threatened or actually occurs, he or they shall at once notify the state board. If, when the state board has knowledge that a strike or lockout, which involves an employer and his present or former employees, is seriously threatened or has actually occurred, such employer, at that time, is employing, or upon the occurrence of the strike or lockout, was employing, not less than twenty-five persons in the same general line of business in any city or town in the commonwealth, the state board shall, as soon as may be, communicate with such employer and employees and endeavor by mediation to obtain an amicable settlement or endeavor to persuade them, if a strike or lockout has not actually occurred or is not then continuing, to submit the controversy to a local board of conciliation and arbitration, or to the state board. Said state board may, if it considers it advisable, investigate the cause of such controversy and ascertain which party thereto is mainly responsible or blameworthy for the existence or continuance of the same, and may make and publish a report finding such cause and assigning such responsibility or blame. The board shall have the same powers for the foregoing purposes as are given to it by the provisions of the following section.

We believe that the double function thus entrusted to the Board, of arbitrating difficulties, when requested by both parties, and of investigating controversies, even though the parties may not request such investigation, is entirely proper and valuable, and that the efforts of the State should be confined to encouraging the increasing use of both these methods, rather than attempting to imitate plans tried only under conditions essentially different from those of Massachusetts.

It is of interest to note that in one of the largest industries in the Commonwealth there is a standing agreement to submit all differences to the arbitration of the State Board, and that no difficulty has ever arisen as to the acceptance of its finding. It is also a fact that there is reasonable hope of the execution of similar agreements in other important branches of industry; and we would point out that, if this tendency becomes sufficiently widespread, we may expect to approximate to the condition of general arbitration voluntarily entered into in advance, and entirely free from any objectionable compulsion.

Much valuable work in arbitration has been performed from time to time by local temporary boards constituted under the statute for the purpose of rendering assistance to the State Board, and we doubt whether the public at large has a full realization of the value of the endeavors made under State supervision for the lessening of the frequency and bitterness of all forms of labor difficulties.

It has also been brought to our attention that in some instances arrangements for arbitration between employer and employee, entirely independent of State supervision, have been and are successfully carried on, with the best effects on their mutual relations. We believe that all such efforts are deserving of emphatic encouragement, and that the function of the State properly comes into play only when the private efforts of the immediate parties have failed of good results.*

It has been suggested to us by a representative of certain railroad employees † that such employees would be willing to enter into a permanent agreement looking to the arbitration by the Board of Railroad Commissioners of all controversies between the railroads of the Commonwealth and those employed upon them. We believe that such an agreement might be of great benefit; but as the willingness for general arbitration upon the part of the employees is coupled with certain conditions as to the appointment of the Board of Railroad Commissioners, upon which we do not feel that it is within our province to express an opinion, we cannot do more than call the attention of the Legislature to the proposal that we have mentioned.

If arbitration is to commend itself, it is important that disputes should be settled promptly; and to that end expert assistance should be utilized, and power given to make inquiries outside the State concerning controversies in the State. We feel that the present efficiency of the State Board of Conciliation and Arbitration would be increased if the members could give their entire time to the business of the Board. To permit this, there should be such increase in

* See Appendix No. 4 for summary of State laws relating to arbitration and investigation.

+ See Appendix No. 5.

salaries as might be appropriate, and their tenure of office should be extended. We also recommend certain minor amendments in the statutes relating to the Board and its work, which, if enacted, we believe would give the Board increased effectiveness in its relations to the parties to the controversy, as well as to the public. We therefore suggest the following amendments to chapter 106 of the Revised Laws:

1. In section 3, by inserting in place of the words "to the other party," where they occur in the nineteenth line, the words "to the board and to the adverse party," so that the Board may have notice of the intention of the party not to be further bound by its decision.

2. In section 4, by striking out the words "thereto in writing,” where they occur in the sixth line, and inserting in place thereof the words "so to do," so that an agent's authority to sign an application for a hearing by the Board may be proved by any satisfactory evidence.

3. By substituting, in the eighth line of section 4, the words "existing controversy," instead of the words " grievances complained of," in the description of the contents of the application for a hearing by the Board.

4. In section 5, by substituting "fit persons," in the third line, for "a fit person," and "assistants" in place of "assistant," in the fourth line; and by substituting, in the fifth line, the words "may appoint one from among the persons so nominated by each party," in place of the words "shall appoint such experts if so nominated," so that the Board may have a choice of experts.

5. By inserting the following words at the end of section 5: And the board, in its discretion and with the consent of the governor, may make such investigation beyond the limits of the Commonwealth."

And, finally, in accordance with the views already expressed in this report, we urge that the proper authorities should have the fullest right of investigation and publicity as to the merits of any controversy which vitally affects the public interest, regardless of the possible wishes of either or both of the immediate parties to the difficulty, especially where such controversy involves quasi-public cor

porations. We therefore recommend the enactment of legislation which shall give the Governor power to direct the State Board of Conciliation and Arbitration to investigate and report upon any controversy which in his opinion seriously affects, or threatens seriously to affect, the general welfare (R. L., c. 106, § 2).

III.

- ATTACHMENT AND ASSIGNMENT OF WAGES.

The bills relating to the attachment and assignment of wages are as follows: a bill relative to the time within which trustee writs shall be returnable (House, No. 247); a bill relative to commencing action by trustee process (House, No. 436); a bill for the protection of persons making assignment of wages (House, No. 779).

The difference between an attachment of wages and an assignment of wages is that an assignment is a supposed voluntary act of the employee, while an attachment is a compulsory process against the employee's wages by means of a trustee writ served upon his employer. An assignment of wages is often given by an employee as security for goods purchased, or which may be purchased in the future by the employee or by members of his family.

*

It is evident that the foregoing bills present matters of much importance, affecting the legal relations between employer and employee, that is, the use of the trustee process by an outside creditor for the attachment of wages due the employee, and the cognate question of the assignment of future earnings by the employee himself, whether by direct assignment of such earnings to the creditor, or through the execution of a power of attorney purporting to give such creditor the power so to assign. So far as the trustee process is concerned, we do not think it has become subject to any general abuse.

In most States of the Union the statutes grant the workingman an exemption from attachment of some part of his wages, whether such exemption is expressed as a percentage, as a definite amount or through some other limitation. The laws of California, Iowa, Maine, New York, Ohio and several other States which exempt wages earned during the

*For form of an assignment, see Appendix No. 6.

preceding thirty to ninety days, if necessary in support of a family, go farther in exempting the wage earner than has been thought wise in this Commonwealth, and must in practical working approximate to the complete exemption of wages from attachment, granted by Pennsylvania and Louisiana. We are not prepared to say that in our opinion a due regard to all interests demands so sweeping an exemption of wages from the just claims of creditors; and we are therefore not prepared to recommend a change in the present Massachusetts law on this subject, which allows an exemption of $20, reduced to $10 if the claim is for necessaries of life. In view of the law providing for weekly payments, the trustee process in relation to attachment of wages amounts to but little in this Commonwealth.

In regard to the assignment of future wages a different state of things presents itself. It may be premised that the right to assign wages as yet unearned is a power under the common law, not arising from any statutory provision; and such right has been upheld by the courts on the general ground that the employee, through implied or expressed contract with his employer at the time of the assignment, acquires an assignable interest in wages coming to him, even before they are earned. It is, however, held by the courts that wages to be earned under future contracts are not capable of being assigned (Herbert v. Bronson, 125 Mass. 475, 476).

Statutes regulating assignments of wages have had two objects, the protection of tradesmen and the protection of the wage earners. The first object led to the passage of the laws relating to recording of assignments (Acts, 1865, c. 43, §§ 2, 3; P. S., c. 183, § 39; R. L., c. 189, § 34). The second object is illustrated in the statutes designed to prevent the use of assignments to defeat the purpose of the statutes requiring the weekly payment of the wages of employees by certain classes of employers, corporate and otherwise.* Statutes of this character are: Acts, 1887,

*The weekly payment statutes are as follows: Acts, 1879, c. 128; P. S., c. 28, § 12; Acts, 1886, c. 87, § 1; Acts, 1887, c. 399, § 1; Acts, 1891, c. 239, § 1; Acts, 1894, c. 508, 51; Acts, 1895, c. 438; Acts, 1896, cc. 241, 334; Acts, 1898, c. 481; Acts, 1899, c. 247; Acts, 1900, c. 470 (R. L., c. 106, § 62).