The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1895-09-21
Voluntary state Arbitration.

been made possible in many States,
beginning with Pennsylvania in 1888.
All the laws so far enacted either
provide for State Boards, to whom
parties may submit their differences
for settlement, and which have GER
tain duties as to investigation,
whether the contending parties invite
them to act or not, or they provide
means by which voluntary boards
may be clothed with certain powers
which greatly add to their authority
and facilitate their work. In no case
however, is there anything compuls-
DRY in the matter, and none Of the
arguments brought against compul-
sorry arbitration can be used against
any of the existing laws.
Of voluntary arbitration much need
not be said. In this country it is
usually called into use when, after
long and exhausting contest, both
labor and capital are thoroughly
worn out, and the patience of the
community is also coming to an end.
Both sides are anxious to make terms
both are too proud to do so, both
too sore and angry to be able to come
to any mutual agreement without
some outside interference; then
man having the confidence of the
public is asked to "arbitrate," both
sides agreeing to abide by the deci-
sion; the case is argued by both sides,
the decision rendered, and things
sink back pretty much as they were
before the strike or lockout. In Eng
land, often, and sometimes perhaps
here, voluntary arbitration is called
in to settle dispute which has not
yet reached the point of rupture; the
employers and employees are wise
enough not to waste their force by
strike or lockout, but to refer the
matter in question to the man who
has the public confidence at once. In
such cases the procedure is the same
the arbitrator sits as judge, the
case is presented by both sides, wit
nesses are called, and the matter is
decided in way which gives abso-
Lutte satisfaction to neither party, but
still without suspension of work, and
without bitter and angry feeling, and
the decision is accepted and lived up
to, with very few exceptions, and
these exceptions are as often on the
part of the employers as of the work
men.
All this very good, but it is not the
best. There can be no doubt that
lawsuit is more civilized method of
settling quarrel than fight, and
yet even a lawsuit is not the ideal
method. In the same way arbitra-
ton is more civilized than the ex-
haustion of both parties by strike
or lockout, but neither is it the ideal.
The ideal in both cases is to pre-
vent the dispute, or, indeed, to go
still farther back, and prevent the
feelings and the actions which tend
to cause dispute-that is, it is the
characters of the men, of the employ
ers and of the employees, which must
be modified and educated; it is fair,
true, noble, in one word, Chris
tian, relation which should be striven
for, and Cancellation is the techni-
cal word which has been selected to
describe this relation.
The term is wide enough to cover
any permanent relation entered into
by employers and employees, the OBJ
ject of which is to discuss together,
by their representatives, the ques-
tions relating to the trade which are
of common interest to both, and to
come to some agreement mutually
satisfactory. There can be no ques-
ton that wages, hours of work,
payment for overtime, conditions of
shops, are all matters of common in
terest to both employers and en-
ployes, and it is strange that either
party should claim, as both too often
have, the sole right to settle them.
Under such conditions the certainty
is that they will never stay settled,
and it is therefore shorter and far
more business like to consult together
and reach settlement which has the
sanction of both sides.
Arbitration often leads to concilia-
ton; for instance, in the famous
coal strike of 1898 in England, the
end of the strike (Which had lasted
nearly four months aud had aroused
the whole of England and involved the
welfare of the whole of England) was
brought about by Lord Rosebery act