To have success in conciliation, or arbitration, there must be thorough and effective organization on both sides. The large aggregations of capital, feared at first by labor, may prove to be labor’s best friend, in that, control of a trade being thus centralized, there is opportunity to establish friendly relations which shall make uniform conditions throughout the country, or large sections thereof, and reduce the basis of competition to the quality of the product rather than to the concessions forced from labor. The growth of sentiment for arbitration and conciliation has been reflected in the legislation of the various states. While foreign countries made the earlier attempts by legislation to promote the formation of local boards of arbitration, some of the states of the Union were first to establish permanent central bodies with authority to mediate in labor disputes and to arbitrate matters referred to them. Sixteen states have established such central boards, beginning with Massachusetts and New York in 1866 and following, in succeeding years, with California, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Montana, Minnesota, Ohio. Utah, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Michigan, Connecticut and Indiana. These central boards usually consist of three members, an employer, an employee and a neutral. Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin seem to be the only states within which tangible results have been accomplished, doubtless due to the highly developed industries prevailing and the frequency of labor disputes therein. In this as in all other matters of enforcement of public laws, successful results depend upon the strong impelling influence of an enlightened public sentiment. The United States Government has established a method for arbitration and mediation in strikes and lock-outs upon interstate transportation lines, by virtue of its constitutional authority over interstate commerce. The act of 1888 provided for a voluntary board, but had no provision for enforcement of awards, and seems to have fallen into disuse. In 1898 a new act was passed under the terms of which either party to a dispute upon any interstate transportation line might request the intervention of the chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission, and the United States Commissioner of Labor. These officers have no specific authority to intervene on their own motion, but apparently have the right to attempt conciliation even in the absence of an application from either party. There has been no case of arbitration under the act, so its effect in application is yet to be demonstrated.