Esq., of New York City. Mr. Norton's address is published on pages 159-165. Miss Anna Freeman Davies and Mr. Frank Julian Warne, of Philadelphia, then took up the discussion of the general problem from the standpoint of social work and of the racial problems involved. SESSION OF SATURDAY EVENING, APRIL 9TH. The Presiding Officer, Joseph G. Rosengarten, Esq., of Philadelphia, announced as the general topic of the session, "The Scope and Limits of Federal Anti-Trust Legislation." In opening the session Mr. Rosengarten spoke as follows: "The Academy is fortunate in having as its guests this evening three gentlemen who have played an important part both in the development of corporate enterprise and in the solution of the corporate problems of recent years. Mr. James B. Dill, by reason of his familiarity with and active participation in the formation of many large and important corporate undertakings, is particularly well equipped to express views on Government regulation from the standpoint of the corporation itself. Mr. Charlton T. Lewis, through his long and varied practice in corporation law and from the many social and public-spirited organizations with which he has been connected, is also peculiarly fitted to discuss this question from the standpoint of the corporation and the public at large; while the first speaker of the evening, the Honorable James M. Beck, former Assistant Attorney-General of the United States, has been actively instrumental in determining the legal relations of the National Government with large commercial companies, and in the execution of the anti-trust laws of the United States. Mr. Beck needs no introduction to a Philadelphia audience, as he has for years been, and we shall always consider him to be, a Philadelphian. To each and all of them I can promise your careful attention, and to you the instruction that always follows a close logical discussion by experts able, earnest and capax rerum." Honorable James M. Beck, Assistant Attorney-General of the United States, 1902-1903, delivered the first address, on "The Federal Power over Trusts," which will be found on pages 87-110. James B. Dill, Esq., of New York City, discussed Mr. Beck's paper, pointing out the negative and conflicting character of the present legislation.1 An address on "The Scope and Limits of Congressional Legislation Against the Trusts," by Charlton T. Lewis, LL.D., then followed. Mr. Lewis' address will be found on pages 111-122. 1 The Editors regret that, by reason of the serious and protracted illness of a member of Mr. Dill's family, he has been prevented from preparing his address for publication. THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE ISSUED BI-MONTHLY VOL. XXIV, No. 2 SEPTEMBER 1904 EDITOR: EMORY R. JOHNSON ASSOCIATE EDITORS: SAMUEL MCCUNE LINDSAY, JAMES T. YOUNG PHILADELPHIA AMERICAN ACADEMY OF POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE 1904 Copyriget, 1904, by the American Academy of Political and Social Science ARBITRATION OF INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES The idea of arbitration contemplates that parties who are unable to agree upon any point or points at issue between them shall submit the disputed point or points to the decision of a person or a tribunal mutually agreed upon. Conferences and negotiations between employers and employees, or intervention in the form of conciliation or mediation, are sometimes erroneously spoken of as arbitration. At times, some one person, in whom both have confidence, is selected as sole arbitrator, but the custom usually adopted in industrial circles is for each of the contestants to name one or more and if an umpire's services are necessary, or stipulated, have the ones thus chosen select such umpire. It is believed by some who have given the subject much thought that unless an acceptable adjustment can be reached by a board consisting of an equal number of representatives from each side, and without an umpire, the conference had better fail. The disposition to charge disloyalty, or worse, to the representative who agrees with the other side, and the improbability of one who would do so being named by either side as a direct representative of its interests and contentions, would probably, in most cases, prevent arbitration, or at least render any definite adjustment through it impossible. If the idea that it is better to have a board equally chosen and no umpire is to be accepted, it clearly follows that both sides must select representatives or arbitrators who are entirely outside the sphere of influence of either of the contestants; men of undoubted judicial temperament and natures. The great difficulty which would then present itself would be the lack of practical or technical knowledge of the subjects in hand on part of the arbitrators. It seems, therefore, that the plan of trying to agree without an umpire and of choosing an umpire if such an agreement cannot be reached promises the best results. The decision of the arbitrators is accepted in advance as final and binding. It necessarily follows that, in order for arbitration to be effective, the parties in controversy who so submit their differences shall |