October 15th. After what I have said, it need not be repeated that the principle underlying them, namely, that free competition is to be kept in effect under all circumstances, seems to me not only theoretically unsound, but in practice impossible of execution. In view of the enormous variety of the possible combinations of monopoly and competition, it will not be feasible, even after an indefinite number of judicial decisions, to lay down any general principle by which to decide when there is "substantially lessened competition" or when it is to be assumed that there is an attempt to “create a monopoly." The decisions must necessarily be arbitrary. In consequence, even tho a number of monopolistic organizations may be suppressed, others equally harmful will be left unaffected. The provision contained in Section 4 of the Anti-Trust Act of October 15th, by which every person "injured " by monopolistic action is entitled to sue for damages, may lead to great uncertainty as regards the outcome of contracts, and may lead also to a great over-burdening of the courts.

Certain provisions in Sections 8 to 10 of this act, which are designed to check financial abuses on the part of great corporations, quite apart from any monopolistic tendencies, are entitled to more favorable judgment. On principle they are to be commended. Nevertheless, in this regard also it seems to me doubtful whether a general and effective execution of the law is possible without a steady supervision and stringent control of the numberless enterprises, such as the American state, with its inadequate staff of trained officials, would seem as yet not able to carry out. The Federal Trade Commission is given tasks which may rise to such dimensions that all cannot possibly be attended to. Hence I must confess to an impression that these new enactments serve more to indicate the wish of the Administration

to do something, than give promise of bringing into practical effect the principles on which they rest.

This impression is confirmed by another circumstance. The Administration has failed to turn to a weapon for combating the trusts which I regard as the most important of all, and which has been used to a much greater extent in German legislation on stock companies, that, namely, of bringing public opinion to bear on the regulation of large corporations. The means are more stringent regulations concerning the make-up and the publication of balance sheets, especially as regards the ownership of securities, and requirements for the publication of detailed reports and prospectuses on the launching of new enterprises. Further may be mentioned the supervision of accounts and of administration by publicly authorized auditors; strict liability of directors, promoters, and financial agents for everything connected with the flotation of securities; and finally the creation of an independent financial periodical press. I should suppose that, in a democratic country above all, some such means of utilizing public opinion as a remedial agent would be peculiarly adapted for combating the abuses of the

trusts.

UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG I. B.

ROBERT LIEFMANN.

WAGES BOARDS IN AUSTRALIA: II. BOARDS OUTSIDE VICTORIA. III. ORGANIZATION

AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY

2. Queens

II. Boards outside Victoria. 1. South Australia, 326. land, 332. 3. New South Wales, 334.-4. Tasmania, 337. — III. Organization and Procedure. 1. Organization and Appointment, 339.

Grouping of trades, multiplication of boards, 341. - Number of members, 341.- Women, 342. Chairmen, 343. "Award or "determination," 344. - Court of Industrial Appeals in Victoria; of Industrial Arbitration elsewhere, 346.2. Wages Boards at work, 347. Importance of chairman, 350. - Real or apparent waste of time, 353. - Informal proceedings, 355. Absence of any guiding principle, 356. Cost of living a conspicuous factor, 357. — In Victoria, true examples of collective bargaining; elsewhere, less so, 360.

II. BOARDS OUTSIDE VICTORIA

1. South Australia. The reports of sweating and the agitation for its abolition in Victoria seem to have caused some searching of hearts in other parts of Australia and a desire to learn whether the conditions prevailing in Melbourne were similar to those in the capitals of the other colonies.

South Australia was the first state (after Victoria) to begin an inquiry into the conditions of factory employees and the home workers. A shops and factories commission, of which Mr. C. G. Kingston," the father of compulsory arbitration," and Mr. McPherson, the founder of the labor party in Australia, were members, made its report in 1892, and this led the way to the passage of the first Factories Act in South Australia in 1894.1 Mr. John Bannigan was appointed factory

1 Aves, Report on the Wages Boards, etc., p. 77.

inspector in 1896, and has continued to serve in that A woman inspector, Mrs. Agnes

capacity ever since.

A. Milne, was also appointed the same year.

The reports made by these inspectors from 1896 to 1900 showed that a considerable amount of sweating existed in Adelaide, especially in the clothing trades. Women were found making men's shirts at 2s. (47 cents) per dozen, aprons at 1s. (24 cents) per dozen, and children's pinafores, " tucked and frilled," at 1s. 6d. (361 cents) per dozen, and even at these prices were obliged to provide their own sewing thread.1 Other prices paid were 2s. (47 cents) apiece for men's coats, 1s. (24 cents) per pair for trousers and 1s. (24 cents) for vests. One woman, a skilled worker, was found who made women's blouses with four different shaped collars for 3s. (73 cents) per dozen, children's knicker drawers at 1s. 4d. (32 cents) per dozen, and ladies slip bodices at from 4s. (97 cents) to 5s. 6d. ($1.33) per dozen. Many of these goods were sold by Syrian, Afghan and Chinese hawkers.2 There were the same abuses in connection with the employment of apprentices as had been found in Victoria, and when business was slack these low paid apprentices were employed in preference to the ordinary piece workers.3

One of the consequences of such low rates, referred to by Mr. Bannigan in his report for 1899, was that firms in other states which had more advanced factory legislation were shipping their goods to Adelaide to be made up at the low rates prevailing there, and then re-shipping them to Sydney or Melbourne." At this time, there were, according to Mr. Bannigan, about 71 men and 374 women engaged as home workers in and

1 Report of Chief Inspector of Factories for 1896, p. 4.

around Adelaide. Of these, 215 women worked at dress-making, 17 men and 69 women at tailoring, one man and 81 women at the manufacture of shirts and underclothing, and 53 men and women at boot-making. Mr. Bannigan admitted, however, that there were probably many home workers whose names and places of abode were unknown to the inspectors.1

Partly as a result of these reports and partly through the influence of the Victorian legislation, parliament amended the Factories Act in 1900 so as to provide for the registration of out-workers, established a minimum wage of 4s. (97 cents) for factory workers and authorized the establishment of wages boards to determine the lowest price or rate of pay for workers inside or outside factories "employed in the manufacture of clothing including white work, boots and shoes, furniture and bread and such other manufacture, trade or business as may be from time to time fixed and determined by resolution of Parliament." The act followed the Victorian statute in its provision for the election of members of the board, the granting of licenses to aged and infirm workers to work at special rates and in the penalties provided for violation of the statute. The act was to go into effect as soon as regulations for carrying out the objects of the act had been submitted to Parliament and had been accepted by that body. The Minister of Industry proceeded to draw up these regulations, but when they were submitted to Parliament in 1901, they were not accepted; hence the provisions of the 1900 act which dealt with wages boards remained inoperative. The system of registration of the outworkers went into effect and seems to have resulted in some falling off from the number reported in 1899.3

1 Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories for 1899, p. 6. 2 Ibid., 1901, pp. 1-2.

• Ibid., p. 3.