The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1894-10-11
WOULD MAKE SLAVES.
Compulsory Arbitration Not the
Remedy.
Under Such Law the Laborer
Would Be Worse Off Even
Than Now.

CHICAGO, Oct. 10-The feature of the
quarterly dinner of the Union League
Club last night was the speech of Carroli
d. Wright. United States Labor Com
missioner, on the subject of arbitration OF
disputes between employers and employees.
In substance MIR. Wright spoke as fol-
lows: 81 must limit myself to compulsory
arbitration as applied to productive in
dustry. The first great question is Shall
a man have right TO do what he will
with his own?' We say now No. he may
not, if what he wishes to do with it is likely
to lDjure the property or health of his
neighbour A man must submit to the
community in regard to bis own property.
"a third limitation is likely to be added
to the answer of to-day. The answer will
soon be No, not if you injure the
standard of living of your neighbor.'
How then shall the answer be met when
it comes, so that industry shall not be
killed by its consequences? No way has
yet been devised to prevent strikes. The
most that can be done is to reduce them In
number and severity. Voluntary arbi-
tration seems logical answer.
II pass TO compulsory arbitration. The
advocates of this say that, first both parties
to a dispute must be compelled to come
into court; and that, second. when the
court issues its decree it must be enforced
as any other decree would be enforced
Let US zee how this will work: A is a
manufacturer who pays his men on an
average of 50 day. Owing to some cause
he finds he cannot pay this any longer and
reduces wages to 81 So The men oppose
this. They say they cannot live on less
than 50. The employer says he cannot
pay more. The matter is taken before a
compulsory court Of arbitration. Suppose
the court says the men must take the 81 go
How can this be enforced? Say there are
500 employees. Who can make them work :?
The constable, the sheriff, the posse COM
itatus, the military forces may be called
out. But none can make them work. The
ecree is dead from the beginning. Sup
pose the court says the manufa cturer must
pay the 80. But if be really cannot afford
to do SO, what must help him? The en-
ployer must do one of two things Either
he must adultera,e his goods to make up
the difference. or he must combine with
other employers in trust to keep up the
prices. The law will have compelled one
of these things.
be considered. If the state says the en-
ployer must pay fixed price for work it
has practically to fix price for the COM
modify. The law can fix the price, but it
cannot compel the consumer to buy at tha
price. The next logical step is to make it
q penal offense not to buy at the price.
Then why not let the law fix the prices of
everything directly? 1t would be cheaper
to do this directly than through the cum
hersome machinery of compulsory arbi-
tratiou. The workman would be a slave
under compulsory arbitration. He has
little freedom of contract now. He must
submit to the ruling prices. But compul-
sorry arbitration will destroy what little he
has left 1t will establish the prices at
which he can sell the only commodity be
possesses-that is his labor. He must
accept 81 so or not work at all if the court
tells him to do so. even If the actual cost
of living is So. On whatever side we look
at it compulsory arbitration means the
| death of industry and the enslavement of
labor.
"There may be some modification of the
general principle developed in the future,
he protest by the community against it.
| Few labor organizations ind0rse it. A
| few scholars aud thinkers are almost the
only ones who really indorse it. To adopt
| II would be to go back 10 the ages from
which we have been divorced. 1t would
| be going back to worse barbarism than
| we have ever had on this continent
T here would be no life. no survival of In
| dustry under it,"