gressive party is back under the Republican banner. The list of important Progressives who have given their support to Mr. Wilson, as reported by the Democratic chairman, Mr. Vance C. McCormick, is not particularly impressive. The most important figure upon the list is Francis J. Heney, of California. Mr. Heney is a valuable recruit for the Democratic standard-bearer. In New York Mr. Bainbridge Colby is to be found on the list, and also Michael Schaap, an exAssemblyman of vigorous personality, has turned to Mr. Wilson; and in Massachusetts Matthew Hale has stated his intention of doing all that he can to re-elect the President. It was hoped by the Democrats that the name of Raymond Robins, of Illinois, might be added to their list, but his recent announcement has served to dispel all such expectations. Mr. Robins was Chairman of the Progressive National Convention at Chicago, and is one of the most conspicuous Progressives in the country. RAYMOND ROBINS AND Mr. Robins's statement of his faith is so typical of the attitude of the majority of Progressives that we quote from it at some length: In 1914 we had a real test of the Progressive voters of 1912 and the willingness of the American people to use a new party in the practical solution of the problems of our political life. Generally throughout the Nation the Progressive candidates-embracing its most gifted leaders and all generously supported by Colonel Roosevelt, and, as a rule, fairly treated by the daily press-ran a bad third. Nearly threefourths of the Progressive voters of 1912 refused to support the Progressive candidates in 1914.... While I had hoped against hope that the extraordinary events in this epochal hour might overrule the verdict of the voters, and under the leadership of Colonel Roosevelt the Progressive party might yet dominate the situation, nevertheless, when the Progressive Convention had adjourned and the entire situation was considered it was manifest that the end which the voters had decreed had come-that the Progressive party was dead. The National conscience, now aroused, must be made effective. It must develop a National mind that will comprehend our social, industrial, and military unpreparedness. It must appreci ate the domestic injury and National danger that lie in our lack of a definite foreign policy. It must realize that we will be as unprepared for peace as we are unprepared for war. The supreme need in American political life is leadership supported by a voting rank and file that will organize and maintain an adequate social, industrial, and military preparedness, together with a comprehensive foreign policy. . . . The present leader of the Republican party won his reputation as the progressive Republican Governor of New York. He there proved himself completely independent of all boss control and demonstrated that he will take advice from many but dictation from none. His words have been made good by deeds. His leadership is the fruit of the Progressive movement in American politics. His nomination was not two hours old when the most resourceful general of the "Old Guard" was dropped overboard into political oblivion. The forced retirement of William Barnes, Jr., was the "high sign" to all who wish to know and understand that the control of the Republican party had passed forever from the "Old Guard" of 1912. Mr. Hughes's recognition of the Progressives in the appointment of his campaign committee is a guarantee of the good faith in which he appeals for Progressive support. We believe that Mr. Robins is correct both in his estimate of the Progressive party and in his statement of the work which remains for the reunited Republican party to do. A VICTORY FOR THE CHILDREN The Child Labor Bill passed the United States Senate last week by a vote of 52 to 12. The bill had been made a party measure at the urgent request of President Wilson, and, although all the votes cast against the bill except two were Democratic and from the South, the party and the President are entitled to credit for its passage. The two non-Democratic votes against the bill were those of Senator Penrose and Senator Oliver, of Pennsylvania. The bill which passed the Senate differs in certain respects from the bill which passed the lower house last February. The two bills will have to be taken up, therefore, in joint conference, but there appears to be little question that the differences between the House and Senate bills can be adjusted and that the result will become law. In the Senate bill inter-State commerce is forbidden in the product of mills or factories in which children under fourteen have been employed and in the product of any mine or quarry in which children under sixteen years of age have been employed; commerce is forbidden also in the product of any place where children between fourteen and sixteen have worked over eight hours a day or over six days a week or before six in the morning or after seven at night. This is stronger than the House bill, which says that the product must be that of children's labor, while the Senate bill prohibits the transport of all articles made in a factory where children are employed under the conditions forbidden. That the only right or fair way to control child labor is through a Federal law has long been maintained by The Outlook, for only thus can an equal condition exist as between the separate States in this matter. The fight over this legislation has extended for years, and now the friends of humanity, and especially of humane conditions for children, will rejoice that the struggle has been nearly brought to a happy conclusion. TREATIES AND TRUCES IN As the New York business man went to his office on Tuesday morning of last week he was pleased to note that street cars were running because a treaty of peace had been negotiated by the companies and the employees; he may also have noted from his car window the long lines of marching cloak strikers celebrating their return to their workshops after months of desperate industrial warfare; less agreeable was the news he read in his paper that the leaders of the great railway brotherhoods had by referendum to the individual workers received almost universal indorsement of their threat to institute a country-wide strike if their demands were not accepted. Even in this case, however, a truce or parley will certainly ensue before a war which would devastate business may begin. All these large and fierce struggles are quite correctly described in terms of war. That industrial warfare must, and in time will, give way to industrial democracy and peace has been urged in The Outlook for many years. As in the realm of nations war will cease only when an international court exists with power to enforce its decisions, so industrial war will continue until we have sound legislation, scientific labor commissions, and compulsory enforcement of decrees just to capital, labor, and the public interest. Meanwhile we must struggle as well as we can to encourage voluntary arbitration, to proffer machinery for agreement, and to depend a great deal upon the unwillingness 883 of either combatant to brave the storm of public execration that will fall upon the party to a labor quarrel which refuses to act moderately and justly. THE CLOAK Strike As to the cloak and suit makers' lockout and strike, the terms reached were substantially those originally agreed upon by strike leaders in The Outlook two weeks ago. and employers, and described at some length The strikers at first refused to accept the terms, but finally yielded. This was a bitter war; it lasted over three months; from forty to fifty thousand people were out of work; over $80,000 a week was paid by the unions out of reserve funds to keep off starvation; the employers badly needed the workers back to get the season's work under way. The result was a compromise; the employees made slight gains in wages and hours, and a priceadjusting board is provided; a strong preferential union recognition clause is includedno new employee may be hired until the employer is satisfied that the employee is in good union standing. On the other hand, the old Protocol plan of conciliation, shop committees, and graded arbitration is abandoned. The employers, or their committee, intended, say the employees, to eradicate the union from the shops; they failed, and they now also make an admission of the employees' right to strike-a meaningless admission, as it seems to us. THE TRACTION STRIKE The honor of settling the traction strike in New York is due to Mayor Mitchel and Mr. Oscar S. Straus, Chairman of the Public Service Commission. Both worked incessantly and in a high public spirit for this end. The terms provide for an attempt by employees and the companies to settle by conference questions of wages and conditions, or, if they fail, to lay them before three arbitrators, one to be chosen by each party, and the third by the two thus named, or, if they fail to agree, by Mr. Straus. All this is excellent, and it may be hoped and expected that Mr. Straus will not again have occasion to call public attention to the fact that an agreement to arbitrate has been set aside or "forgotten" by representatives of the companies, as he did when the present strike was threatened, and threatened largely because of that failure to keep an agreement. The first two sections of the agreement deserve special attention. Each begins with a clause which seems a mere truism, followed by a clause which means a good deal. Thus the first says: "The employees shall have the legal and moral right to organize" (which is indisputable), but adds: “The company pledges that it will not interfere with the employees in their exercise of these rights" (which means that union men will not be discharged because they are union men). And in the second section it is agreed that "the company shall receive and treat with a committee of the employees upon any and all questions that may arise between them." This might seem to be a reiteration of the anti-union contention that only actual employees of the particular company involved would be heard-a contention fatal to fair "collective bargaining;" but the section continues: "This committee to select such spokesmen or advisers as they may choose to represent them, without any objections on the part of the company." The last clause, if it means anything, means that National leaders of the union may act as advocates or agents, whereas actual employees who do so are too often "blacklisted." In short, we understand that the companies mean to have a fair, and not an unfair, open shop" organization, but not a "closed shop;" indeed, the men in this agreement specifically agree not to interfere with non-union employees. As with the cloakmakers, the traction union men get, not full recognition, but toleration. This treaty of peace seems fair and aboveboard. Whether it ends war or merely postpones it depends on the good faith with which it is observed. The public, certainly, is relieved from present fear of intolerable inconvenience; even the partial tie-up New York suffered entailed delay, crowding, walking by weak and tired people, acts of violence, and general apprehension. THE RAILWAY WAR It is almost impossible of belief that over three hundred and fifty thousand railway men on scores of railways should go on strike. Not until all means of conciliation and arbitration are exhausted is such a strike conceivable. And those means are not exhausted. When the statement was first made that the employees refused to arbitrate, The Outlook asked Mr. Warren Stone, Chief of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, whether this were so, and in reply he sent us a statement signed by himself and the chiefs of the three other Brotherhoods involved, in which they say: "It is true that in past arbitrations the men were disappointed and to some extent lost faith in that method of adjustment of differences, but there is neither warrant nor authority for saying that arbitration will not be accepted." One minor difficulty, that of the Switchmen's Union, has already been referred to the United States Board of Mediation and Conciliation under the Erdman Act, and strenuous efforts are being made to bring about similar action with the larger controversy. As we go to press it is reported that the Brotherhoods have accepted the offer of "friendly services" of the Federal Board of Mediation and Conciliation, and that the railway companies had already asked the Board to intervene. The men claim that their demands for an eight-hour day for freight conductors, engineers, and brakemen mean just what they say. They also ask that "overtime " be paid for at a" time and a half " rate. The companies say that what the men really want is not decreased hours but increased pay. Of course the proposed plan would cost the company more, but it would not (except as to overtime) necessarily mean an increase in the individual workman's wages. That the men really are struggling for shorter hours is, we think, indicated in appeals like the following, which we reproduce from a poster sent out broadcast: THREE HUNDRED Railroad Engineers, Firemen, Conductors, Brakemen, Yardmen, and Engine Hostlers, with approximately one million three hundred thousand women and children to support, ask for an eight-hour day. Compelled to work long hours under a terrific strain, their lives are shortened, their health shattered. Give this great army of industry a square deal-eight hours' work-eight hours' sleep-eight hours' relaxation. It will make better citizens. Whether the railway altercation is settled by compromise or arbitration, or whether the |