Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-04-01
ARBITRATION.
THE DEBATE ON THE ARBITRATION
BILL IN THE HOUSE.
A Variety Of views-speeches Of Messrs.
o'Ntill. Kelley, and 0thers-What
Mr.. Daniel Thinks.
IBy telegraph TO the Dispatch

day on Mr. O'Neill's arbitration bill
Mr.. 0'Neill said that for the past two
months the Committee on Labor had
been engaged in draining every avenue
where there was a reasonable hope OF
securing information as to some feasible
method consistent with the COnsiitu-
ton and the laws that would provide a
mode Of settlement Of the disastrous
disputes between capital and labor.
The committee had decided that the
pending measure was best. 1t was
simple arbitration. lie knew that this
was disappointing TO many members;
that there was n feeling in the breasts Of
many that this was not what was ex-
pected, but if they would reflect
they would realize that the first
thing to consider was how far
they could regulate disputes by an APP
peal to public opinion. IL this method
failed, then be could see but one other,
and that was for the strong arm of the
Government to take the giant corpora
tions by the throat and tell them they
must Yield TO arbitration ; that the
Government could not have the condi
ton Of affairs that to-day prevailed
throughout five States of the Union
practical revolution. He did not pre-
tend to say wbo.was to blame :; he simply
knew that the wOrkmen had stated
they were willing to arbitrate their
grievances and that the president Of
the Missouri Pacific had not consented.
In the mean time the sober second
thought Of the woTkmen had kept the
strike within bounds. The Committee
on Labor was unanimously of the opin-
ion that this bill was the best that could
lie passed now to invoke the public
opinion of the country and compel the
men in this case and in all other cases
to appeal to reason aud not use brute
force TO invade human rights.
Mr.. Burrows. Of Michigan, inquired
what would be the effect Of one Of the
parties to the arbitration declining to
stand by the decision of the arbitrator:
Mr.. O'Neill replied that public opin-
ion would compel compliance with the
decision.
Mr.. Kelley, of Pennsylvania, said
that he would vote for the bill, but as
that was his purpose he wanted to say
TO the workingmen of the country that
it was trick on their credulity and
fraud. lie asked the gentleman from
Missouri whether the workmen who
believed that the bill was a measure
"to provide for speedy settlement OF
controversies and differences would
rot be deceived? Could there be any
adjudication between Jay Gould and the
suIkeIs on his road as long as Jay
Gould did not assent thereto?
Mr.. O'Neill could only answer by
stating that in LivipgStone's works it
was said that in the interior of Africa
could be found the most intensely cri;i-
cal people on earth in regard to mechi-
Dism who could not put the simple
piece Of machinery together. Why did
not Mr.. Kelly, as father Of the House,
propose something instead Of tsaring
down?
Mr.. Kelly said he would vote Cor any
bill which would give relief to oppressed
labor. But he would not vote for this
mass Of words unless his vote was ac-
companied by the notice that the bill
meant nothing.
Mr.. Buchanan, Of New Jersey, ex-
pressed his surprise that Mr.. Kelly,
after stating that he would vote for the
bill, should denominate it as trick
and fraud. There was great deal of
interest taken in the debate, and mem
bers crowding around speakers created
so much confusion as to call from Mr..
Willis, Of Kentucky, the suggestion
that the House was on a strike.
Mr.. Foran, of Ohio. was no more
opposed to the pending bill than he was
to drinking a glass Of water. Both
were harmless but it could accomplish
no good. There was no more arbitra-
ton in this bill than flesh on a doctors
skeleton. Referring to the Missouri
Pacific strike, he said the workmen had
asked for arbitration and Jay Gould had
refused. If arbitration were accepted
it would be because Gould had become
satisfied that it was to his interest to
end the controversy, and not because he
loved the principle of arbitration. If
employees and employers submitted
their grievances to a board constituted
under this bill, all that could be done
was TO have that board disseminate its
views. If those views were against the
corporation, and the corporation did not
accede, it was supposed public opinion
would compel them to accede. lfboth
parties TO the controversy did not enter
into an arbitration with disposition to
abide by the result, all the laws on the
statute-books would avail nothing. The
labor problem could not be settled by
arbitration or by legislation. 1t went
beyond legislation. The idea that Con-
gress could in one day solve a problem
hich had been before the civilized
world for ages and ages was nonsense
it could not be done. The difficulty
was in an unjust distribution of wealth
If by law wealth could be distributed
something could be done, but Nothing
could be done by passing arbitration
laws. just as soon as men OF wealth
were made to understand that their in
tereSt demanded that their neighbors
: bould be as happy and coutented as
Reconsideration they learned that
problem would be solved, not
before. The only way that the problem
could be solved was for wealthy men to
their lives to lettering the
condition OF workingmen. The bill
kept the word of promise to the ear
and broke it to the hope. 1t would ac-
nothing, and would not add to
he dignity of the Congress that passed
i.
Mr.. Hammond, of Georgia, said he
never owned and never intended to own
D dollar Of stock in any transportation
and had no interest in the
matter except that which was COM
non to every man Of the United States.
lie was opposed to the pending bill. 1t
lad been characterized on the other
tide as a fraud. lie would not be so
lnkind to his own side OF the House as