The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1896-05-17
Bishop Potter as an Arbitrator.

Bishop PoTTER's remarkable decision as
arbitrator in the dispute over wages between
the photographers and their employees is
based upon grounds purely. He
decided it according to the counsel of his
highest conscience as to which of the oppo-
site tendencies makes for the social good ~
and, in justice to the clerical referee, it must
be acknowledged that it was impossible
for him to reach a decision under any other
guidance. The questions submitted to the
Bishop did not concern the Interpretation of
a contract which is within the range Of
reasonable arbitration. The difference was
between buyer and seller as to a matter of
price, and accordingly a Bishop could not
have been called in to settle it except as a
ghostly counsellor distinctively. When n
man goes to his confessor with such a case
the implication is hat he is seeking to have
it settled as n question Of conscience and
not as a matter of business judgment.
The employees of the associated lithog-
raphers struck because their demands,
which related directly or indirectly to
wages, were refused; but they returned to
work on the understanding that the differ
ences should be submitted to arbitration.
Accordingly, an arbitration committee was
appointed, consisting Of three men from
each side, with the condition that
both should abide by it's decision.
The arbitrators disagreed, for the very OBJ
vious reason that the dispute was not sus-
ceptible of arbitration. The employees had
a right to charge what they pleased for
their labor, and the employers were free to
accept or reject the terms. The difference
uaG MT no m n contract n1rnaHy roJa J,t
as to the terms of a contract yet to be
formed; and hence when both sides con-
scented to refer their disagreement to
Bishop POTTER, they left to his discretion
the determination of the character of
the contract into which they were to enter.
There being no other way for him to decide
it than as a matter of conscience, neither
side has any reason for complaint of the de-
cision he has rendered. He could not weigh
1t as a business proposition, for it was not
at all a business proposition. MOI was it
a question Of legal right. Each side
was at liberty to do as 1t chose, and
in going to a priest for a decision in the
premises they virtually agreed to have the
matter settled as a sentimental question. II
the Produce Exchange, for instance, should
refer to Bishop POTTER the question of the
price it ought to charge for wheat, the only
inference would be that it had decided to give
up obedience to the laws of trade and sub
NIT itself to the guidance of the highest
conscience" of the episcopal counsellor as
to what makes for the social good"
The decision of Bishop POTTER, therefore,,
is criticisable only on the ground that tax
ing away the personal liberty OF the lithog-
raphers TO make their own terms in buy
ing and selling is not for the social good.
On that ground it is wholly and essentially
vicious. Personal liberty is infinitely
more valuable and more conducive to
tho social good than the amount Of
the wages paid to the photographers.
II men must give up their right
to buy and sell according as they may con-
sent, they will be reduced to the abject
slavery OF c%onvicts in prison. II social good
required that the buyer should thus be de-
prived of his liberty, it would require also
that the seller should lose his correspond
ing freedom.
This, however, is too obvious a matter for
discussion; yet Bishop POTTER thinks that
his decision is a" in the interest Of arbitration
rs n means OF settling labor disputes" Real
ly, of course, 1t reduces such arbitration to
an absurdity, If he had been as sagacious in
this outside matter as he has proved him
self to be within his proper episcopal
domain, he would have kept out of the
controversy altogether. or referred it back
to the ~disputants as a question which
must be settled by laws OF trade unalterable
by the highest conscience" of any priest.