which their own daily work is done. It is a demand for control over one side, but that the most important side, because it is the human side of the industrial process."

It is clear, says the author, that not all British industries are ripe for changes in the direction of democratic control. Broadly, there are several conditions which an industry should satisfy for such an experiment to have a good chance of success. It should be a nationalized industry, that is, recognized to be a public service and a permanent part of the national life; it should be an industry where the amount of labor employed is relatively large compared with the fixed capital invested, prosperity depending, therefore, principally on the workers' efficiency; where the workers are highly skilled, and have a high standard of education and intelligence and a high general level of character; and where trade-unionism is well organized, as regards both numbers and spirit, is recognized by the employing authority, and presents no serious demarcation difficulties among the various unions concerned.

The author concludes by outlining a plan of joint administration for the manipulative staff of the post office department, employing about 230,000 persons. The object of the reforms suggested "is not to revolutionize the organization of the postal service or to turn the department upside down; it is to take the existing organization as it stands and to make the least possible change compatible with granting to the staff that measure of responsibility which is increasingly felt to be necessary in order to secure the efficiency and harmony of the service."

In the discussion following Mr. Zimmern's paper, Mr. W. Straker, of the Northumberland Miners' Association, emphasized the need of education to fit the workers for the higher and better life desired for them. During the conference much had been said about the necessity of greater power being in the hands of trade-unions. "Power implies responsibility, and to discharge responsibility intelligently implies education. Every trade-union leader knows that the ignorance and petty jealousy of his members is his despair. There can be no progress in the labor or the trade-union movements without a greater knowledge and a better education."

* * *

APPOINTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL COMMISSIONS IN GREAT BRITAIN.1

The appointment of eight industrial commissions to inquire into the causes of labor unrest in Great Britain has been secured by Mr. Lloyd George, the Prime Minister. The chief purpose of these

1 The Economist, London, June 9, 1917, pp. 1062, 1083. The New Statesman, London, June 16, 1917, p. 243. The Annalist, New York, July 2, 1917, p. 9.

commissions is to restore the touch which has been lost between the Government departments and the executives of the big trade-unions on the one hand and the workers in the shops on the other.

Each commission confines its activities to a designated section of the country and is made up of a chairman, who is selected for his detachment and impartiality, one employers' representative, and one employees' representative. The inquiries will be held in private in the belief that such a course will encourage expedition and will induce those appearing before them to speak with greater freedom.

The Prime Minister expected the commissioners to report by the first week of July, and in addressing them he suggested, among the problems with which they should deal, the following: The Munitions Act and the method of its administration, profiteering, high prices, trade-union regulations, complaints of the action of employers or foremen, compulsory recruiting and substitution, hours of labor, over-fatigue, overtime, the intervention of women in industry, and the incitements of agitators. The whole "labor question" is thus opened up, embracing the entire range of the relations between employers and employed, on which royal commissions have spent years of investigation, and on which a committee under the deputy speaker has already been sitting for half a year.1

WAR BONUSES FOR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES IN GREAT BRITAIN.

The position of employees on fixed salaries in times when industrial or other conditions lead to increase of the cost of living is notably different from that of the employee whose services command an increased wage on account of the prevalent conditions. The effect of war conditions in Great Britain had so far developed in March, 1915, that the organizations of Government employees in the national post office and telegraph service at that time preferred a request for a special addition to the wages of lower paid post office servants. The matter was referred to Sir James Woodhouse, Railway Commissioner, who awarded a bonus of 3s. ($0.73) per week

1 Since the above was written the following news note, dated London, July 23, 1917, has appeared in the newspapers:

Eight commissions appointed by Premier Lloyd George in June to investigate industrial unrest in the country have just presented reports which agree in the main fact that the principal cause of unrest is the increased cost of living, so disproportionate to the advance in wages, and unequal distribution of food supplies.

Next in point of importance they put the administration of munitions of war and military facts, which resulted in restrictions on personal freedom, and lack of confidence in the Government on the question of carrying out its promises to restore trade-union customs.

The commissions make a number of recommendations, one that the Government should to some extent bear the increased cost of food, and another that "labor should take part in the affairs of the community as partners rather than as servants."

to male employees 18 years of age or over whose pay did not exceed 40s. ($9.73) per week; and a bonus of 2s. ($0.49) to those whose wages were above 40s. ($9.73) and not in excess of 60s. ($14.60) weekly. For females within the same wage limits the increases were 1s. 6d. ($0.37) and 1s. ($0.24), respectively.

Part time employees received pro rata increases; while sub-postmasters receiving scale payments were to have 7 per cent of their gross emolument added if this did not exceed £144 ($700.78) per year, or a fixed bonus of 2s. ($0.49) per week if the income exceeded this amount and was not above £169 10s. ($824.87). All increases were to date from March 1, 1915.

With the continued rise of the prices of the necessaries of life a second demand was made in 1916, certain increases being allowed as set forth in a circular of the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury, No. 23599/16, dated September 9, 1916. The particulars of this increase are not available to this office at the present time. The increases allowed, however, were, like those under the award of Sir James Woodhouse, emergency increases, but were of broader application, reaching other classes of Government employees.

A third appeal was made in 1917 by the post office employees, six classes being represented by organizations or representatives as follows:

The National Joint Committee of Postal and Telegraph Associations.

The Provisional (War Bonus) Committee of Post Office Classes, Major Establishment.

The Joint Committee of Post Office Supervising Officers.

Representatives of Unestablished Draughtsmen in the Engineer-inChief's Office of the General Post Office, London.

Representatives of certain officers borne on the Irish Establishment of the General Post Office in Dublin.

The matters submitted by these representatives were considered by a "Conciliation and Arbitration Board for Government Employees." This board reached the conclusion, under date of May, 1917, that the continual increase in the cost of living resulting from the war warranted "a temporary increase of remuneration by way of war bonus." This was to be over and above any temporary increases granted under the two prior awards noted above. The bonus granted affected all classes of the service represented by the associations named, but was restricted to employees 18 years of age or upwards other than temporary employees, engaged on clerical or Ioanual duties, and employed full time. Employees whose ordinary

1 Conciliation and Arbitration Board for Government Employees. Award No. 1. London, May 1, 1917. 2 pp. Price, 1d.

remuneration did not exceed 30s. ($7.30) per week were allowed an additional sum of 5s. ($1.22) weekly to men and 4s. ($0.97) to women. Those whose remuneration exceeded 30s. ($7.30) but did not exceed 60s. ($14.60) per week were allowed 4s. ($0.97), if males and 3s. ($0.73) if females. Above 60s. ($14.60) weekly but not above £250 ($1,216.63) per annum, the benefits were 5s. ($1.22) per week for men and 3s. 6d. ($0.85) per week for women.

Persons whose ordinary remuneration would take them out of the classes receiving a war bonus, but who would for this reason receive less than they would have received if they had come within the classes receiving such bonuses, are to be granted such amounts as will make up the difference. The increases granted under this award are not to be in addition to increases granted by the Postmaster General since the beginning of the year 1917; and subsequent increases operating to take the employee outside of the classes benefited by the award shall either terminate or cause suitable variation in the amount of the war bonus from the date of such increase.

Subpostmasters and subpostmistresses who are paid by scale receive a bonus of 10 per cent of their gross annual payments where these do not exceed £104 ($506.12) per year; a bonus of 4s. ($0.97) a week is paid to those whose gross annual payments exceed the above amount but do not exceed £169 10s. ($824.87) per year, while those receiving in excess of the last-named sum but not more than £250 ($1,216.63) receive a bonus of 5s. ($1.22) a week.

Temporary employees and persons under 18 years of age are to be cared for by a separate award; and this award does not apply to men employed in the engineering and store department of the post office under trade conditions or to women employed in the factories and depots of the post office, their remuneration following the decision of the local industrial tribunals operative in the district.

The award of this commission, though given on the 1st of May, was to have effect as of January 1, 1917.

The same commission had before it requests of other Government employees-the Civil Service Federation, the Civil Service Clerical Alliance, and the Customs and Excise Officers' Association-these bodies also asking for increase of remuneration owing to war conditions. Some or all of these classes of employees were apparently affected by the circular of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury of September 9, 1916, already mentioned, and the increases allowed at this time were in addition thereto. The Conciliation and Arbitration Board took their case under advisement and made for the corresponding wage groups awards identical to those granted in the case of post-office employees.1 This award, made May 7, 1917, likewise

1 Conciliation and arbitration board for Government employees. Award No. 2. London, May 7, 1917. 2 pp. Price, 1d.

dated from January 1, 1917. No limits are set for the termination of any of these awards, but presumably they are for the period of the war.

EVIDENCE AS USED BY SOCIAL INVESTIGATORS.

What constitutes good evidence? Every investigation, whether made by social workers, medical foundations, private societies for research, or Government agents, deals with evidence. Every investigator is busy collecting evidence and basing conclusions thereon, but what guide has he as to the comparative value of different kinds of testimony? Very clearly the rules governing the admissibility of evidence in court trials can not be applied to the ordinary investigation. Are any other tests available?

For social workers, Miss Mary E. Richmond, director of the charity organization department of the Russell Sage Foundation, endeavors to supply this need in a recent volume.' It is written primarily for case workers, i. e., workers with individual persons or families who for some reason need a helping hand from outside their own circle, and a considerable part of the book is useful only to such. The discussion of evidence, however, its nature, the difference between what constitutes good court evidence and evidence which the investigator may safely accept, and the relative weight to be attached to different kinds of evidence is of interest to all who deal with investigations of whatever nature.

Evidence, of course, is worthless unless it is reliable, and the author has some deserved words of censure for those who apparently "value every statement equally and then add the items together to form a total." Too few workers, she thinks, have grasped the fundamental fact that they are as responsible for accepting only valid testimony as for drawing sound conclusions from it when accepted.

While all evidence must be reliable, the author discriminates between the tests of reliability needed in court proceedings and the wider and more flexible tests permissible when investigations are made by trained agents.

The reliability of the evidence *

should be no less rigidly scrutinized than is that of legal evidence by the opposing counsel. On the other hand, the question of admissibility, the rules for which were framed mainly to meet the average juryman's lack of skill in testing evidence, does not enter into the weighing of facts as gathered by an agency all in whose service are, or can be, trained to this special task. Skill in testing evidence, as leading to such proof as social workers need, is in no way dependent upon a knowledge of the legal rules of admissibility. Social evidence, like that sought by the scientist or historian, includes all items which, however trifling or apparently 1 Social Diagnosis, by Mary E. Richmond. New York, Russell Sage Foundation, 1917.