New-York tribune., 1902-09-07
HEADS OR TAILS IN ARBITRATION.

After all, the labor unions do not all seem to
be by any means in love with arbitration. The
great British Trades Union Congress- which
was expected to adopt resolutions in favor of a
court of arbitration has refused by two-thrds
vote to do so. True, the rejected scheme pro-
vided for compulsory and not voluntary arbitra
ton But the objections to ii were not to the
compulsory feature. but really to the general
principle of arbitration. II was urged by some
that under arbitration they would lose much
that they had gained through strikes, While
others argued that the establishment of court
of arbitration would destroy the trades unions
themselves by depriving them OF any turther
reason for existence. These arguments, when
were made by uDioniSt leaders and which pre-
vailed with the Congress, imply far more
severe criticism of the unions than we should
have ventured to make. The one suggests Ihat
the unions have demanded and have gained
through strikes and other means more thah
they are justly entitled to, or more than impair
tial arbitratorS would consider them entltied TO-
and the other as strongly suggests that the
unions exist chiefly for the sake or strikes anu
of giving employment to walking deIesateS
We are not saving that these things are So
But certainly such is the natural inference from
what was urged by representative unionists In
the congress.
Again. we are told that in Pennsylvania the
leaders of the coal strike are opposed to a COM
pulsorv arbitration law for the reason that
under II they would be compelled to accept ana
TO abide by the verdict Of the court OF arbltra-
tion or else be subject to n penalty They 90
not want TO become legally responsive Tor the
fulfilment or violation of contracts or 10 be put
under bonds of any kind for abiding by the re-
suits OF arbitration. At present they enjoy
power without responsibility. II they make
contract with the mine owners they can hoiu
the latter to it. but they cannot be held to II
themselves If they submit a dispute to arni-
tration they can compel the mine owners 10
abide by the result. but cannot themselves De
compelled to abide by it. It is an adrolt appil-
cation Of the gamester's principle OF headS l
win. tails you lose"
Now. we are not arguing in favor of compul-
sory arbitration. In some cases II may ne anu
probably is desirable In many cases it is not.
1t would be intolerabIe. for example TO decree
that when an employer wants to reduce wages
he can drag his employees into court ana nave
them. II the court pleases. compelled TO accepr
the reduced wages asd TO continue working for
him at such rates Every workingman In the
land would revolt and rlghteOusly revolt.
against such despotism. Equally intolerabie
would it be for workingmen when they want
an Increase of pay. to be able 10 drag thelr ell
pioyer into court and have him compelled II the
court pleaSes. to raise their wages ana 10 con-
tinue employing them at the increased rate
We do not believe in any such compuislon as
that In the great majority of cases 1t IS ahso-
lutely essential that arbitration shall be Voiun-
tary; that both parties shall voluntarily submit
their cases In the court But when once the
case Is submitted. then the principle OF coninui-
sion should prevail TO the fullest degree The
dlsnutants should he free TO 90 into the court OF
arbitration or not. as they please But having
once elected 10 go in. they must abide ny the
courts decision suffer the nenalty Of con-
tempt OF court That Is the kind Of compulsory