Introduction: the New Zealand system not what it was intended to be, 405. — I. A court of arbitration, unlike a board of conciliation, must follow guiding principles, 407. — The New Zealand judges hesitate to state principles, 407. — Early cases, 407. — II. Existing conditions and prosperity of the industries the basis for several years, 409. — Yet a general tendency to raise wages, 415. — Cost of living little considered, 416. — III. As time went on, more emphasis on cost of living, 417. — Statistics until 1907 inconclusive, 420. — Fragmentary evidence not accepted, 422. — Informal statements by the Court of the principles followed, 426. — IV. Beginning in 1912, higher wages awarded to common laborers, 428. — A policy on minimum wages announced, 431. — V. Index numbers of prices published in 1911–14, 434. — Wages advanced as much as cost of living, 438. — VI. Change of personnel in 1913 but no change of policy, 439. — Lowest-paid workers granted some increase, 442. — No regard paid to great advance in cost of living in 1914–15, 443. — VII. Conclusion, 445.

Barnett and McCabe's Mediation, Investigation and Arbitration; Mote's Industrial Arbitration Get access M. B. Hammond M. B. Hammond Ohio State University Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 31, Issue 3, May 1917, Pages 536–543, https://doi.org/10.2307/1883388 Published: 01 May 1917