66

medio tutissimus ibis" is very often a safe rule in settling labor differences. But while this is true in very many cases, and as true where arbitration is not appealed to as when it is, I assert that the records of arbitration disprove the assertion that its results are usually compromises." Even where an award between the demands of the parties is made, in but a few instances is it "splitting the difference." The awards are, with rare exceptions, honest decisions, based upon the facts and arguments presented. If it happens that they do "split the difference" that is not chargeable to arbitration.

Another objection to arbitration is that the awards are not accepted by one or both parties, or, as it is usually expressed, "are not lived up to." It is true that in some cases, much less frequently than is generally believed, the awards of umpires or the decisions of boards have been rejected after the parties have bound themselves by the most sacred of obligations, their honor, to abide by the result. But is there any method of settling labor differences of which the same cannot be said? Is the result of a strike or lock-out any better "lived up to"? Would the parties who thus violate their pledged word of honor accept any decision, however reached, that did not accord with their views, or, in other words, did not make them the judge and arbitrator? The objection lies not against the system. It is against the individuals it deals with.

But, granting that there are some instances of rejection of awards, is it not equally true that this is the only system that provides for and secures the settlement of these questions for a definite time? When an agreement is reached or an award made and accepted, there is little doubt as to its being loyally observed. The wages of certain classes of skilled labor in the iron mills of Pittsburg have been regulated since 1865 by what are termed "conference committees," which are really temporary committees of conciliation. In these twenty-one years there is not a single instance of the violation of an agreement once reached. Even when, as in one case, there has been such a change in values as to lead the manufacturers to suggest a change in the agreement favorable to the workmen, it was rejected by the employés on the ground that they would not consent to the least violation or change in the agreement, even in their own favor.

A more serious objection to arbitration in the minds of many is that it seems to necessitate the existence and recognition of trades

unions and employers' associations, both to provide for the election of members of the board and to furnish that power that shall compel the acceptance of the awards.

It is not necessary, though it will usually be found advisable, to have the members of the board representing labor elected by labor in some organized form. There is, then, a tangible body responsible for the selection. To it appeal can be had, and by it discipline can be administered. An unorganized crowd is usually neither as deliberate, as wise, nor as conservative in its actions as one that has put itself under the restraint of laws, precedents, and officers.

But it is conceded that at present there seems to be no other authority possessed of the power, which at times is necessary to enforce obedience to awards, than that residing in unions. As has been pointed out, in all settlements of labor differences, by whatever method, the measure of success is the consent of the parties. Experience has shown that that consent is capricious, and the honor and pledged word of the parties at times of little value. This is as true in settlements reached without arbitration as of those the results of this method. The necessity of a power strong enough to compel the acceptance of settlements, and so constituted that it can enforce its commands, is evident. The State, as the embodiment of law and power, has been suggested, but in these matters it is powerless. It is evident that as the measure of power is the consent of the governed, the power to enforce the awards must come from the parties themselves, that is, unions. It will be found that the success of arbitration has been secured where there have been strong unions to compel the acceptance of the awards.

It is not my purpose to discuss the advisability of unionism. From what has already been said, it will be inferred that to the principle I give my hearty assent. I believe with the Duke of Argyle, "that combinations of workingmen for the protection of their labor are recommended alike by reason and experience." What I desire to ask those who object to arbitration on this account is, if their objection will do away with unionism, or if it will remove the necessity of recognizing and treating with unions in the near future. Unionism is here, and it will not depart. It is growing yearly in power, in wisdom, and in organization. It cannot be crushed out; it will not permit itself always to be ignored or despised. Is it wisest

to treat it as an enemy or a friend? Is it not best to make it, in the language of the Count of Paris, "a new element of productive power and an earnest pledge of peace"?

The most effective pledge of industrial peace, in view of the present constitution of industrial society, and the conditions which obtain, is arbitration and conciliation, with strong unions to enforce its decisions. I speak of strong unions, for it is only a strong union that dare be just. A weak union, which represents but a part of a section or trade, is timid and cowardly, and yet tyrannical, and seeks to make up in bluster and flagrant injustice what it lacks in power. But a strong union can be just and generous without fear of being charged with cowardice, and when there is beside it a strong employers' association, strikes and lock-outs will be of rare occurrence, peace will be assured, and production go forward under the most promising conditions.

The thanks of the Society were passed to the speaker for his very interesting and instructive paper.

MEETING 347.

The Chemistry of Foods and Nutrition.

BY PROF. W. O. ATWATER.

The 347th meeting of the SOCIETY OF ARTS was held at the Institute on Thursday, April 22nd, at 8 P. M., President Walker in the chair.

After the reading of the records of the previous meeting, and the transaction of some business, the president introduced Prof. W. O. Atwater, of Wesleyan University, who read a paper on "The Chemistry of Foods and Nutrition."

Prof. ATWATER said: This subject has of late occupied a great deal of attention among chemists and physiologists. During the last two or three decades particularly a very large amount of research has

been devoted to it, especially in Germany, though comparatively little has as yet been done in this line in the United States.

Viewed from the standpoint of their uses in the nutrition of man, the constituents of ordinary food-materials may be divided into (1.) Edible substance, e. g., the flesh of meats and fish, the shell-contents of oysters, or wheat-flour; (2.) Refuse, e. g., bones of meat and fish, bran of wheat. The edible substance consists of water and nutritive ingredients or nutrients. In studying the uses of food in nutrition, the nutrients only demand special consideration. Speaking as chemists and physiologists, we may say then that our food supplies, besides water, four principal classes of nutritive ingredients or nutrients, viz., protein, carbohydrates, fats and mineral matters; and that these nutrients are transformed into the tissues and fluids of the body, and are consumed to produce heat and muscular and intellectual energy.

In studying foods we may consider their chemical composition, their digestibility, their pecuniary cost as compared with their composition, the physiological economy of their use, including the functions of the ingredients, their potential energy, the quantities appropriate for the nutrition of different people, and the adjustment of dietaries to the wants of the users; and, finally, the injury to health and purse which comes from the wrong use of food, and the ways in which our dietary habits may be improved.

The term protein is applied to a variety of compounds, all of which contain nitrogen. The most important are, (1), the albuminoids, or proteids; such as the albumen of eggs, myosin of muscle (lean of meat); casein of milk and gluten of wheat; (2), gelatinoids, e. g., ossein of bone and the collagen of tendons, which, when boiled, yield gelatin. The principal carbohydrates are starch, sugar, and cellulose (woody fiber). We have examples of fats in the fat of meats, butter, olive oil, oil of corn, and wheat; among the mineral matters, the phosphates and chlorides of calcium, potassium, etc. The quantities of water, nutrients, etc., contained in different food-materials were illustrated in detail by colored diagrams, and are here shown in Tables I., II., and III.