COMPULSORY ARBITRATION.

Evening Star, Issue 9581, 29 December 1894, Page 1 (Supplement)

COMPULSORY ARBITRATION.

The Chairman of the Labor Commission, which recently sat at New York, in a speech at a banquet spoke as follows: — The settlement of labor controversies by arbitration involves many considerations. Some of these reach to the vital questions of the usefulness and control of private property. The very sacredness of private property is involved. Heretofore the discussion of these questions has been limited to the settlement of controversies. But there are also underlying and economical questions that must be considered, and the conclusions drawn from these considerations determine whether arbitration mußt be com-

pulsory or voluntary. I cannot cover the general .question to-night. I mußt limit myself to compulsory arbitration as applied to productive industry. The first great question is: " Shall a man have a right to do what ha will with his own?" This question was asked in the Bible when the men employed in the vineyards at the eleventh hour received as much pay as those who had borne the heat and labor of the day. The men struck, and the employer said : "Is it not lawful that I do what I will with mine own 1 " This ended the strike. No one questioned this right then. To-day we do question it. We say now: " No, he may not, if what he wishes to do with it is likely to injure the property or health of his neighbor." A man must submit to the wishes of the community in regard to his own property. A third limitation is likely to be added to the answer of to-day. The answer will soon be: "No, not if you injure the standard of living of your neighbor." How, then, shall this last answer be met when it comes, so that industry shall not be killed by its consequences? No way has yet been devised to prevent strikes. The most that can be done iB to reduce them in number and severity. Arbitration cannot prevent them. Voluntary arbitration seems a logical answer. I pass to compulsory arbitration. The advocates of this say—first, that parties to a dispute must be compelled to come into court; and that, second, when the Court issues its decree it must be enforced as any other decree would be enforced. Let us see how this will work. Ais a manufacturer who pays his men on an average 2dol a day. Owing to some cause he finds he cannot pay this anyllongerr r and reduces wages to Idol 80c. The men oppose this. They say they cannot live on less than 2dol. The employer Bays he cannot pay more. The matter is taken before a compulsory court of arbitration. Suppose the Court says the men must take the Idol 80c. How can this be enforced ? Say there are 5,000 employes. Who can make them work ? The constable, the sheriff, the ptme eomitatm, the military forces may all be called out; but none call make them work. The decree ia dead from the beginning. Suppose the Court, says the manufacturer must pay the 2dol. But if he really cannot afford to do so what must happen ? The employer must do one of two things; either he must adulterate his goods to make up the difference, or he must com-

bine with othec employers in a trust to keep up the prices. The law will have compelled one of these. things. There is also fin economic question to be considered. If the State says the employer must pay a fixed price for work it haß practically faxed the price of the 'commodity. The law can fix the price, but it cannot compel the consumers to buy at that price. The next logical step u to make it a penal offence not to buy at the price. Then why not let the law tix the prices of everything directly? It would be cheaper to do this directly than through the oumber&ome machinery of compulsory arbitration. The workman would be a slave under compulsory arbitration. He has little freedom of contract now. He must submit to the ruling prices. But compulsory arbitration will destroy what little he has left. It will establish the prices at which be can sell, the only commodity he possesses—that is, his labor. He must accept Idol 80c or not work at all if the Court tells him to do so, even if the actual cost of living is 2doL On Whatever side we look at it compulsory arbitration means the death of industry and the enslavement of labor. There may be some modification of the general principles developed in the future, but I do not know it now. There should be a protest by the community against it. Few labor organisations endorse it. A few scholars- and thinkers are almost the only ones who really endorse it. To adopt it would be to go back to the ages from which we have been divorced. It would be going back to a worse barbarism than we have ever had on this continent. There would be no life, no survival of industry under it.