The Coconino weekly sun., 1894-10-18
ARBITRATION.
The Labor Commissioner Takes Ground Against the Compulsory Idea.

Against the Compulsory Idea.
 CHICAGO, Oct. 1.-The feature of the quarterly dinner of the Union League club last night was the speech of Car roll D. Wright, United States labor commissioner, on the subject of arbi- tration of disputes between employees and employer He said;
 must limit myself to compulsory arbitra- tion as applied to productive industry. The first great question is: Shall man have right to do what he will with his oyn?" We say now: No, he may not, if what be wishes to do with it is likely to inJre the property or health of his neighbors" man must submit to the wishes of the community in regDrd to his own property. A third limitation is likely to be added to the answer of to-day. The an- swer will soon be: ''No, not if you injure the standard of living of your neighbor." How then shall this last answer be met when it comes so that industry shall not be killed by it's consequences?
 No way has yet been devised to prevent strikes. The most that can De done is to re- duce them in number and severity. Arbitra- tration cannot prevent them. Voluntary aFbi- tration seems a logical answer
 I pass to compulsory arbitration. The advo- cates of this say that, first, both parties to q dispute must be compelled to come into court; and that, second, when the court issues it's de- cree, it must be enforced as any other decree would be enforced. Let us see how this will work. is manufacturer who pays his men on an average $2 day. Owing to some cause Ire finds he cannot pay this any longer and re- duceS wages to Sl.S0 The men oppose this. They say they cannot live on less than E.. The employer says that he cannos pay more. The matter is taken before a compnl- sory court of arbitration. Suppose the court says the men must take the Sl.S0. How can this be enforced? Say there are 5,00O employees. Who can make them work? The consta- ble the sheriff, the posse comitatus, the mili- tary forces may be called out But none can make them work. The decree is dead from the beginning. Suppose the court says the manu- facturer must pay the g.! but if he really can not afford to do so what must happen? The employer must do one of two things. Either he must adulterate his goods to make up the difference, or he must combine with other em- ployers in a trust to keep up the prices. The law will have compelled one of these things.
 There is also an economic question to be con- Sidered If the state says the employer must pay a fixed price for work it has practically fixed the price Of the commodity. The lave fix the price, but 1t cannot compel the con sumers to buy at that price.
 The next logical step is to make 1t a penal oifense not to buy at that price. Then why not let the law fix the prices of everything di- rectlyE lJ WOuld De cheaper JO uO lnlS directly than through the cumbersome machinery of compulsory arbitration. The workman would be slave under compulsory arbitration. He has little freedom of contract" now. He must submit to the ruling prices. But compulsory arbitration will destroy what little he has left. It will establish the prices at which he can sell the only commodity he possesses-that is, his labor. He must expect Sl. 80 or not work at all if the court tells him to do so sYen if the actual cost of living is &. On whatever side we look at it, compulsory arbitration means the death of industry and the achievement of labor.
 There may be some modification of the gen. eral principle developed in the future, but do not know it now. There should be a protest by the community against it. Few labor or ganizations indorse it. A few scholars and thinkers are almost the only ones who really indorse it. To adopt it would be to go back to the ages from which we have been divorced. It would be going back to a worse barbarism than we have ever had on this continent There would be no life, no survival of industry under 1t.