Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1886-04-15
THE ARBITRATION QUESTION AGAIN.

We had expected something better of
the San Francisco Bulletin Only the other
day it talked learnedly of the enforced {"
arbitration system of France, and how ad-
mirably it works. 1t was soIicitous that
the same system, or some similar scheme,
saoald be injected into our form of gov
eminent. We pointed out that the French
system is not arbitration at all, since the
essence of arbitration is consent. and hence
any scheme to force men to abide a iudg-
ment OF Court is a matter of judicial pro-
cedure, and not arbitration, for the very
reason that its effectiveness is found in its
coerclye character, whereas the effective
ness and value Of arbitration resides in the
reciprocal character OF the system, and that
rests upon the consent of the parties to it.
We pointed out also, that the arbitration
bill now in Congress is not coercive in any
respect. 1t is nothing more than advice
to parties at issue regarding labor on lines
of carriage that extend from one State into
another. Now comes the Bulletin, and
failing to discover that force destroys all
the essentials of arbitration, says:
The bin simply authorizes the parties to the
dispute 10 appoint two arbitrator. If either
party does not desire arbitration there is moth
ing IN the bill to enforce it. They do these
things differently in France. There arbitration
is matter of law in the case of all matters arts
ing in the workshop, and the provisions for it
are, IN effect, similar to those of the ONeil bill
except that II is made compulsory upon the ap.
plication of either party. What effect for in
stance, would the ONeill bill have in the pres
ent Southwestern railroad controversy? The
employees of the roads may say: Let us abitrate
this matter under the provisions of the law 2'
Dir. Hoxie, speaking for the Missouri Pacific,
says: We don't want TO arbitrate; there is
nothing TO arbitrate we do not desire the sery-
ices of some certain person or persons: that is
all there is in the question" Whether right or
wrong, MT. HoXies decision nulliiies the o'Neill
Act completely. Ifthat Act had the compulsory
clause OF the French law the strikers could
bring Mr.. HOxie before the Board of Arbitration
ana compel him to submit to the decision of dis
interested parties.
Let US put the case. A, employing B
and c. discharges them because of disa-
greement as TO terms. Or B and C strike.
and refuse to work for A, or to permit D
and L to labor for him. B and c propose
to arbItrate the issue. A replies: 81 do
not wish to do So | have dismissed B and
c, or they have left my employment. |
do not wish them to labor for Inc again. /
decline to give them employment-that is
all there is in the question" Now, will
the Bulletin venture to contend that under
any law consistent with our system of gov
eminent and the guaranteed rights of men,
B and C can or should have the
right to bring A into arbitration, and if
the award be against him, compel him to
employ B and c, or to refuse employment
to d and E? The bare statement exposes
the ahs'rdity of the thing. Enforced
arbitration" is a paradoxical term and an
impossibility. They do not ado things
differently in France" by arbitration.