s purpose, and there are perhaps isolated cases that
give merit to this opposition. The strongest argument of union labor
against the shop council system should lie in the fact that nation-wide
organization of labor is essential in order to cope with the unfair
employers, but I believe that if they embrace encouragement to shop
council organization they open for themselves not only this prevention
of unfairness but the whole new field of constructive cooeperation and
the further reduction of industrial conflict.

Attempts by governments to stop industrial war are not new. The public
interest in continuous production and operation is so great that
practically every civilized government has time and again ventured upon
an attempt at its reduction. There is a great background of experience
in this matter, for the world is strewn with failure of labor
conferences, conciliation boards, arbitration boards, and industrial
courts. This Conference, of course, had in front of it and in the
experience of its members this background of the past score of years. I
understand that recently you have had ably presented to you the
industrial solution that has been enacted into legislation by the State
of Kansas. I think some short discussion of this legislation may be of
interest in illuminating the difference in point of view between the
industrial conference and that legislation. The Kansas plan is, I
believe, the first large attempt at judicial settlement of labor
disputes in the United States. With the exception of one particular, it
is practically identical with the industrial acts of Australasia of
fifteen to twenty years ago. It comprises the erection of an industrial
court, the legal repression of the right to strike and lockout under
drastic penalties, the determination of minimum wage, and involves a
consideration of a fair profit to the employer. The Kansas machinery
goes one step further than any hitherto provided in this particular of
placing more emphasis on fair profits and it also provides for the right
of the State to take over and conduct the industry in last resort.
Under the enumerated industries in the Kansas law, probably two thirds
of Massachusetts industry would be involved. No man can say that this
legislation may not succeed in Kansas or under American conditions. The
experiment is valuable, and if it should prove a success to both
employees and employers Kansas will have again taken the initiative in
service to