People's Pilot, Volume 4, Number 22, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 16 November 1894 — ARBITRATION. [ARTICLE]

ARBITRATION.

It I* DUcoaaed by Able Men in the Chicago Labor Congreu. Chicago, Nov. 14. —The congress on industrial conciliation and arbitration held its opening meeting Tuesday morning at Willard hall. On the platfq?m Vbeu. the meeting.-was called to order were "the ' cha'irmafi, Lyman J. Gage, Judge Vincent and Prof. E. R. L. Gould, of Johns Hopkins university, who, was set down for the first address. A little later Congressman William M. Springer, of Illinois, arrived and at the invitation of Judge Vincent occupied a chair on the platform. A short address, introducing the first speaker and outlining the purpose of the congress, was reiyl by Mr. G."ge, after which the audience listened to a paper on the “History of Industrial Arbitration in England and the Continent,” by Prof. Gould. Judge William A. Vincent presided at the afternoon session. The first speaker, James Peabody, editor of the Railway Review, who was down for an essay on “Arbitration in Railway Affairs,” confined himself to the question of interference with transportation, holding that the law was now powerless to prevent the crippling of railroads by the striking of employes, since Justice Harlan had decided in the Northern Pacific case that it was lawful for them to quit in a body. Some law was needed, he thought, to prevent men from quitting in a body without warning. The public was more to be considered than either railroad managers or employes. L. S. Coffin, of lowa, representing the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen, thought railroad employes were in every sense public servants. As such they should not cripple the public service, but on the other hand, the railroads should pay them fair wages. The public was the great general paymaster. If the public did nob now pay enough to the railroads to enable them to give their employes good wages, let the public be charged more for freight and passenger traffic. He believed that labor should have the right to combine and made a strong plea for Sunday rest for railroad employes. He opposed state and national commissions and declared he was not in favor of giving them more power in regard to the settlement of strikes. Let their work be merely advisory, not compulsory on any class. Mr. Coffin thought the country had seen the last great railroad strike.

Representative William M. Springer spoke on his bill for arbitration of labor troubles between railroad employers and employes. This bill is now on the congressional calendar and will shortly come up in congress. Unfortunately, as--Mr. Springer -■ remarked, its author will not be there to push it along, however much it may be considered a good thing. Mr. Springer explained his bill in detail. It is already familiar to the public as asking for a national commission of arbitration of three members to be appointed by the president at a salary of $5,000 each a year, to hold office for three years. Such a board was recommended by Carroll D. Wright and his colleagues in their report to the president on the recent big railroad strike. Mr. Springer believed that the deference to public opinion of both parties to labor controversies would make them abide by any decision rendered by a national labor commission. There could be no end to labor difficulties until the people believed that justice was to be done to them. Half of the audience assembled at Willard hall for the evening session of the congress on industrial conciliation and arbitration was composed of laboring men. Rev. Dr. John H. Barrows, of this city, presided. “The Distinction Between Arbitration and Conciliation” was the subject of a paper read by Josephine Shaw Lowell, of New York. The speaker insisted that the general public knew little of arbitration and had absolutely no knowledge of conciliation. The state board of New York was held up to ridicule on account of its partisan character. Voluntary arbitration only came in this country, she said, after a long siege between capital and labor and the public had entirely lost their patience. The result was generally satisfactory. The best plan, instead of trying to arbitrate troubles and strikes, was to prevent them. The character of employes and employers needed to be changed—a Christian feeling should prevail and conciliation was the word that applied.