Serbia, and it should be remembered that there was hardly a large factory or mill in Serbia. The nearest approach to industrialism, such as obtained in Great Britain, was supplied by the railways, which were run on much the same lines as in other countries while transport work was also done on a large scale. But the enormous proportion of the things used in Serbia, such as clothes, for instance, were made by hand. The handicraft system still prevailed, and the people made for themselves practically the whole of what they wanted. They would see, therefore, that there was not the scope for trade unionism in Serbia that there was in other countries, but he wanted to call their attention to the fact that they had a labor newspaper, which had a sale of 7,000 copies. The capitalists were also associated, and they also had a newspaper, but its sale was never anything like 7,000.

Trade unionism in Serbia had been able to exert an influence on the legislature. They had been working for ten years and had obtained a ten-hour day by law. They had also obtained the abolition of night work for women and the abolition of child labor up to the age of 14 years. They had not yet obtained compulsory insurance against accidents.

At the present moment the question of legislation and progress seemed almost too sad for words. For whom was it proposed to legislate? Of the 40,000 trade unionists probably not more than 12,000 were now alive. The country had been destroyed: most of the men were killed. What could they do now in the way of forming trade unions or anything else? All they could do was to say that they were looking for help and sustenance to their fellow workers of the allied countries. They were not appealing for charity from the capitalists. They wanted to raise themselves up again as a nation of workingmen laboring in their own little country in intimate harmony with the workers of other countries. They felt that the peace of the future depended upon economic unity as well as political unity. The workers of Serbia must unite economically with the working-class organizations of other countries. There was a great political danger in leaving little countries alone and unprotected to be a bait to the aggressor. Let them beware that they did not leave the Balkan door wide open so that another war could come breaking through. Let them close the door by uniting the peoples in the love of liberty, in the cause of democracy, and the peace of the world.

Mr. Jouhaux (France) then moved the adoption of Section 1 of the Agenda, which reads:

That the National Centres of the countries, together with different National Federations affiliated to the International Trade Union Secretariat, confirm the resolution already adopted in 1915 by the General Federation of Trade Unions of Great Britain, the American Federation of Labor, and the Confederation Generale du Travail, to press for and to obtain the transfer of the Secretariat of International Trade Unionism to a neutral country; the administrative work of the Secretariat being assured and controlled by an executive representative of each country affiliated. The Conference decides that this measure is rendered necessary by the war, and that its consummation is in the highest and future interests of the world's workers.

This matter was under discussion at adjournment.

On Tuesday, September 11th, the discussion on Section 1 was resumed. Delegate Jouhaux (France), Havelock Wilson (Britain), Brownlie (Britain) and Golden (America) discussed the question and it was unanimously adopted, with the understanding that there were now no neutral countries, agreement being had on the necessity of removing of the Secretariat from Germany. Mr. Jouhaux then moved the following resolution:

That an International Conference shall be held at Berne to decide

the removal from Berlin of the International Secretariat, the Conference to be representative of the belligerent and neutral countries affiliated to the International Federation.

This aroused a lively discussion. Delegates Crinion (Britain), Lord and Golden (America), Novakovitch (Serbia), Jouhaux (France), Ben Cooper (Britain), Havelock Wilson (Britain), Alex Wilkie (Britain), Lequet (France) and Mallalieu (Britain) taking part.

The idea of the French delegation was to meet the Germans face to face, not for an international meeting as generally understood, but to impeach and indict the Germans. The futility of this idea became more and more apparent as the discussion went on. We quote from Mr. Tom Shaw's (Britain) speech the following:

"I think there is a possibility of finding a way out of the difficulty. I want to say a few words on the absolute necessity of taking the bureau away from Berlin. It is evidently impossible for any of the belligerent countries to act in such a way as to be able to hold the balance equally between their own countries and the countries of the opposing powers. Assuming that we had the bureau in one of the belligerent countries, and that belligerent country and the Central Committee happened to come to a decision which was apparently unfavorable to that country, the censor would at once stop the sending out of the country of any of the documents. An allied country could do no more than an enemy country, and we cannot carry on the business unless we have a guarantee that the scales will be held as evenly as it is possible to hold them in existing circumstances. The problem then comes as to the place in which the Secretariat shall be established. The English movement is very keenly divided on the question of meeting the Germans until the Germans have been taught that they can be beaten at their own game, but no one even in this country has suggested that the international should once and for all be broken. We have always worked for the maintenance of an international that will be more effective than ever after the war by virtue of the fact that it has seen its past mistakes. The only question that does divide us is as to whether in order to get the removal of the International Secretariat from Berlin, it is necessary to meet the representatives of the central powers in conference. I suggest that we could meet each others' wishes quite easily and without the trouble, the expense and probably the turmoil of an International Conference of all. Why should not the labor movements of the allied powers draw up a document stating specifically the grounds on which it is desirable that the bureau should be transferred from Berlin? That document could be translated, and the Swiss could be asked to circulate it. The Germans could have a statement sent with it if they liked, and the various countries could be asked to vote by post on the question as to whether the Secretariat should be removed from Berlin. If the transference is decided on we shall then be at liberty to take steps for the re-establishment of the bureau in a manner as much above suspicion as anything can be in the present state of affairs. It is absolutely essential that the International Secretariat should come out of Germany.

"Everyone who has taken an interest in the international will agree that the most prominent men are Legien, Baumeister (Legien's assistant and handyman), Sassenbach, Yochade (the leader of the German transport workers) and Hue (the leader of the German miners). Those five men are known all over the world as the leading representatives of the German International movement. Take Legien.

Less than twelve months ago he signed a manifesto issued by Batocki (the German food controller), which asked the German people to fight on until a German peace was secured. That German peace meant annexations and indemnities. It is impossible that that man should act as Secretary of any international movement that will have the confidence of the allies. Baumeister went to Berne and issued an international news letter. Sassenbach wrote articles putting the German position. It is impossible to rely on two men like that keeping the scales even. The transport workers' leader is in just the same frame of mind as the others, and has subscribed to the doctrine of military necessity. He is one of the men around Legien, and acts with him. The miners' representative is apparently of the same opinion, so that when you get five leading men like that at the head of the bureau in Berlin it is impossible for us to accept that bureau or its advice as being in any way fair and equitable. We must have the bureau taken away from Berlin. Why go to the expense, the trouble, the turmoil and the difficulty of calling a conference when we can place such a case before every country in the world that there can be no danger of a hostile vote going against the transference of the bureau? A discussion can take place on the question as to which country the International Secretariat should be transferred. and once it is definitely established, then it will be for the country in which it is located to send out circulars, to send out invitations to the nations, and the nations could decide whether to accept those invitations and the terms on which they should be accepted or whether the invitations should be refused absolutely. That is an infinitely better way than going to a conference simply to discuss and decide a question that can be discussed and decided by post on the initiative of the Swiss. We should get into working order without any friction, and possibly with good results to the whole international movement."

Mr. Shaw then proposed the following as a substitute:

That the views of the countries affiliated to the International Federation be obtained in respect to the removal of the International Bureau from Berlin to some neutral country, these views to be obtained by post, and the Swiss Federation to be requested to undertake this work. In the meantime, the representatives of the allied countries shall draft a manifesto giving reasons for the removal of the bureau, this manifesto to be transmitted to all countries affiliated, and the result of the vote to be returned to the Swiss Federation, which is to be requested to make known the determination to all belligerent and neutral countries within the organization of the International Federation. Further, if the result be in favor of the removal of the bureau, the Federation be requested to take the necessary steps to set up the office of the bureau in a country subsequently to be decided on by the vote of the nations.

The substitute resolution was adopted, the French not opposing it, but declaring that they would attend the Berne conference without committing any of the affiliated movements in any way. Your delegates took the position throughout the discussion that there were no neutral countries now, and this was the feeling of the conference.

Delegate Jouhaux then moved the adoption of Section 2 of the Agenda, which reads:

"The Conference considers that the finish of hostilities will reveal an accumulation of new rights of workers; it demands that social progress shall be effective and international, and fully realize conclusion

that 'the worker is a citizen of the world.' It demands that the workers in every country endeavor by similar and concerted action to compel the acceptance, by the governments of the entente, of the workers' program, adopted in Leeds in 1916, and it declares that this program must be inserted-as the workers' charter-in the future treaty of peace. The Conference asks that the workers in every country will concentrate upon the same measures and aim at the same goals.

"The Conference, desiring that on all great questions affecting the future of the world's workers, all necessary measures should be taken to secure understanding and concerted action, instructs the Bureau of Correspondence to make translations of, and in all languages, to comment upon, the resolutions adopted at the Conference, and at the same time to follow and note all the efforts and successes that become operative in each country."

This was discussed by Delegates Lord (America), Golden (America), Keufer (France), Appleton (Britain) and Jouhaux (France), and was unanimously adopted.

Section 3, dealing with war aims, was then considered. This section is quite extensive and, on account of the variety of subjects involved, is divided into eleven paragraphs, which read as follows:

1. That peace must result in the abolition of all militarism, not only in Germany, but in all other countries.

2. That there shall be suppression of all secret diplomacy in the relationship between peoples; democratic principles must tomorrow rule national and international relationships, and the people must have exact knowledge of the responsibilities and engagements made in their name. 3. That there shall be complete restoration of liberty and independence to all the nationalities violated and oppressed.

4. That there shall be neither annexations, nor any mutilation of national life.

5. That in the future there shall be freedom of trade traffic and

commerce.

6. In order to perpetuate a state of peace the Conference demands the organization of an international having as its basic principle equality of right for all nations, great and small.

7. To enforce the assent of nations to these principles and to assure the continuance of peace it is indispensable that there shall at the end of hostilities be constituted a "League of Nations," instead of any division of the people into two federations distinct and hostile.

8. The Constitution of the "League of Nations" or of the "United States of the World" must be completed by the institution of "compulsory arbitration" and the provision for means of settling pacifically all international conflicts. Each State must have the right of appeal the tribunal sets up, and each State must be under obligation to submit to its decisions.

9.

The Conference declares in favor of a limitation of armaments, not as an effort to secure equilibrium, but as a measure precedent to general international disarmament.

10. Declares that all these necessary measures cannot be secured unless the workers of every country unite in a workers' international and seek to realize and secure their aims in a truly international spirit.

11. In the spirit of the aforesaid propositions, the Conference, following the declaration of President Wilson "that peace must mark the advent of the society of nations," declares that all the efforts of workers in democratic countries must themselves strive for that prin

ciple of the society of nations which has already been partly realized, and press for the creation of treaties between the countries of the entente, which must include clauses insuring that all conflicts arising between any signatories shall be dealt with by an international tribunal representative of all the contracting nations.

Delegates Jouhaux (France), Cross (Britain), Brownlie (Britain), Short (Britain), Lord (America), Golden (America), Novakovitch (Serbia) and Shaw (Britain) discussed the section in its entirety, and there was general unanimity with the exception of paragraph four, which reads:

4. That there shall be neither annexations, nor any mutilation of national life.

It was feared that as this paragraph was written it would be subject to misinterpretation throughout the world, and finally the Conference decided to refer this paragraph to a committee consisting of Mr. Appleton, M. Jouhaux, M. Novakovitch and one of the American delegates so they could re-draft it in language that would be less likely for misinterpretation. The section was then unanimously adopted.

Section 4 was then taken up for discussion. This is practically a re-draft of the proposition of the San Francisco convention of the A. F. of L. and was unanimously adopted.

The conference then adjourned.

We feel that an inestimable amount of good has resulted from this conference, the free and candid discussion on the important matters by which it was confronted, the unanimity which was finally reached and the splendid feeling of co-operation and brotherhood which was manifest. America, as a nation involved in the allied cause, is too big and important, and the American Federation of Labor too decided a factor in the realm of national and international democracy, that we can afford to be absent from any of these meetings, and we sincerely hope and believe, and we pledged ourselves in so far as we could do so, that in all international councils held hereafter, the voice and influence of the American Federation of Labor should be heard and felt.

We attended the council meeting of the General Federation of Trade Unions, also the joint meeting of the Parliamentary Committee and the Labor Party. At this meeting the question of securing a working agreement as to peace and war aims of the allied nations was discussed, and a joint committee was appointed for that purpose.

This meeting also took up for consideration the question of electoral reform, and the following was agreed to:

That the Joint Meeting of the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress and the Executive Committee of the Labor Party views with the gravest apprehension the intention expressed in various quarters of getting the operation of the franchise bill suspended until some other measure (such as the suggested reform of the House of Lords) has been carried into law.

That this meeting emphatically protests against any delay in bringing into operation a long-delayed and much overdue democratic reform which has now become a matter of compromise among all sections of opinion represented in the speakers' conference.

That in view of the advanced stage to which the bill has attained the House of Commons, this meeting expresses the opinion that any attempt to hold a general election upon the present obsolete register would amount to a national scandal; and that the bill ought accordingly to be as promptly as possible passed into law and put immediately into operation, so that the new electoral roll may be made up in the first half