The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-01-15

OF wrong and tends to conditions which
would prove in the end no less disastrous
than socialism. There is no occasion here
for vituperation or exaggeratIon. There is
no ground to say that the rich men of to-
day are any worse than the rich men of
the past, or that they are any worse than
the rest of US would be if the tables We're
turned and we were the rich and they the
poor. 1t is not a question of personal
merits, but the merits of a system. Neither
Is 1t true that tie masses of the people
In our own State and country are in less
happy conditions than those which attended
the lives of their ancestors. or attend the
lives OF their brethren elsewhere to-day.
quite the contrary. But the tendency of the
system is to injustice, TO the enrichment
OF the few at the expense of the many.
to the denial of equal opportunity to all
and free competition by all.
DUTY Is PLAIN.
1T seems to me therefore that the path
of our duty is plain. Opportunity is the
great gift of society to the individual:
equality of opportunity is the perfection of
that gift. And wherever it can be seen in
the whole fabric of our social and political
institutions that equality of opportunity to
enter for a prize in the race of life is de-
MED to any citizen there is a weak spot
in the structure to be noted, studied and
mended If possible. And this We should en-
deavor to accomplish, not by sudden and
violent changes OF existing laws. but by a
progressive reformation, dealing with the
most obvious evils first, and going forward
cautiously as discussion, experiment and
experience shall light the way. If we can
do this with the wisdom and courage of true
~Sma IL ought not TO be impos-
sible to find ways by which the blessings
of competition may be saved to society by
making II falr and real, and securing to
very person equal opportunity to take part
III II according to bis talents, his industry
and his courage.
"The present most acute manifestation in
our own country of the worldwide spirit
OF unrest to which L have alluded is in the
controversies between employers and en-
pioyes which, result in strikes. These con-
nctS nave increased so of late i'm fire.
quency and violence, and cause such loss
ana inconvenience to. the public. and seem
70 1orebode such greater mischiefs in the
future that the people are looking anxious
ly for relief at the hands of the lawmak-
ing power. And as in the larger problem
OF universal discomfort, so in this subdivi-
sion of II, tho case presents on it's face
the sharp alternative of repression-a rig
orous enforcement OF the law as Ii stands,
or some modification of the law which shall
tend to the abatement of the evil by remov-
ing or diminishing the causes of it. Strikes
are a logical consequence of the %organiza-
ton and unionizing of workingmen. No
merely repressive law will be entirely eff
fectual to prevent them that does not abol-
lsh the unions or put such severe restric-
tons ana penalties upon them as Will de-
prive them of power. and usefulness. And
this. in my opinion. would not be right,
nor in accordance with the prevailing senti-
ment of the community.
THE essence of the workingmen's griev-
ance is, that in the present condition of
society all its employments in which he
can take pare are in the hands of great
employers, who, dealing with him alone
and individually can dictate all the terms
of his employment and through them the
conditions of his existence. The equal OPP
portunity to compete for a prize I'm the race
of life of which L have spoken is denied
him. As a refuge from this weakness as
an individual he seeks the strength which
is found in union, as he has q right to do
and ought TO do.
n A. - o~;-o ltu-1D, tbo
unions and the employers is inevitable. Such
vast antagonisms of interest," as exist be-
tween capital and labor cannot always be
harmonized by the best Intended endeav-
ors on either side, or both sides. But these
differences ought not to be fought out by
violence any more than differences between
individuals. One of the functions of the
state in civilized society Is 10 provide
courts fer the settlement of disputes among
men. But this is q new kind of dispute.
We have no laws to fit the case, no code
defining the mutual rights and duties or
employers and employees in their present
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. unlike any that ever be-
fore existed, and no courts with adequate
power to deal with the subject. And 1t
would be rash to attempt to provide all
these at once and off-hand. Good law
grows slowly. 1t is the fruit of experience
sown in gardens of trouble. We must
come to the final legal solution of these
knotty problems by processes as gradual as
the growth of a tree. For the present we
have no law but the general Judgment OF
the community; no court but the great To-
| rum OF DuDIlC ODlllOu. I1 sOiiiO VI wv -
cidents of "A strike. for destruction OF
property. breach OF the peace, Intimidation.
conspiracy and the like. we have law
enough, and power enough IN the courts.
But for the dispute itself we have no law,
no court. no writ, no Judgment, and can
have none at the present stage or our So
cial evolution.
THE BEST REMEDY.
.The most and best that we can do APP
pears to me to be, first, to provide some
tribunal specifically authorized to hear and
settle labor disputes voluntarily submitted
TO il for arbitration. / do not believe in
compulsory arbitration. 1t seems TO me to
be impossible TO compel contending dis
putants to submit their controversy 10 any
tribunal which we have. or could create.
By what law would its decision be guided?
BY what rule would it fix wages. prices,
hours and other conditions Of labor? How
would il enforce its decisions? 1t would
be a court without law, presidents, prac-
tice, or jurisdiction unless we supplied all
these by legislative enactment. And this
is the very neld into which. as L have just
said, we are not now ready 10 enter. IL
we had all these we would have no need OF
/. the special court; the courts of general and
/ ordinary jurisdiction would serve the pur-
pose equally well.
But when the parties to n labor dis
pute voluntarily submit their controversy
to arbitration they solve all these questions
for themselves. They frame the issue as
IltA 0llOOsC Ibl q ~ NoHN 80 JeNo
ment and consciences of the arbitrators;
for process their mutual agreement to abide
the decision, supplemented, perhaps, by
power in the courts TO enforce IL against a
refractory party.
ut may be said that no new law is nee
essary TO provide all this. that employers
and employees are at liberty now to sub
init their disputes to arbitration, choosing
their own arbitrator, and prescribing their
own rules for the conduct or the proceed
ings, and the enforcement OF the award.
But such arbitrations are rare. The DIM
culties in the way of them are so great
that public opinion, although favoring
them. is unable to bear with any force
upon the contestants. If there were a tri-
bunal provided by law for this express duty,
SO organized as to inspire general confl-
dence in its wisdom and integrity. with
methods of procedure simple and practical
Bile. the power of public opinion TO in1u-
ence the parties TO arbitrate their contro-
yersy would be vastly increased.
Especially would this be so If the same
tribunal were charged with the duty OF IN
vestigating promptly and thoroughly every
labor dispute which the parties refused to
arbitrate. Such a provision would be an
admonition to the contestants that society
will not patiently submit 10 be inconven-
fenced by the Quarrels of stubborn men,
and the publication of the facts found by
the investigating tribunal would put the
public i'm possession of the materials Oh
which TO base a Judgment upon the merits
of the controversy. Ii is a common feature
of serious labor controversies that there is
much dispute about the facts. and the pub
lie have no means of knowing where the
truth is. In many caSeS-not all, or course
a disclosure of the facts by a judicial IN
yestigation. in which the public would have
confidence, would show one party or the