The Pacific Northwest is today passing through a most interesting transition with reference to the question of the methods of shipping grain. To some it may seem a matter of small import whether the grain from Idaho, Washington, and Oregon be shipped in bulk or in sacks. But to the grain farmer of the Northwest the question is vital. Moreover, here is to be found a situation very different in nature from that prevailing in the Middle West, and, incidentally, illustrating how easily conditions alter marketing methods. Thus, in the Middle West the fight was between the line, the independent, and the farmers' elevators; in the Pacific Northwest the fight is between the elevator men and those interested in a continuance of the shipment of grain in sacks. The situation is well worth some study and attention.

CLOSED SHOP I Demands on the part of the labor unions for the closed-shop form of organization have been one of the distinguishing characteristics of the labor movement in this country. Though the universality of the demand renders the question one of more than ordinary significance, discussions regarding the ethical and practical soundness of the principle have been so numerous and varied that there is little remaining to be said pro or con at the present ime. An explanation of the fundamental economic cause of the movement, however, is not so frequently attempted, and possibly there is still something that may be said bearing on this phase of the problem. Particularly is this true since considerable confusion seems to have arisen regarding the place and ends of the fight for the closed shop. The aim of the modern labor movement, taken as a whole, is obviously not the securing of any particular form of organization as such. Rather, it is simply the attainment of a power of control sufficient todemand recognition and to gain for the workman wages and conditions uch as are deemed necessary for his well-being. It is unquestionably true, however, that American unionism has persistently fought for the closed shop, and that that aim is constantly before the vast majority of trade unions today. It is so far true, in fact, that at times the object of gaining the closed shop has been forgotten, and it has been sought as a thing desirable in itself. The public, on the other hand, has almost universally condemned the movement. The reason for so doing is not always quite so clear. A very large number of people undoubtedly oppose it merely because it somehow goes against the spirit of that democracy of which we so loyally boast, to support anything which bears the taint of being "closed." Yet such a reason is scarcely one that will bear scrutiny, nor is it one which would, of itself, be very effective in the long run. The question therefore arises, on what