Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1919-10-25

on WHICH Ln6 enIlre group Se6meq
agreed was to be put before the
whole conference. Also with the
employers and employees repre-
sentatiyes now outside the confer
ence, IL is deemed desirable 10
make selections which will surely
include all the varying viewpoints
on the relation OF capital and la
hor end yet maintain a personnel
that knows how TO bring about q
compromise
Permits Greater Freedom.
Unquestionably the new commits
sion will take advantage of the
continued presence in Washington
Of the leading members OF the en-
ployers' and employees groups to
obtain advice or judgment as vari-
Gus principles are brought forth
and the personal relations already
established through the conference
ilSelf will stand the new public
Sgroup in good stead. making posi-
bic informal conferences and talks
wherein the individuals represent
ing capital and labor can talk more
freely and make more valuable
suggestions than they could on the
floor of a conference managed by
parliamentary rules and recorded
in every detail by stenographers
and the press
Many Mistakes Made.
Looking back over the events OF
the last two weeks, many mistakes
were made in the Industrial peace
conference On both sides. Really.
it was a big tragedy. Argument
was not as Impossible as it may
now seem to have been through
the departure of the labor group.
when It is considered, for instance.
that by the bare majority Of one
or two the employers group decid-
ed to vote as a unit against the
Gompers resolution declaring that
wage earners had a right to organ
iZe without discrimination, the
proximity of the whole conference
TO an understanding on that first
principle can be seen. The pass
ing of the first obstacle would have
meant the passing Of a crisis and
the beginning of an era of recon
Citation in the conference itself.
But labor was impatient and tact
less. Capital on its part was tact
less, because It failed really to tell
the conference about the vote in
side its group and just what was
holding back assent to the Com
pers principle.
Should Have Talked Sooner.
For instance, If the employers
group had said in the conference
what so many Of its members said
afterwards privately. the confer !
ence would not have dissolved |
Practically all the employers said /
they had no objection to the Com !
pers resolution IL It could have /
been further defined. Had they an
nounced at the conference that !
they approved the principle with
certain understanding and defini- /
tions as to its mode of application,
the responsibility for denying those ,
Understandings and definitions !
would have been clearly upon the /
labor group.
The employers, on the other
hand. argue that it was not nee
essary to go further. because union !
labor showed its hand
One Question Unanswered.
lone of the questions which Sam |
'ueI Gompers. president of the |
American Federation OF Labor, did /
not answer in the conference, and /
has not answered yet. Is that which |
l.. F. Loree of the employers group /.
asked him and which Paul L. Feiss
Of the public group pressed upon
Mr.. Gompers was this:
Mr.. Loree: l want TO read from
the proceedings Of the American
IF a ~
Iautic City. N J., June to %,
1919. pages 302 and 300. resolution
No. POI. 1t starts out with this
proposition: Whereas. many steel
corporations and other industrial
institutions have instituted in their
plants systems OF collective bar
gaining, akin to the Rockefeller
plan and ends up with two reso-
lutions Resolved. that we disap-
prove and condemn all such COM
Cany unions and advise our mem
to have nothing to do with
them; and. be it further resolved.
that we demand the right TO bar
gain collectively through the only
kind OF organization fitted for this
the trade union. and that
we stand Loyalty together until this
IlEHL IL SOuCcueu US -NONs W Z dIt
not going to be led into the adop-
ton of any resolution OF this kind.
that does not set out plainly on its
face all the circumstances under
which collective bargaining can be
conducted"
I Puts Question to GOmpers.
!, To this Mr.. Gompers made no
answer. so later on Mr.. Feiss of ;
the public group pursued the in
Quiry thus:
4 should like to ask Mr. Comp y
ars for the Qualification of my own
mind. if l may, this question, be
cause l am very much puzzled by
the resolution. l would like to ask
Mr.. Gompers to reconcile what, in
my mind. are diverse statements.
We asked you yesterday, Mr.. Comp
aTs. in the group meeting whether
The resolution you then stood for !
presented in your mind or per-
nitted instead or affected the for
nation of so-caIled shop unions, !
and the question of the IL points
Of the steel workers demands came {
Up. and you said then. as you. ! s
believe, later said publicly here,
hat you do not deny the right To
organize in that fashion, or that i
you did not recall up to that time 7
hat right had Rever before been | 7
challenged, or that there had ever z
been on the part of the American t
of Labor a question of {
hoF ITO f1T-nTT-ad Z