countries of Pan-America.

The "Revista Universal," says the opening announcement of the editors, "proposes to undertake a work of unification, of spirit, and of hope; and if there is a Pan-American ideal, and, above all, a Pan-Iberian-American ideal this will be its ideal, synthesized in the inspiring motto of the last Pan-American Congress at Washington: 'One for All and All for One.'"

The "Review" undertakes to inform its readers on all important "social, economic, and political questions of the twenty-one. countries which form the great Pan-American family," and it hopes to draw upon the abilities of the best Spanish writers and authors in the Western Hemisphere.

It is a high ideal which this magazine has taken for itself, an ideal difficult to attain. But the first number of the "Revista Universal" contains much promise of adequate fulfillment. Although, as above mentioned, the editors of the journal are in sympathy with Carranza, the leading article is contributed by a man whose hostility to the cause of the First Chief is well known, and another article sings the praises of the Mexican painter Father P. G. Carrasco, a Jesuit priest, although the antipathy of the Constitutionalists to the clerical orders of Mexico hardly needs mention. The English translations of the more important articles in the "Revista Universal" which its editors plan to furnish to American journals may well be an important service to the latter in the discussion of Latin-American affairs.

CAN STRIKES BE PREVENTED?

121

In the tumult and confusion of the present labor war there is one fundamental principle which needs to be affirmed, maintained, and, if necessary, fought for: the principle that in America the majority govern.

This is a government by the people, for the people. Government by the few imposed on the people is un-American, undemocratic, unjust, and unendurable. It is quite immaterial whether that government is imposed by a political bureaucracy, a landed aristocracy, moneyed lords, or organized labor. Three or four weeks ago four hundred thousand men demanded that the United States Government establish eight hours as the standard labor day for our railways, and threatened to deprive the Amcrican people of their highways if the demand were not granted. Whether the eight-hour day is practicable or impracticable, whether it is reasonable or unreasonable, should have been decided by the hundred million people, not by the four hundred thousand railway employees.

The same principle is involved in the labor disturbances in New York City. There are five million people residing in New York City. It is estimated that one million people use the subways, elevated railways, and surface lines every day. A few thousand men are attempting to tell these million citizens on what conditions they may use those cars, and to enforce the authority which they have assumed they have called for a sympathetic strike—that is, they are endeavoring to stop all the industries on which the life of the city depends in order to compel the city to submit to their authority.

The labor leaders affirm that the President of the Interborough Company is attempting to prevent the existence of labor organizations, and that they are fighting for the right of workingmen to organize. The President of the Interborough Company affirms that he is not opposed to labor organizations, but believes in the right of individual workingmen to make individual contracts, if they prefer to do so. We believe in the right of workingmen to organize and to substitute collective bargaining for individual bargaining. We believe in the right of workingmen not to organize and to depend on individual contracts if they prefer to do so. But we emphatically deny the right of either labor unions or corporations to deprive New York City of its means of transit while they fight out this issue. The counsel of the

Interborough Company is quoted as saying: "I believe this country is in the same position as it was when Lincoln said it could not exist half free and half slave. I believe it cannot exist half union and half non-union.” We do not believe that he is right. But the question whether he is right or wrong is not one to be decided for the five million people of New York City by the Interborough corporation or by the labor unions, or by a battle royal between the two; it is one to be decided for the city of New York by the five million people who live in the city of New York, or possibly by the ten millions who live in New York State. When the question of a strike was submitted to a mass-meeting of employees, it is said that their shouts of "Strike! Strike! Strike !" could be heard a mile away. What sort of a deliberative assembly is that to determine for the people of New York City on what terms and conditions they may use their highways?

We do not here contend for the right of labor to organize, though we have always maintained that right; nor for the right of the individual laborer to work without belonging to an organization, though we have always maintained that right. We contend for the right of the American people to determine on what conditions their public highways, Federal, State, and municipal, shall be carried on. All claims, whether of capitalists or laborers, are subordinate to the fundamental right of the majority to pass upon those claims and to enforce their decision on both employers and employed.

The reader will ask, How do you propose to accomplish this result? We here point out one way in which it can be accomplished.

A few words of preliminary definition are necessary to make clear what follows.

There is a great difference between an arbitral tribunal and a court of justice. The difference is not merely nominal; it is vital.

Arbitration is generally arranged after the controversy has arisen and while prejudices and passions are excited. It usually works through one or more representatives selected by each of the contestants to represent their respective interests, and an umpire chosen by them; thus it is a bi-partisan tribunal with a nonpartisan umpire. Its decision is naturally and almost necessarily a compromise. And it has no inherent power to enforce its decree, though power may be, and sometimes is, created by law for its enforcement.

A court of justice is a permanent organiza

tion created with no reference to a particular dispute. Great pains are taken to make it non-partisan. In a jury trial no one is allowed to act as juror who has any interests or prejudices in favor of either party. Care usually is, and always ought to be, taken to secure as judges men of judicial temper, free from personal, class, or political prejudices. The object of the court is not to settle a controversy, but to secure justice, and it is expected to consider, and generally does consider, not merely the interests of the contestants, but also those of the general public; in fact, public policy frequently determines its judg ment. As soon as its judgment is declared, that judgment becomes as much a part of the law of the land as an act of the legislative body, and the whole police and military power of the State and, if necessary, of the Nation is pledged to enforce it.

One way out of the present industrial situation would be the creation, not of compulsory arbitration, but of a special judicial tribunal with power to bring before it the parties to any industrial dispute affecting a National, State, or municipal highway, hear the respective claims of the parties, examine witnesses, require the production of books and papers, and authoritatively decide the controversy, a decision which it would then be the duty of the police and, if necessary, of the military power of the Government to enforce.

We have heretofore pointed out how such decision could be enforced on the corporation. If it refused or failed to obey the decision of the court, the court could put the corporation into the hands of a receiver who would execute the decree, exactly as the court now puts a corporation into the hands of a receiver if it fails to pay the interest on its bonds. We have also pointed out the truth that freedom of contract does not mean that parties are free to keep or break their contracts at pleasure. When a contract is made, the law enforces the keeping of the contract. The law might require all contracts for employment on a railway, Federal, State, municipal, to run for a definite term, as for one or two years. If this were the case, and men were taken into the service at different times, their contracts would expire at different times. They could not, therefore, lawfully combine to leave in a body, nor could any employee be discharged except for cause on complaint presented and hearing given. If the men felt themselves

1916

aggrieved, a complaint could always be lodged with the court and correction demanded, and it could be lodged by any individual or by any group of individuals. If an employee was discharged and complained of the injustice of his discharge, the law might provide that his wages should continue until the court had passed upon his complaint. If any man left his employment before the expiration of his contract, he would render himself liable to arrest, fine, and possibly imprisonment. If any conspiracy was formed in order to induce the men to leave in a body in violation of their contracts, the conspirators could be arrested, and, if convicted, fined or imprisoned, or both. In brief, such a tribunal, possessing the combined powers of a civil and a criminal court, would establish, not only for the parties but for the people, the judicial method of securing jus tice, which civilization has long since established in lieu of war for the settlement of private quarrels, and is tending to establish in lieu of war for the settlement of international quarrels, and should long since have established in lieu of war for the settlement of industrial quarrels.

No doubt objections may be urged against this plan, or against any plan which the wit of man can devise. The question for the thoughtful student of affairs is whether the objections to some such plan are as great as those to the present no-plan, which leaves the community helpless while the quasi-owners and the operators of our public highways fight out the questions as to wages and conditions of labor which are sure to arise between them from time to time.

Of some other possible plans we may speak in future issues of The Outlook.

THE POLICY OF REPRISAL

Congress has enacted a measure giving the President power to take action of a drastic nature against the British and French Governments. This action provides that the President may withhold clearance from vessels that discriminate against any American citizen or firm or from vessels of any nation that restricts the commerce of American ships or citizens. An accompanying measure, known as the Phelan Amendment, adopted by the Senate but struck out in conference, and rightly regarded by its critics as even more dangerous in its possibilities, authorized

123

the President to deny the use of the United States mails, telegraphs, cables, wireless, and express service to British and French subjects or firms, if their Governments restricted American mails or trade. It is believed that the Phelan Amendment was opposed by the State Department.

The Outlook has already expressed its conviction (August 2, 1916, page 775) that a foreign nation has a legal right to restrict the trade of its own subjects, and therefore to prohibit its subjects from dealing in certain materials or with certain specified citizens of other countries. We believe, also, that it has a moral right to do this if in its judgment the national exigency is sufficiently great to warrant such a course. Whether it has any right to interfere with the mails is a much more serious question. In general, the inviolability of the mails is a National right.

We do not propose here, however, to discuss these legal questions. It is evident that they are both questions on which lawyers of eminence are not entirely agreed. Nor do we here consider the wisdom of Great Britain's policy. We think that it was unwise; that it will do her cause more harm by provoking hostility in neutral countries than it can possibly do her cause good by inflicting injury upon her enemies or restricting trade by which they might profit. We have here, however, simply to consider the righteousness and the wisdom of the action of our own Congress. Concerning that, two principles may be laid down, we think, with confident assurance of their correctness.

I. The question whether Great Britain and France have a right to prohibit their citizens from trading with certain of our citizens, and the question whether they have a right to open American mails if they have reason to think those mails are carrying aid to their enemies, are both questions which can properly be referred to a disinterested tribunal for settlement. A protest against any interference with our trade or with our mails, even by prohibitions laid upon their own citizens, would lay a foundation for a demand in the future for compensation in rectification of the wrong, for whatever wrongs are done by such interference are of the kind that can be measurably compensated for by apology and damages. They are certainly far less than the wrongs inflicted upon us by Great Britain's careless or possibly intentional acts in allowing cruisers to be fitted out in British ports to prey upon American com