The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-01-01
IS EFFECTIVE ARBITRArIoN
POSSIBLE.

Arbitration, as a term applied 10 the legis-
lation OF States to avert or adjust strikes,
is clearly a misnomer There is no real
arbitration about it. A more appropriate
term for the work boards in this and other
States have done in the adjusting of differ
ences between employer and employe is con-
Citation IN no instance has real arbitra-
ton been undertaken, probably because no
State has reached the point where it has
been deemed wise to authorize it by law.
Is practical arbitration possible?
When an extensive strike reaches the
stage where the State is called upon to
maintain one side or the other to the dis
pute by calling out the militia, as is often
the case in conflicts between mine operators
and employees, may not the people repre-
scented by the State authorities have a
right TO interfere by arbitration? The peo-
pie must pay the expense of keeping the
peace and protecting one side or the other;
why should not the government which
represents the people, step in before the dis
pute reaches the acute stage of violence,
at the request of either party, and say
that the differences will be heard by a
board Of arbitration, whose decision shall
be binding on both sides? The whole COM
munty about Pana, ILL.,, where there has
been a strike for months, is still agitated.
The militia has been there much of the
time, yet collisions and bloodshed are fire.
quent, and innocent parties suffer Men
are carrying arms and have acted as guards
nv
State or county official. The Governor, the
mine operator and others have been in
dicted. Law has been ignored and all re-
spect for constituted authority has been
forfeited. As a rule these strikes grow out
of some minor differences. which should be
settled by somebody without public dis
turbance Who would be injured if the
State should create tribunal empowered to
investigate and render a decision or verdict
in disputes of the Importance of some of
those in coal mines which both parties must
accept. or failing to accept, must forfeit
protection or be prevented from interfering
with the employment of other men? Sup
pose it is a matter of wages: the arbitrator
could investigate the conditions and ascer-
tain whether or not the wages demanded
can be paid. If it is found the company
cannot pay the wages demanded, or cannot
pay more than is offered. then the employees
are in duty bound to accept. If they refuse,
they must be enjoined from any Interior
ence with the employment of men to take
their places and punished if they persist.
IL the board finds that the company does
not pay the scale of wages agreed upon,
or that it can comply with the demand of
the employees it must accept the finding Of
the board If it shall refuse, why would it
not be right to enjoin it from bringing other
men into the community to work the mines
1t may be objected that board of arbi-
tration cannot be clothed with power to
enforce its decision. The objection is prob
ably a valid one. but the arbitrators, in
case of refusal by either party to accept their
decision, could apply to the Circuit Court
for an injunction against the party refusing
compliance. Doubtless other legal obiec-
tions may be found to such a\mcthod of
preventing strikes; nevertheless, the success
of what may be called arbitration by con-
Citation leads many to inquire if the public,
which must bear the burdens and risk the
danger of the disorders incident to ex-
tensive strikes. has not the right to take
steps through the constituted authorities to
BILE or not, all will agree that there would
be few strikes if q law providing for eff
fcctive arbitration could be devised.