The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1888-01-10
COURTS OF CONCILIAT TON.


COURTS OF CANCELLATION.
There is movement in Iowa to secure
the enactment of law which will establish
boards of Cancellation in that State. The
law contemplated would provide an i'm
proved method OF arbitrating matters ofcon-
,roversy between private indi, iduals and
in labor disageements by means of courts
Of Cancellation or consent. This would
most certainly be long step in the right di-
rection. Within the past ten years, par
ticularly since the organization OF the
Knights Of Labor il has become apparent
that the trade OF the country demands
something better for the preservation OF
harmony between employer and employee
than the crude and primitive methods
OF the strike and boycott now in vogue.
And as IL is the primal duty OF the State
10 preserve order, the Iowa plan seems TO
be eminently worthy Of serious considera-
ton by the Legislatures Of all the States.
A striking illustration OF the necessity OF
such courts OF Cancellation or arbitration
is developed whenever there Is strike
of street railway employees A street rail-
way company must in the very nature Of
things enjoy monopoly OF the right OF
way OF those streets over which IL runs,
and Ms ii operates under a public charter,
Is a common carrier in the service Of the
general public. For the company 10 be
prevented from operating tho cars is
wholly contrary 10 the public interest.
But no one would say that the employees OF
such company, II they had sufficient
grievance, would not be justified in quit
ting work In body. Yet for them to quit
work in body is certainly to inter
fero with public service. In this
case II is tho public that suffers
most Under present conditions neither
the company nor the employees can adjust
their differences without disturbance OF
the public peace To say that the en-
ployes should he made 10 suffer because they
happened TO be in thepublic service, would
he barbarous and TO say that the company
should perform service whether or not
the demands Of the employees should be
unjust would be absurd. Therefore, 1t
would be most conducive 10 the public
welfare, II both the company and its en-
ploycs could appeal 10 n court OF concilia-
ton, in the equity Of whose deter
minalion Of the issues involved both
would have confidence. Such court in
such n case II absolutely demandedin these
times and il is singular that they have not
already been established in all the large
cities. The annual report o the Commits
sioner Of Labor shows that In the
ak yeas beginning with 1881, there
have been no less than 3,s03 strikes
involving %, 500 concerns and lockouts in
2,is2 establishments. The loss 10 strikers
and employees, by reason Of these strikes
and lockouts was $50. 9is, $50. and the loss
TO employers sJi,i0i,oiL Here, then,
wasa total Of loss amounting 10 about Soi,-
900, 900 In six years. In only about 40
per cent Of the whole number
Of cases was the object Of the
strike attained and then only atsuch loss
Of wages IA 10 neutraliHe the advantages
gained. Tho employers and workingman
cannot stand such tremendous losses, and
Il Ia certainly incumbent upon
Legislatures 10 devise plans for
tho satisfactory settlement Of all
labor difficulties. The sensitiyencss
Of capital Is provcrbial. and whenever
capital shrinks from investment the labor
interests suffer. Therefore the Iowa plan
Of Cancellation courts seems 10 be directly
In response To a crying need Of the times.
As the relations now exist between
capital and labor, there seems 10
10 no other resource Of adjustment
than brute force ON each side. This Il
barbarirm, not civilization. Lattorly en-
plcycn have organized Themselves into
unions, after the manner Of workingmcn.
Thus combined capital meets combined
labor. In view Of such a condition Of
things, arbitration Is tho only adequate