Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1886-04-16

to re-resd the bill (retsrring to the ONeiI
arbitration bilD?
Mr.. Gould-I have had chance to rea
the bill, ard l got q Telegram
from Judge Dillon that 1t was subject 2
very great Importance and that ne snoui
like to have it carefully considered,
Mr.. McDowell-You showed that,
think, yesterday, and he was to be her
this morning. =.
Mr.. Gould-Yes, now / am prepared Il
say, and l understood Mr.. Powderly to ap
prove of that telegram to Mr.. Hoxle. Mr.
Hoxie is proceeding to carry that out snC
will proceed to carry out in good faith; anc
| have not heard word from him beyond
that (pointing 10 the dispatch on the desk
and he saws: Il have received your mes
sage of instructions and l will proceed to
carry the same out to the best OF my
ability"
Mr. Powderly-WelI, you say you are
willing to srbitrate. Mr.. Hoxie is reported
in the papers as not being willing TO aroi-
trate and won't. Most emphsticslly says
he won't; and he says to you that ne
will. |
DON'T SEE HOW
we can get to talk the matter over at al
Mr.. Gould-He has not said so.
Mr.. Powderly-If he has said tha: he
will, how can we reach him; how can We
get to him; and what can we do to stop
this thing right now? II won't do to say l
am willing to arbitrate if don't arbitrste
If Mr.. Hoxie says he won't srbitrste atter
you say you are willing, what can we DO Z
Mr.. Gould-I have heard nothing from
Mr.. Hoxie excepting he says he has re-
ceived that telegram, and he is proceeding
to carry it out to the best of has ability.
Hs has given me no views on the question
OF arbitration. Everybody knows my views
that have always been in favor of it. In
all our railroad meetings have
ALWAYS ADVOCATED ADMIRATION
IN sll our southwestern road over and over
again. This very question was arbitra-
ted a year ago, and the Governor
decided against us. II was arbitrsted here
since this strike, and the Governors found
for us 30 that it is no new principle. Let
Us get the report Of the Governors. IT
would bear right on this question because
it shows that this question bad been arbi'
question of this strike.
Mr.. BSiley-Who selected the arbltra.
tors2
Mr.. Gould-They were selected by the
Knights OF Labor year ago, and by the
Missouri Pacific officers, think. In this
last case. | think they were called IN by
the Knights themselves. | believe that
Vour organization would stand much
stronger, il, VIXEN you ara wrong, when any
pert OF your oTgsni4stion is wrong, you
,--nId lust frSnkly tell them 90. Inst ls
he wav to LID lid discipline.
Mr.. Bailey-I don ;;N'rkSe nave fsilea
n i telling tSem so. If it is prG;ggAd to Us
hat they were wrong.
LET Us ARgITRATE
his question to see whether they are wrong
1r not.
Mr.. Gould-This strike was made be-
cause the Receivers of the Texas Paclhc
discharged a man. There never was d
or any pretext that we had done
On the contrary they said we
nsd not; they had nc cause sgsins: us.
Mr.. McDowell-The practical question
right here seems to be Mr.. Gould
EXPRESSES himself in. the strongest
wsy as a believer in aud in favor OF arbi'
tration. Mr.. PoWderly asks arbitration,
and all agree tc arbitration. Now to have
arbitration. If Mr.. Hoxie is put out there.
nominated, and these gentlemen are to 60
here aud close il up. | say
THE ALL.INPoRTANT THING
seems to be that they are ordered to go to
work and the men are to wor K and all these
questions settled by arbitration, II
there are any afterwards, and they
are at work, aud to have that
done. If this law only was q law you
would have it legal under the law. Mr..
Powderly is very sick man and ne wants
10 90 away.
Mr.. Could say on thst subject that !
sm in favor Of srblra,ion as principle OF
settlement of wrongs or claims between in
iividuals. 1t is really what the law pro
vides. Our Law here provides a abort
method OF arbitration of differences.
1t isn't anything new; 1t
is a short way OF getting az a result, and l
am in favor OF that as principle, and |
tod Mr.. Hoxie, who is the great head OF
this company, who hss this whole subject
under his control so far ss the Board OF
Directors are concerned here, they see no
objection to arbitration between employees
and the company. We have got fifteen
thousand employees and what | said here
applied to every one Of these $4,000 en-
ployes. That if they have any difference
with the Missouri Pacific Company, tkst
individual, be he one or a hundred, so far
as the Board are concerned, We are ready
10 srbi,rst their differences with those men.
Mr.. McDowell-I dent see that you dit
fer in ary way in that whether the aroi'
tra,iou is between the employees and the
railroad or between the knights Of Labor
and the railroad, do you, Mr.. PoWderiy?
Mr.. Po~derly-No.
Mr.. Gould quoted the decision Of Gov
ernors Msrmaduke and Martin, that the
strike of March 6, 1886, could not have
been, and was nos, based on Q Vio
ln,ion of the terms of the agreement
of March 10, 1885, BY the Missouri Pacific
railroad company in its dealings with its
employeesin Missouri and Kansas.
The conference continued at great
length. seither party yielding an inch o.
ground, and finally ending where it bsgsd
PoWDERLY ISSUES A CIRCULAR