etter printed in London _Times_, January 13, 1920.

[138] Report of the Coal Industry Commission (1919),
Majority Report, pages 15-16. For another interesting case,
see that of Various Toronto Firms vs. Pattern Makers under
the Canadian Industrial Disputes Act, in which case the
pattern makers claimed differential treatment over
machinists and molders. Reported in Jan., 1919, _Canadian
Labor Gazette_.

[139] The various courts in the Australian dominions tended
on the whole to confirm existing differentials, occasionally
changing the relative position of particular groups, when it
has seemed clear to the court that the wages of these groups
as compared to other groups is "unreasonable" considering
all those factors which are considered to form the ground of
"reasonableness" in the matter of differentials. Thus
Justice Brown of the Industrial Court of South Australia has
expressed himself on this very subject. "In the matter of
such perplexity some guidance is afforded to the court by
custom. It seems to me I cannot do better than proceed on
this basis. I shall state the preexisting wage, consider
whether it is prima facie unreasonable applied to
preexisting conditions, and then if I find it not prima
facie unreasonable, I shall consider whether any variations
of the wage should be made in view of conditions now
existing." (Hook Boys' Case--South Australia Industrial
Reports, Vol. I, 1916-7, page 29.)

[140] It is in this light that the Commonwealth Court of
Australia looks upon its secondary wage. "The secondary wage
is remuneration for any exceptional gifts or qualifications
not of the individual employee, but gifts or qualifications
necessary for the performance of the functions." H. B.
Higgins, "A New Province for Law and Order," _Harvard Law
Review_, March, 1915.

[141] Mr. and Mrs. Webb have described aptly the usual trade
union calculations in the formulation of their claims. "The
Trade Unionist has a rough and ready barometer to guide him
in this difficult navigation. It is impossible, even for the
most learned economist or the most accomplished business
men, to predict what will be the result of any particular
advance of the Common Rule. So long, however, as a Trade
Union without in any way restricting the numbers entering
its occupation, finds that its members are fully employed,
it can scarcely be wrong in maintaining its Common Rules at
the existing level, and even, after a reasonable interval,
in