The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1904-03-31
floss ARBITRATION BILL
OPPOSED BY Mr.. GOMPERS
Its Provisions Explained by Vol
ney w. Foster, Who Drew
the Measure.
DIFFICULTIES IN WAY

WASHINGTON, March 30-Arbitration
as proposed in the Foss bill, drawn by Vol
ney W. Foster, of Chicago. and provid-
ing for a permanent national board OF
arbitration in labor disputes, consisting
of seven members, of which the secretary
of commerce and labor shall be an ex-of-
ficio member was discussed to-day by the
House committee on labor. Mr.. Foster ex-
planned the provisions of the bill. He was
questioned by members of the committee
and also by the representatives of the
American Federation of Labor, including
President Samuel Gompers and Andrew
Furuseth, and by Daniel Davenport rep
resenting the anti-boycott association and
organization of employers All the ques-
tons indicated difficulties in the way of the
bill
Mr.. Foster explained that the only PEN
atty to enforce the findings of the tribunal
on any given subject was public opinion.
This point seemed to be controverted by
both the representatives of labor and CAPT
tai. 1t was asserted that an agreement
to enter into arbitration might be taken
into court for enforcement Mr.. Foster
did not hold this view, and suggested that
the bill might be amended to state this in
specific language
Mr.. Gompers regarded the bill as the first
step toward compulsory arbitration,
against which both employers and work
men opposed.
Mr. Foster explained the bill to be an at
tempt to capitalize and direct public opinion
as has not been undertaken scientifically
heretofore. Il believe" he said, that 1t
is a growing conviction among the students
of this question that reasonable and whole
some publicity is the cure for many, If not
all, of the evils that affiict our social and
industrial system. The power of public
opinion undisciplined and spontaneous in
its manifestations is well known and much
feared. and it has been conviction of the
author of this bill that this extraordinary
force could be disciplined and utilized in
behalf of the settlement of those differences
that have greatly hindered and sometimes
imperiled our industrial prosperity. There
is no higher tribunal to which our differ
ences may be appealed than tribunal Sc
lected from best men.
Il believe that it is fully conceded that
compulsory arbitration, if the two words
can be used In such relation TO each other,
is impra cticable and un-American and by
no means to be desired. 1t is also believed
that public opinion has or may have in
our country peculiar force and as our
by the certain fundamental conclusions
relating to rights and privileges that
shall represent fairly the combined thought
OF our whole people. By the adoption of
this bill you will have provided for the
consideration by the prepared tribunal of
the legal obligation OF man to man as they
stand of record in our decisions and equally
important the recognition of moral obli-
CATION recognized by our whole people
l am rather pleased that the bill has so far
not had the partisan influence of either of
the parties interested in it's behalf; that il
has come to you without special recon-
mendation or heralding and so far not en-
! barrassed by the influence of great names
but rather that il appeals to you by it's
own unhindered logic and invites your close
analysis and of its provisions square with
hat cha1I co
it and give il life among the ordinances of
our Nation.
From the information / have of OBJ
| jections made heretofore at the hearings
you have had, conclude that the bill has
not been understood by such critics and il
is possible that its language may be made
clearer and more definite those points in
relation to which errors have been made
/ am glad to advise you. as / am sure
you will be glad to be informed, that the
Rev. John Lancaster Spaldng, bishop of
Peoria. has carefully analysed the bill, sec
ton by section. and that he advises me that
| it has his unqualified approval"