The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-07-27
COMPULSORY ARBITRATION.

COMPULSORY ARBITRATION.
The Sentinel continues to argue in favor
OF compulsory arbitration as the best if
not the only means of settling contro-
versies between labor and capital In proof
OF it's sincerity 1T declares that when the
present management Of the Sentinel came
into control it voluntarily applied the
principle in that Office by entering into a
contract with the typographical union that
any and all disputes or disagreements that
could not be settled by the parties directly
concerned should be referred to an arbitra-
ton committee of three members, one to
be chosen by each side and the third by
those two, the decision of a majority of
the committee to be final and binding on
all concerned This arrangement. volun-
tarily entered into between the Sentinel
and the typographical union. is cited in
proof OF the feasibility of compulsory arbi-
tration. 1t needs but a little reflection to
see that the argument does not touch the
question. The essence of compulsory ar
bitration is that both parties to any and
all labor controversies shall. whether they
wish TO or not. submit their disputes to
the arbitration of a tribunal which they
ing, and the decision of which shall be
binding on them without their consent. If
all employers and employees would. upon
contracting that relation. voluntarily enter
into a contract to submit all controversies
that might arise between them to the ar
bitration of a committee. to be selected by
them jointly, the decision of such commit
tee to be accepted by both parties final
and binding, it would be an excellent thing,
and might go a good way towards prevent
ing strikes. But that would not be COM
pulsory arbitration; on the contrary, it
would be essentially voluntary.
Aside from the essentially tyrannical
principle of compulsory arbitration and the
impossibility of making a horse drink after
you have got him to the water, the ten
dency of labor unions is to make it i'm
practicable and odious. The tendency of
labor unions is to merge the individual in
the mass, to put skilled and unskilled labor
the same footing. to obliterate the d-
viding lines between different trades and
occupations. and to make the rights and
wrongs of each and every individual COM
mon cause for all. This has not been &C
complished yet but it is the tendency of
such leaders as Debs and Sovereign. When
it is accomplished a general strike of
ganized labor throughout the country may
be ordered to secure the removal of an un-
popular foreman in Maine or prevent the
dismissal of a drunken workman in Texas.
What employer. of skilled labor will consent
to submit to an arbitrat ton in which the
interests of a clumsy carpenter or a tramp
printer who belongs to the sacred universal
union may outweigh his own? 1t is one
thing for an employer to voluntarily SUBJ
NIT controversies between himself and his
own employees TO arbitration, and quite
another to drag him before a board which
he knows nothing about and compel MIN
to &C through the process of arbitratng a
sympathetic strike in the interest OF some
cause or some person that he never
heard of.
The best solution of the labor question
lies in restoring the individuality of en-
ployers and employees they can deal with
one another face to face. in fair. frank
and friendly spirit. To this end corpora
tons. trusts and labor unions should be
abolished or their operations greatly cur
tailed. The massing of capital in corpora
tons and trusts, and the massing of labor
in unions is destroying individual manhood
and individual liberty. Compulsory arbi-
tration would be another step in the same
direction. The reform must begin much
further back and nearer the fountain head