Five Mile Beach weekly journal., 1916-10-27

YES "a tAC mOAh VI
mining should go on in the interests Of
the people as q whole. When the mine
owners, backed by and representing the
most powerful financial interests of the,
country, positively refused to arbitrate, Il
proceeded to appoint an arbitration CONT
mission without regard to them; securing
the consent of a political opponent, ex,
President Grover Cleveland, to serve at:
the head of that commission. I saw the;
Lieutenant General of the Army and ar.
ranged with him that if necessary / would
put the army in possession Of the mines
and would treat him as a receiver to run,
the mines, and see that neither side inter-
fered with the running. When it became,
evident that I meant what I said, that.
both sides could count on my endeavor to-
do strict justice, and that they could also
count on my insisting that the public.
needs be Immediately met, the capitalists
yielded and the commission was ap-
pointed.
You know the rest, you miners here!.
Work was resumed in the mines. immedi-
ately, on the old terms, which continued
until tn. commission reported. The Com
mission consisted of as able and as i'm
partial men as there were in the country,
including the head of the Order of Rail-
way Conductors, Mr.. Clark. It also in
cluded among others, a Federal Judge, a
skilled engineer, a trained labor expert
and a beloved friend of mine, Archbishop
Spaulding, of Illinois, whose interest in
the welfare Of the workingmen was genu-
inc and sympathetic, and also under
stood with entire clearness that in the
long run justice to the w~orkingmen could
be permanently secured, only if it was
made part of a scheme to secure justice
for everybody concerned.
The arbitration was successful. I I'M
derstand that with slight notifications,
you have continued to operate the mines
under its terms VI to the present day.
More important still, it set the precedent
for the course that ought to be followed
in all disputes of this nature hereafter.
Mr.. Wilson, on the contrary, has set a
precedent which he himself admits must
never hereafter be followed if justice is to
be done. This is a vital point of differ
ence between the conduct of the Chief Exc
cutive in one case and in the other. When
fourteen years ago, l acted, there was no
precedent for me to follow, and no estab-
lished instrumentalities through which to
work. I had to establish the precedent
in order to meet a great crisis. l had to
create my own instrument, the arbitration
commission. Mr.. Wilson had before him
the precedent I had created, and he had as
instruments ready to hand the Arbitration
Board, and the Interstate Commerce Com
mission, with its enlarged powers. But he
failed to follow the precedent, OF to use
the instruments which were ready to his
hand. l, although lacking the agencies of
law for the application of the principle,
nevertheless applied it, and established ar
bitration in the settlement on their merits
of industrial disputes. Mr.. Wilson, with
all the agencies of law subject to his COM
mand, ignored them, destroyed the prin-
ciple of arbitration in the settlement of
industrial disputes, and put a premium on
securing this settlement by threat and du-
ress.
President Wilson in his speech of Au-
gust Goth and September 23d has furnished
his W condemnation out of his own
mouth. In them he explicitly condemns
exactly what he has lone and actually de-
mands legislation which will make impos-
sible the repetition Of such a proceeding!
This is SO extraordinary an attitude that
l quote his own words. He said he wished
"to provide" against "the recurrence of
such unhappy situations in the future" by
securing "the calm and fair arbitration of
all industrial disputes in the days to
come" This is an explicit assertion that
arbitration of all industrial disputes is
the right method of action; and therefore
that he had adopted the wrong method
of action-although in the case of
the anthracite coal strike he had an
exact precedent in point, by following
which he would have enforced the right
method.
J President Wilson further says, This is
assuredly the best way of indicating a
principle, namely, having failed to make
certain of its observance in the present to
make certain of it's observance in the fu-
ture." On the contrary, this is the very
worst way of vipdicating a principle. In
deed, it is impossible to devise a worse
way of indicating a principle, than to
finch ANONYMOUSLY from enforcing it in
the case at issue and at the same time to
seek to cover the ignominy by vociferous
protestations about applying it in the ne
bulous future. The same paper, the New
York Times, from which 1 quote the above
sentences, contained statements from the
leaders of the Brotherhoods whom he was
befriending, in which they said that they
would never consent to the legislation pro-
viding for future arbitration for which
President Wilson asked; and President
Wilson kept a weak and nervous silence
about this defiance. He did not get the
legislation which he declared was essential
to "vindicate the principle" in the future.
All that he accomplished was the violation
of the principle in the present, in the con-