2i6 HARVARD LAW REVIEW executive of the union brings all its influence to bear in favour of waiting for the Court. In 191 1, the Court gave an award which did not increase the existing rate for shearing (24/- per hundred), and it actually reduced some rates for wool pressers; and although in the succeeding years the cost of living increased to a formidable extent, the executive of the union insisted on the members taking employment imder the award conditions until the Court should deal with an appHcation for an advance. In 19 17 the union came before the Court for an advance to 30/- per hundred, and with the consent of the employers who appeared, the Court prescribed that rate. The same union recently took under its wing the workers called "station hands" — boundary riders, bullock drivers, and generally useful employees on the huge pastoral properties. The conditions of these station hands had hitherto been wholly unregu- lated. The men were paid wages which were wholly inadequate for family life — some 20/-, some 25/- per week or less. The Court granted them the basic wage, but allowed the employers to satisfy the wages in kind by allowances and perquisites (such as residence and provisions) to an amoimt not exceeding 30/- per week, provided that the value of the allowances and perquisites be approved by a board of reference or by a union ofl&cial. I have found gratification expressed in unexpected quarters on account of this approach to the solution of a very difficult problem. One of the drawbacks of Australia is the want of population in the back country, the drift to the cities, to occupations which are reg- ulated, and which provide opportunities for family life. On the whole, and although it involves great difi&culty and much toil, I am safe in saying that this interesting Australian experiment is so far a success, and that there is not the slightest indication of any movement to revert to the old anarchic state. There are plenty of suggestions, however, for the improvement of the system. There is a very real antinomy in the wages system between profits and humanity. The law of profits prescribes greater re- ceipts and less expenditure — including expenditure on wages and on the protection of human life from deterioration. Humanity forbids that reduction of expenditure should be obtained on such lines. Other things being equal, the more wages, the less profits: the less wages, the more profits. It is folly not to admit the fact and face it. Moreover the economies which are the easiest to
