New-York tribune., 1902-12-26

set on foot or of the benefits to be derived from
a court that is only now holding its first ses-
sions 1t will be asserted that the idea OF coLi-
peIIng united labor and associated capitai 10
submit their differences to the arbitration OF
any court, whether they will or no, is unjust ana
oppressive, and that, II it were not 1t would De
utterly destructive of the very progress ana
prosperity it was meant to promote 1t may
even be put forward as a serious proposition
that the idea is impossible dream because
It would be impossible TO enforce the DEGREES OF
such court; at any rate. in country where
as in America-au classes OF The people are ac-
custorned to exercise the fullest liberty IN the
management of their own affairs
To such assertions as these many answers
might be given; but. after ALL only one Is OF nluch
vaIue-it is the answer of experience. IL IS true
the Industrial Arbitration Court OF New South
Wales is only beginning its work; yet IL mas al
ready g history which is not without slsrilI-
canoe This court. like the Australian law Is III
this respect the child of the courts, and mas no"
been in operation for seven years in NeW-Aea-
land It was established in that country a1teF
the experience of the great strike Of 1888 hao
seemed to the people Of New-Zealand to sho"
that It was time for the public to protect itseh
from, the disastrous effects of Industrial wars
as an attempt to solve the very same proo1eii
which on larger scale confronts America 'o
day. Each one Of the objections Whlch we nave
supposed as made in America to-day 10 such d
law and such a court was made IN AustraIiSl
then Newspapers scoffed at the idea' puslheSs
men appealed to the common sense OF the sdiie
o,osa ,n NevZealand to abandon the hare
brained scheme, which would utterly oes',oS
the confidence of capital in their country; iaoor
unions appealed to the unionists OF the country
to oppose plan which was meant 10 uhoei iniiie
their freedom OF action. The people ana Far-
1i.roent of New-Zealand were obstinate; they
nassed the law and established the court
For seven years the classes who denounced
the new experiment as foredoomeo Aallule
have been waiting to see their prophecles iul-
eued and thew have waited in vain They have
done what they could to bring about 1uhl-
ment by announcing again ana again that u
had failed They have asserted that Ne"-Hea-
lord u,as on the high road to ruin over and
over again.
The census of New-zealanG Is taken every
FIVE years. so that those interested IN tracing
the success or failure of the eountry's leglsia-
tion could compare the condition Of the people
ar the beeinning of 1885, when the new IN
dustrial peace legislation was a year DID, Win
what Il was In March, 1901. when 1t had been
in force for six years The comparison seemed
TO the people OF Australia to settle the question
!, of the policy of the law. The labor unions-far
more numerous and influential in proportion to
the whole people there than in America-saw
that labor was better off. work more regular
and better paid. the country more prosperous,
and yearly more attractive to their own mem
bers than Australia was. The employers of
labor a whole, after many inquiries and
much hesitation, It must be admitted. came to
the conclusion that the results such TO
Justify them giving the system a trial. The
newspapers, after years OF hostile criticism, have
gradually come to admit that in practice there
would seem to be fewer dangers in the inter
ference OF the public in labor disputes than IN
the practice Of private warfare between en-
ployers and employed.
It may OF course. some may say, be answered
that American workngmen don't believe the
institution Of Industrial courts would have any
such effect here. They may say that no justice
could be got. or. at any rate. depended on. from
such courts II they were established here. No
deeper condemnation could be thought OF for
American institutions than this II It true;
less hopeful outlook could be obtained of the
probable future OF any people. But there is no
evidence that II is true, and without the strong
est evidence It is incredible. If court were
established in Pennsylvania. let us say. consti-
tuted as the courts Of New-Zealand. and now
also of Australia, are constituted, with equal
number Of judges freely elected. by organized
capltal on the one n8DQ ana organized ldDOT On
the other, and presided over by a well known
Judge why should It be unworthy of conhdence2
If. In addition, every one Of its proceedings
was public; If the evidence taken were printed
in the press from day to day; IL books Of account
were subject to It's inspection. that the true
bearing of questions OF wage and Of profit could
be seen and appreciated, and witnesses were
compelled to attend and to answer, would there
be any reasonable risk OF manifest unfairness7
II the old cry is raised that neither employers
nor workers ias-America would submit to COM
puison, 1t may be met with smile. Every day
of their lives already both employers and work
ers do submit to compulsion in hundred ways
for the good of society. If they are summoned
to court they do attend; or II they do not, they
are fined, and all experience shows that 1t would
be exactly the same in duly constituted indus
trial court. It is needless to go into the wornout
absurdity of discussing the question whether IT
is not tyranny to make men work for wages
they think insufficient or employers pay wages
they cannot pay without ruin, as neither con-
tngency enters into the contemplation of any
law of arbitration IN force in either New-Zea-
land or Australia JOSIAH c. PUMPELLY,
New-Yorl1, Dec TO- 1902.