Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1886-04-23
Gl)c Eanfaster 1,ltelliaeute..
LANCASTER, APRIL % 1876
Love for Arbitration.


Mr.. Gould's testimony before the con-
gressional committee tells us nothing new
or important but exhibits clearly the YER
bal doubling and twisting through which
he induced Mr.. Powderly to believe that
he fairly meant to arbtrate the differences
between his company and the knights of
Labor.
Mr.. Gould's declaration is that he is ever
ready himself to arbitrate but that lie said
no more to Mr.. Powderly than that Mr..
Hoxie had his permission to arbitrate.
When he was asked the very pertinent ques-
ton by the committee ''Why were not your
views, that are friendly TO arbitration, car
ried out at st. Louis ?" he replied that "Mr.
Hoxie has always been ready to carry them
out. = But the Interpretation which
Mr.. Powderly put upon it was the Knights
Of Labor were to step in and oversee this
arbitration. We do not propose
to deal with Knights of Labor as an Or
ganization. Mr. Powderly understood that
distinctly, because stated it distinctly in
that interview"
There is fair and full exposition of Mr..
Gould's mental working. He so naturally
twists and turns that he does not seem to
know how he contradicts himself. He was
consulting with Mr.. Powderly as chief of
the Knights of Labor, at the same time
that he was declaring to him that he did
not recognize the order. He told him
that he was hot Tor arbitra-
ton, and now says that his Holiness
was like unto that of Hoxie, upon which
the thermometer was put, at his instance,
by the Knights of Labor with result
showing it to be below the zero point
Gould and Hoxie we're for arbitration, a.
Gould and Hoxie now explain, when the
arbitration was to be between them and
their employees who had no complaints to
make but they were not for arbitration
with their striking wOrkmen who had COM
plants.
Mr.Powderly was told by Mr.. Gould, as he
admits, that he was for arbitration. The
matter they had met to consider was the
difficulty between the company and the
striking employees. So Mr.. Powderly con-
sidered that it was arbitration between the
company and the strikers that Gould fa-
vored arbitration between any other par
ties, it seemed to him, would hardly be
matter to be considered by the president
er's organization.
Mr.. Powderly leaped rashly to his con-
clusion. He did not know Mr.. Gould, nor
how the logic of the ordinary mind fails to
control his extraordinary head. Mr.. Gould
may have thought, as he claims, that he
was making it very clear to Mr.. Powderly
that he would have nothing to do with the
Knights of Labor, but that he was
anxious to arbitrate with anybody who
had no difference with him. But Mr..
Powderly did not understand it when he
ordered the Knights TO go back to work,
and appoint their committee to arbitrate
with Hoxie. The congressional committee
seems, also, to have had trouble in compre-
hending Gould and taking the exact depth
Of the love of arbitration, whicl
he proclaimed to them. Their final
conclusion was embraced in the inquiry
Then you did not intend to, or want to,
have any arbitration or effort to settle any
difficulties with Knights of Labor who had
struck or were out of your employment at
the time ?n To which Gould replied,
That is it, exactly" He and Hoxie were
unanimous in their definition of the arbi-
tration that they loved and that had always
been their policy. Gould first declaration
to the committee, have always been in
favor of arbitration, P" to be absolutely true,
needed, according to his final explanation,
the addition to it of the two words with
myself