altogether too much. Since this prosecution of the socalled beef trust was begun, it has been conclusively demonstrated by official investigation, both public and private, that the packing corporations were not in the least responsible for the high price of beef. It has been conclusively shown that the rise in the price of fresh meat was due to economic causes over which the so-called trust had no control; namely, the cost of procuring fat cattle. Within a few days it has been announced through the daily press that, because of the increase of fat, grass-fed cattle and the prospective fall in the price of corn through the immense corn crop, beef in Kansas City has fallen two and three cents a pound, and will fall still more if those conditions increase. This is not due to the attorney general's legal proceedings against the trust, but to the economic conditions which affect the cost of furnishing fresh beef.

Sunday Closing Law in New York

Editor GUNTON'S MAGAZINE,

Dear Sir-In your September number you spoke of the good work being done by the Low administration in New York city. Is it not a well-known fact that the Low administration does not attempt to enforce the Sundayclosing law? Do you think it ought to enforce this law? If not, on what theory can it be excused? Respect for any and all laws demands that each law be honestly enforced so long as it is on the statute books. If it is a bad law, it can be repealed; but, so long as it is unrepealed, an administration which ignores it becomes itself a law-breaker.

G. P. S.

This is not a question that can be adequately answered by a word. The closing of saloons on Sunday in New York city is a question that, ethically and socially, belongs to New York city. The Low administration has recognized this fact, which is much broader than the mere statute. It is generally believed that the people of New York city are opposed to the tight closing of saloons on Sunday. There is probably no doubt but what the present

administration would have been defeated at the election had it stood for that proposition. It is probably true that it would be defeated now if it should insist upon the strict enforcement of this law, which is wholly out of touch with the spirit of the metropolis.

In view of this fact, the Low administration has treated the Sunday-closing very much like other laws, many of which are not very thoroughly enforced. It has reduced the Sunday liquor selling to at least orderly proportions. The flagrant, offensive flaunting of the open saloon before the public has ceased. So long as the state refuses to give the city the opportunity properly to express itself upon the subject and have a choice, this seems to be a very rational course to follow. It is far more important that the present administration and its kind should continue to govern the affairs of New York for many years to come than that it make a war upon Sunday opening with the almost certain result of again handing over the city government to Tammany.

It is the duty of the administration to give to the city of New York the best government possible under the laws. It is not its duty to be fanatical or defeat the real object and hopes of the reform movement by expending its whole energy upon a single questionable law. It is far more important to purify the government in general, elevating the tone and integrity of the administration, so as to increase public confidence in the new regime. By that means an honest police force may gradually be secured. It is evident it cannot suddenly. The health departments, and dock departments, and street departments, and city judiciary may be elevated to a wholesome plane, and so give New York a city government which at least has the virtue of integrity throughout its important departments. When this is once thoroughly secured, the possibility of more efficiently enforcing the Sunday law, and exercising a more wholesome influence upon the legislature for a rational law, will be secured. In the meantime, the present policy of the Low administration seems to be the only rational one.

The Markle Company and Arbitration

Editor GUNTON'S MAGAZINE,

Dear Sir:-Enclosed you will find an article from the New York Sun of Sunday, the 7th of September. I would ask if this statement is correct. If so, is not the firm of G. B. Markle & Co. justified in refusing to arbitrate with their miners as long as John Mitchell is in control?

A WORKMAN.

The article referred to by our correspondent is a highly flavored partisan article, as is much that appears in the New York Sun on that subject. That paper has recently had an experience with the typographical union, in which the Sun did not win, and ever since it has been intolerably unfair in its treatment of everything that pertains to labor organizations.

In the matter of Markle & Co., however, there is no doubt that firm has a grievance. The miners in that colliery should not have struck in 1900, no matter what the others did. Whether the agreements made between the unions and employers are good or bad, the unions must live up to their contracts. If they do not, they cannot and ought not to succeed.

In this case, however, it must be admitted that the Markle miners were somewhat swept off their feet by the cyclone, as it were, of the general strike in the whole anthracite coal field. This does not justify them in breaking their contracts, yet this should hardly be made a mortal sin never to be overlooked. According to the Markles' own testimony, the agreement not to strike, but to submit all differences to arbitration, had worked admirably for fifteen years. Now, if this be true, it is quite worth while to try again, even though the men did fail under the extraordinary circumstances of 1900. The Markles can find no other scheme that will work half so well. This policy has paid them well during the fifteen years it was in vogue. The wiser and more economic thing for Markle & Co. now to do is to re-establish that regime, and it is more than probable that the friendly tie between the firm and the men would be much stronger than ever before. But if they should make this

failure of the men an excuse to adopt a haughty, persecuting policy, they will be simply going backwards, and will probably find that during the next fifteen years their relations with the men will be neither as peaceful, satisfactory nor as profitable as in the last fifteen.

In this case, the men were clearly in the wrong; but that is one of the weaknesses of the present condition of labor unions which has to be remedied, and if the Markles would resume their old relations they would do much to remedy this very defect in the future. Of course this requires a little higher standard than a mere "eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth," yet it is altogether the more effective policy. Moreover, it is not too much to expect a little higher standard of honorable dealing with employers, who have had all the opportunities that education, wealth and culture can give, than from the miners, who are largely emigrants from the poorest conditions of Europe, and whose lives here have been chiefly influenced by the rude manners and altogether vulgarizing environments of mining camps.

BOOK REVIEWS

INDUSTRIAL CONCILIATION. Report of the Proceedings of the Conference held under the Auspices of the National Civic Federation, in New York, December 16th and 17th, 1901. Cloth, 278 pages. $1.25. G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York and London.

This book contains the addresses delivered before the first industrial conference of this kind ever held. There are some respects in which this conference was a very significant event. On no other similar occasion have the representatives of the great unions and the greatest corporations in existence met and exchanged views in so open, frank, and, withal, cordial and harmonious a manner. Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Gompers and others equally prominent in the ranks of organized labor, and Senator Hanna, Charles M. Schwab, president of the United States Steel Corporation, and presidents and representatives of other large concerns, were present and discussed the questions of industrial disturbances, labor organization and the desirability of conciliation with a frankness and friendliness never before experienced.

As the result of this conference, a board of conciliation was established, whose duty it should be to carry out. as far as practicable, the spirit so thoroughly expressed on all sides at this conference. The civic federation has done excellent work on one or two occasions, conspicuously the steel strike; but it utterly failed to exercise any influence in the anthracite coal strike, which is still on, and, from all appearances, may continue until New Year's. The importance of this conference, therefore, is not measured by what it has accomplished in the way of counseling harmony and adjusting industrial disturbances, but rather in the fact that it was a formidable first step in establishing wholesome recognition and harmonious relations between organized labor and organized capital. When this condition is once established, so that the authority and standing of each is fully recognized by the other, an ad