Jtlfaca, S^tm ^otk BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME OF THE SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND THE GIFT OF HENRY W. SAGE 1891 Cornell University Library arV14844 Selected articles on the compulsory arbl 3 1924 031 672 946 olin.anx The original of tliis book is in tlie Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924031672946 DEBATERS' HANDBOOK SERIES COMPULSORY ARBITRATION AND COMPULSORY INVESTIGATION OF INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES Debaters' Handbook Series American Merchant Marine $1.50 Capital Punishment tsd ed. rev. and enl.) Central Bank of the United States Child Labor (2d ed. rev. and enl.) City Manager Plan Compulsory Arbitration of Industrial Disputes (4th ed. rev. and enl.) $2.25 Compulsory Insurance Conservation of Natural Resources Debaters' Manual (3d ed. enl.) Direct Primaries (4th ed. rev. and enl.) Election of U. S. Senators (2d ed.) Employment of Women (2d ed.) Federal Control of Interstate Corpora- tions (2d ed. rev, and enl.) Free Trade vs. Protection Government Ownership of Railroads Vol. II. $1.50 Government Ownership of Telegraph and Telephone Income Tax (3d ed. rev. and enl.) Initiative and Referendum (3d ed. rev.) Minimum Wage Mothers' Pensions Municipal Ownership (3d ed.) $1.50 National Defense. Vol. 11 National Defense Vol. III. $1.80 Open versus Closed Shop (2d ed.) Parcels Post (2d ed. rev. and enl.) Prohibition (2d ed. rev. and enl.) Recall (2d ed. rev. and enl.) Reciprocity Single Tax (2d ed. rev. and enl.) Trade Unions (2d ed. enl.) Unemployment World Peace (2d ed. rev. and enl.) Other titles in preparation Each volume, unless otherwise noted, $1.25 net Debaters' Handbook Series SELECTED ARTICLES ON THE COMPULSORY ARBITRATION AND COMPULSORY INVESTIGATION OF INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES COMPILED BY LAMAR T. BEMAN, A. M., LL B. ATTORNEY AT LAW, CLEVELAND, OHIO FOURTH EDITION. REVISED AND ENLARGED THE H. W. WILSON COMPANY NEW YORK 1920 I\s\\^n\ Published in 1911 Second Edition, January, 1915 Third Edition, August, 1917 Fourth Edition, September, 1920 EXPLANATORY NOTE This volume is compiled according to the general plan of the Debaters' Handbook series, but it differs from other numbers of the series in that it covers two questions. It is the plan of the series to have a separate volume for each question for de- bate. In this case, however, the two questions are closely relat- ed, and much of the literature deals with both, so that it is impracticable to present them in separate volumes and yet im- possible to combine them into one question. Compulsory Ar- bitration as adopted in Kansas and New Zealand is a very dif- ferent thing from Compulsory Investigation as used in Colorado and Canada. Both are of such general interest and so often dis- cussed and debated that there has been constant demand for a new edition of this volume. Compulsory Arbitration and Compulsory Investigation are terms that are frequently confused, the former term often being used when the latter is meant. Compulsory Arbitration means a law commanding that differences between employer and em- ploye, which cannot be settled by mutual agreement, be sub- mitted to arbitration, that both parties must comply with the award, and that there may be no cessation of industry by strike or lockout. Compulsory Investigation on the other hand means enforced postponement of a strike or lockout until notice has been given and time allowed for an investigation, the findings of which are to be made public. The former prohibits strikes and lockouts, the latter delays them so as to prevent hasty action on the part of either party and to permit an official investigation, the findings of which shall inform the public as to the nature and merits of the controversy. This volume contains a full general bibliography revised to the date of this issue, but not separated into affirmative and negative references, because many articles either present both sides of one question, or take up both questions. It also con- tains briefs and reprints of the best material on both sides of each question. June 30, 1920. Lamar T. Beman CONTENTS Explanatory Note v Briefs Compulsory Arbitration xi Compulsory Investigation - xxix BrBLIOGRAPHY Bibliographies and Briefs xxxiii Books and Pamphlets xxxiv Periodicals |. j xxxix Government Publications lix Industrial Warfare Ixv Introduction PART I. INDUSTRIAL WARFARE Strikes 13 War on the People Outlook 19 Thompson, Slason. Violence in Labor Conflicts Outlook 21 Dynamite Outrages 27 The Boycott 33 Stone, Peter. Intimidation and Deportation 34 Strike Brealcing 35 The Pinkerton Agency and Labor Struggles zi Thomas, Chas. S. The Right To Strike - . Congressional Record 39 Mr. Gomper's Reply Congressional Record 41 What Strikes Have Cost The Miners Literary Digest 45 The Strike Balartce Sheet New York Times 46 Tiii CONTENTS Expensive Idleness Cleveland Plain Dealer 48 Babson, Roger W. What These Strikes Cost You in Money American Magazine 49 Where Do The People Come In Independent 54 Brief Excerpts i 55 PART II. GENERAL DISCUSSION Anti-Strike Legislation in Various Countries 69 The Kansas Industrial Court Bill Law & Labor 76 The Colorado Industrial Commission .Monthly Labor Review 80 Beebee, George. The Australian System of Dealing with Labor Disputes Survey 8a PART III. COMPULSORY ARBITRATION Affirmative Discussion Parsons, Frank. Compulsory Arbitration Arena 91 Address of William Allen White Kansas Legislature, January, 1920 104 The Cummins Bill 105 Underwood, Oscar W. Compulsory Arbitration in Rail- road Labor Disputes • 115 Allen, Henry J. Liberty and Law in Kansas Review of Reviews 128 Governor Allen's Discovery Buffalo Commercial 139 Brief Excerpts 141 Negative Discussion Gompers, Samuel. Compulsory Arbitration in the Railroad Engineers' Award American Federationist 149 Stanley, A. Owsley. Railroad Control l6s Fitch, John A. Industrial Peace by Law Survey 176 Russell, Charles Edward. Compulsory Arbitration, the Next Battle Prize Reconstruction 183 CONTENTS fa Compulsion Does Not Insure Peace Cleveland Plain Dealer 191 Canfield, F. C. The Anti-Strike Bill Iowa Unionist 193 Brief Excerpts 197 PART IV. COMPULSORY INVESTIGATION Affirmative Discussion Compulsory Investigation Public 209 President Wilson Recommends Compulsory Investiga- tion 210 President Wilson "Earnestly Renews" His Recommen- dation ; J 213 Dunn, Samuel O. Government Prevention of Railroad Strikes Railway Age Gazette 214 Clark, Victor S. The Canadian Industrial Disputes Act Academy of Political Science. Proceedings 228 Statement of Hon. G. D. Robertson i 236 Lee, Elisha. Trial By Jury Independent 238 Bryan, William J. An Industrial Peace Plan Commoner 243 Brief Excerpts ' 248 Negative Discussion Statement of Samuel Gompers 253 Opinion of the American Federation of Labor 260 Statement of A. B. Garrettson 264 Selekman, Ben M. Nine Years of the Canadian Act Survey 267 O'Connell, James. The Canadian Disputes Act.. .Survey 286 Garrettson, Austin B. The Right to Strike • ■ •! Independent 289 - Carter, W. S. The Objections of Organized Labor to Compulsory Arbitration Academy of Political Science, Proceedings 294 Brief excerpts 299 BRIEFS COMPULSORY ARBITRATION Resolved, That Capital and Labor should be compelled to settle their disputes in legally established courts of arbitration. Affirmative Introduction. A. The question presupposes the existence of labor dis- putes. B. The Affirmative merely proposes that these disputes be settled by peaceful adjudication in courts of law, as all other disputes are now settled. C. We must not lose sight of the fact that in addition to the two antagonists in every labor dispute there is always a great third party, the general public, inno- cent of any blame but injured by every strike. D. The Affirmative does not claim that compulsory indus- trial arbitration will put an absolute end to all phases of industrial warfare, but we do claim that it will reduce labor disturbances to a minimum, as it has done in New Zealand and in Kansas. I.' The existing conditions in our industrial system deirfand a remedy. A. There are great evils connected with industrial war- fare. I. Mobs, riots and other disturbances of the peace. (McClures 23 : 43. Report of the Industrial Com- mission 19 : 877) . (a) The Pullman Car strike 1894. (b) The Boston Police strike 1919 (Current History 11: 54). (c) The Anthracite Coal strike 1902. (d) Various street car strikes. ,(e) Homestead strike 1892. BRIEFS 2. Murder, maiming, and assault (Outlook 78:969 and 98: 12). 3. Destruction of property, sabotage. (a) The systematic dynamiting program (Out- look 98:915. McClures 38:347. Harper Encyclopaedia of American History.) (b) The railroad strike of 1877. (c) Coal strike 1894. (d) Denver street car strike of 1920. 4. Infringement and denial of established rights. (a) Interference with free speech. (b) Denial of peaceful assembly (Survey 43:58). (c) Deportation. (d) Importation of strike breakers and slug- gers. (e) Intimidation by pickets and private detec- tives. 5. Boycotts, lasting long after the Strike is over. (See publications of the League for Industrial Rights, formerly the American Anti-Boycott Association, 135 Broadway, New York City, and Johns Hopkins University Studies, Series 34, No. I.) (a) Buck's Stove and Range Co. of St Louis. (Bulletin U.S. Bureau of Labor 18:124). (b) The Danbury Hatters' Case. (Outlook 110:612. Everybody's 33: 121) (c) Duplex Printing Press Co. (Law and Labor 2 : 26 F. '20) . (d) Coronado Coal Co. (Law and Labor 1 : 5-8 Je. '19.) 6. Blacklisting. (Report of Industrial Commission 19:890). (a) Western Union Telegraph Co. (Bulletin U. S. Bureau of Labor 9 : 202 Ja. '04) 7. Stoppages and "Striking on the Job". ,8. Class hatred engendered. 9. Breakdown of respect for law and order and the courts. BRIEFS xiii (a) Some labor leaders declare they will not obey a compulsory arbitration or investiga- tion law. (x) (See Law and Labor 1:23 D. 'ig) (y) (See Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science 7:31 Ja. '17) (z) Several sent to jail in Kansas 1920. (b) The injunctions of the courts are violated. (c) Disrespect for property rights. B. Both parties are injured. 1. Labor by loss of wages. (Report Industrial Commission 17:667. Report Anthracite Coal Commission. Literary Digest 42:295. American Magazine 89 : 100) 2. Employers, by stoppage of production, destruc- tion of property, and uncertainties in business. 3. Settlement by force does not secure justice. The innocent third party, the general public, is always injured and often suffers more than either antagonist. (Harper's Magazine 131 : 675. American Magazine 89:9. Outlook 94:517, 114:147, and 123:223) 1. By interruption of service. (a) Every street car strike causes great incon- venience and expense. (b) Strikes of telephone operators have disor- ganized the business of several cities. (c) Railroad strikes have closed factories for lack of fuel and raw material and have made food very scarce in the great cities. (d) Drug clerks' strike. (e) Elevator operators' strikes inconvenienced thousands in New York City, 1920. (f) New York printers strike, 1919, prevented publication of magazines and books. 2. By causing a shortage in the necessities of life. (a) The Coal strike 1919 caused untold suffer- ing. (Independent 101:385). (b) The Milk drivers strike in New York. (Independent 88: 139). (c) The Railroad strikes of 1894 and 1920. BRIEFS (d) A concerted determined railroad strike would mean that thousands, perhaps mil- lions, of people in the cities would die of starvation. 3. By throwing men out of work. (a) The non-strikers at the plant directly con- cerned. ( McClures 20 : 325 ) . (b) Employes in allied or dependent industries, (x) Shops have been closed because of "l lack of fuel. (Coal strike 1919) ' (y) Shops and factories have been closed or have curtailed their work because of inability to get raw material. (Railway Switchmens strike 1920) -4, By general depression of business. 5. By decreased production resulting in increased prices. (a) An attempt is always made to make up ^ losses. (b) Every coal strike has been followed by an increase in the price of coal. (c) Milk drivers strikes have been followed by higher prices. 6. By destruction of property, all of which is a direct loss to society. (a) There is usually a deliberate destruction of the employers property, called sabotage. (b) There is often great destruction by the rowdy element of the community. (x) Boston Police strike. (c) Sudden strikes and deliberate neglect, as in letting fires go out, boilers run dry, or pipes freeze, often cause a considerable loss. (d) Strikes often cause a great loss in perish- able goods. (e) A sort of "gorilla warfare" sometimes continues after a strike is over. (x) In the cases known as "striking on the job." (y) The dynamiting cases in the structural iron industry. BRIEFS XV D. The cost to society of industrial warfare is enormous. 1. The Seventeenth Annual report of the U. S. Commissioner of Labor p. 24 places the loss caused by strikes and lockouts from 1881 to igoo at-$468,968,s8i. 2. The Statement issued by the U. S. Shipping Board on Dec. 6, 1919, says that the strikes in the first eleven months of that year cost the Board $37,000,000. This does not include the losses to 1 strikers, t'o allied industries, and to society. ^3. The New York Times (editorial) April 18, 1920 says "In 1919 an incomplete list tabulated losses of wages by strikes of $723,478,300, and of indus- trial losses, not labor's, of $1,266,357,450. This is about a hundred dollars for each family in the United States in one year. E. Present methods do not afford the desired remedy. 1. Industrial warfare has steadily grown more ex- tensive and more bitter. c (a) From 1881 to 1905 there were 38,303 strikes and lockouts in the United States, an aver- age of 1532 a year (21 Annual Report U. S. Commissioner of Labor). (b) In 1916, 1917 and 1918 there were 11,430, an average of 3810 a year. (Monthly Labor Review 8: 1858). (c) "Since the war we have had a perfect carnival of strikes." (d) Industrial unrest has produced increasing uncertainties in business. (e) Strikes are always most frequent in times of prosperity when wages are highest. 2. Voluntary arbitration has failed utterly to settle or prevent strikes and lockouts. (a) Voluntary arbitration is wrong in theory, because boards of this kind lack the power to compel the parties to arbitrate and the power to enforce their awards. (b) Volun tary arbitration has failed in foreign countries. (Bulletin of the Bureau of Labor. 16:970-7). BRIEFS (c) It has failed completely in this country. (s) Many states have not adopted it. (t) Federal laws apply chiefly to trans- portation industries. (u) In the ten years the law of 1888 was in force, not one arbitration board was organized under its provisions. (v) During the first eight and a half years of the Erdman Act, the arbitration ma- chinery it created was never utilized. (Bulletin, Bureau of Labor 24: i Ja. '12) (w) During the next six years, although the mediation and conciliation provisions of the Erdman Law were used almost sixty times, the arbitration features of the law were only used four times. (x) The Newlands law has failed to pre- vent railway strikes, and it failed to prevent the crisis at the time of the threatened railroad strike of 1916, which was prevented only by the passage of the Adamson Act. (y) The Esch-Cummins law failed to pre- vent or settle the switchmen's strike of 1920. (z) The twenty-first annual report of the Commissioner of Labor states (p. 85) that only one and six-tenths per cent of the strikes in the United States between 1901 and 1905, both years inclusive, were settled by voluntary arbitration. Mediation and conciliation have failed to settle the great strikes. Trade agreements presuppose ideal relations be- tween capital and labor. (a) Agreements are often broken by strikes. (Switchmen's strike 1920). (b) Agreements are often broken by "stop- pages" or by "striking on the job." BRIEFS xvii II. Compulsory Arbitration offers the desired remedy. A. It is sound in tlieory. 1. Decision by reason is better than decision by force. 2. The public always wants arbitration. 3. The proposed courts would represent all parties : Captital, Labor, and the general public as they do in New Zealand. 4. They will possess two requisites which present boards lack. (a) The power of permitting either contestant to bring the other contestant into court and compel him to arbitrate the dispute. (b) The power of enforcing its decisions. B. The welfare of the people demands enforced arbitra- tion. 1. There is no ''right to strike." 2. In many strikes the general public suffers more than either contestant. (Outlook. 94:517-18) 3. Being thus vitally interested the public has a right to demand settlement in a court of justice. C. It is the duty of the state to establish these courts. (Forum. 14:21-5) 1. The primary purpose of government and all pub- lic authority is the promotion of peace and public welfare. (Garner — Introduction to Political Sci- ence, p. 316. [311-18]) 2. The public welfare is involved in all labor dis- putes. 3. Compulsory Arbitration will reduce labor disputes to a minimum. (a) It has done this in New Zealand and New South Wales. D. Compulsory Arbitration will lessen the dangers that threaten our institutions and civilization. 1. From socialism because it guarantees the work- ers a living wage and continued employment, which is all that socialism can offer. 2. From race suicide. xviii BRIEFS 3. From demagogues or walking delegates or any other outgrowth of discontent. 4. From unreasonable employers. III. Compulsory Arbitration is practicable. A. Compulsory Arbitration has been successful in New Zealand, Australia, Denmark, Norway, Kansas, and in some other places where it has been tried in a par- tial or limited way. 1. It has benefited capitalists. (a) In making contracts they can proceed with- out the fear of a strike or of being com- pelled to pay unreasonable wages. (b) Industrial peace and security have drawn capital into the country, 2. It benefits the employes. (a) They are freed from most of the losses J and hardships of strikes. (b) They have legal rights in regard to their wages. (c) Industrial justice is also extended to those who are not able to conduct a successful strike. (d) "Sweating" has been abolished. 3. It benefits the general public. (a) It is the best guarantee of industrial peace yet devised. (b) It secures continuous service. B. .Conditions in this country are favorable to adoption of Compulsory Arbitration. 1. The awards can be enforced. (a) On employers or capitalists by fine or im- prisonment. (b) On employees by (w) Fines or imprisonment, as is provided in the Kansas law. (x) The necessity of working, (y) The removal of the cause of a strike, namely an unsettled difference, (z) By the force of public opinion. 2. Unjust awards are improbable. BRIEFS xix (a) These courts (as in New Zealand) would be made up of a representative of capital, labor, and the general public. (b) If conditions make it impossible for an em- ployer to pay any certain wage, it will not be difficult for him to establish that fact in court. (c) Working-men do not want or expect a wage higher than an industry can pay. (d) A wage is always the result of a com- promise and the effect upon industry is the same whether the compromise is brought about by collective bargaining, conciUation or in a court of industrial justice. (e) Twenty-five years of experience in New Zealand and Australasia do not reveal a single case of an unjust or unreasonable award. (f) Gov. Allen of Kansas has said that deci- sions of the Industrial court will be so fair that within two years all opposition to the law will cease. It is the natural remedy of the age, the logical next step. 1. No better remedy has ever been proposed. (a) The opponents of Compulsory Arbitration content themselves with a purely negative opposition. They all admit the losses and other evil results of strikes, lockouts, boy- cotts, blacklists, and violence, but they oppose the natural and logical remedy for industrial warfare without offering any other remedy. 2. It is in harmony with the spirit of the age. (a) Conservation and efficiency are the watch- words of this generation. Compulsory Arbitration will make for both of these ends. 3. It has steadily gained in favor the world over. (a) It has been used for twenty-five years in New Zealand and Australia. XX BRIEFS (b) It has recently been adopted in France, Denmark, Norway, and Kansas, and in a limited form in some other countries. (c) It was a feature of the original Cummins railroad bill that passed the United States Senate January 1920. (d) It has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States. (Wilson vs. New. 243 U. S. 332) (e) It has been recommended and endorsed by many of our ablest scholars and statesmen. (v) Senator A. B. Cummins of Iowa (w) William Allen White (x) Gov. Henry J. Allen of Kansas (Cur- rent Opinion 68 : 472, Independent lOl : 385, Saturday Evening Post Mr. 6, 20, Message to Kansas Legislature) (y) Ex-Gov. Joseph W. Brown of Georgia. (Message to Georgia Legislature June 25, 1913) (z) Judge Gary, Chairman U. S. Steel Cor- poration. (Iron Trade Review 66:171) 4. The extension of the judicial system to adjudicate industrial disputes is the logical and inevitable conclusion. Negative Introduction. A. Meaning of the question. 1. AH differences between Capital and Labor to be settled in this manner. 2. Either party or the court itself may take the initiative. 3. Special courts are to be established. 4. The courts are to be given power to compel both parties to submit to arbitration and to accept the award. B, The Negative will show. I. Compulsory Arbitration is unnecessary. B. It is unwise and undesirable. Svjt is impracticableT" BRIEFS xxi Compulsory Arbitration is unnecessary. A. Strikes are not a sufficient necessity. 1. Less than 4 per cent of the men engaged in indus- try are involved in strikes annually. (Report of the Industrial Commission. I7:CXXIX) 2. OnLy I work day in 500 lost in strikes, 1/5 of one per cent. 3. Average length of a strike is 25.4 days. (Twenty- First Annual Report of the Commissioner of Labor, p. 46) ~ 4. There is no danger to our institutions in strikes, (a) Losses are small proportionally, 1/500 part in time. 5. Strikes are not increasing as fast as the popula- tion of the country (Adams and Sumner, Labor Problems, eighth edition p. 179) B. There are now strong factors making for industrial peace. I. Employe representation in management, with shop adjustment councils and impartial boards of appeal. (Report of the Industrial Conference 1920; Bloomfield, Modern industrial movements. Basset, When the workmen help you manage ; Atlantic Monthly 117:12 and Survey 35:72 and 143- ) (a) It is sound in principle. (w) It is preventive, not curative. (x) It applies the principle of stoppage at source, (y) It develops good feeling and mutual confidence and understanding between employer and employe, (z) It gives labor a voice in the conduct of the business, which develops a feeling of responsibility. (b) It has worked well in practice. (x) It has very largely removed the causes of misunderstanding and suspicion. (Tailoring Industry in Chicago), (y) It has reduced labor unrest to a minimum. (Case of Colorado Fuel & Iron Co.) xxii BRIEFS 2. Voluntary arbitration under the Newlands and Esch-Cummins Acts, and through state, local and unofficial boards. (a) Twice as many disputes, involving five times as many men, are settled each year by voluntary arbitration in New York City alone, as have been settled under the Ca- nadian Industrial Disputes Investigation Act in the nine years of that law. (Review of Reviews. 55:190) 3. Mediation and Conciliation.' 4. Trade agreements and collective bargaining. 5. Intelligent public opinion as is provided for in the Esch-Cummins law. II. Compulsory Arbitration is unwise and undesirable. A. It is un-American. 1. Destroys individual liberty. (a) Of employer — ^to employ whom he pleases. (b) Of employe — ^involuntary servitude. 2. Destroys right of free contract. (a) Employer and employe are forced to be- come parties to a contract to which neither agrees or has given his consent. (b) Capital and labor are not partners, but stand in the relation of buyer and seller, and should be free to act as such. 3. It gives the Industrial Courts too great powers. (a) One body would be exercising legislative, executive, and judicial powers. (b) The court can take up a case on its own initiative, although neither party has ap- pealed to it or wants its judgment. 4. It is unconstitutional. (Peters. Labor and Capital, p. 281). (a) It has been so held by the courts. (x) State vs. Ryan, 182 Mo. 349. (y) State vs. Johnson, 61 Kan. 803. (b) It is in violation of the part of the Con- stitution relating to the obligation of contract. (Article 1, Section 10:1) BRIEFS xxiii (c) It is in violation of the Seventh Amend- ment which provides for trial by jury. (d) It is in violation of the Thirteenth Amend- ment for it would be involuntary servitude. (Hodges vs. U. S., 203 U. S. i, and Amer- ican Federationist 23:929 and 26:1046) (e) The decision in the case of Wilson vs. New, (243 U.S. 332) cannot be considered as establishing the law finally on this point. (Proceedings of Academy of Political Science 7:44-80. Survey 37:737. Railway Age Gazette 62 :6i2. Review of Reviews 55 : 526). (x) The District Court had held to the contrary. (y) The Supreme Court reached its deci- sion by a vote of five to four. (See Dissenting Opinions). (z) The decision applies only to indus- tries "charged with a public interest." It is wrong in principle. 1. It comes into play after the dispute has embit- tered the parties. 2. It is curative, not preventive. 3. It does not employ the principle of stoppage at / source. 4.' It makes criminals out of men who are only try- ing to better their condition. It is unjust to employers. 1. Employers have property and are more easily reached by the courts. In New Zealand only licensed unions can be made a party to a suit. Working-men may act as individuals and keep out of reach of the courts, but employers could not. 2. These courts could not prevent a secret boycott which hurts employers seriously. 3. It would make conditions of competition unfair among employers. 4. It would destroy freedom of contract. /^ It would increase cost of production and drive ^^ capital out of the country. V BRIEFS D. Unfair to employees. (Le Rossingnol and Stewart. State Socialism in New Zealand, p. 243) 1. It would be involuntary servitude. 2. It would weaken labor unions, if not destroy their usefulness. 3. It would encourage increased disrespect for law and the judiciary. 4. It would increase the cost of living. (Le Rossig- nol and Stewart. State Socialism in New Zea- land, p. 244) 5. It would be an injury to inefficient workmen. (Le Rossignol and Stewart, p. 232) 6. It would take away from labor its only weapon, and leave it unarmed to fight organized capital. E. It would destroy present methods of securing indus- trial peace. 1. Management Sharing and Shop Councils where capital and labor meet as friends, would be com- pletely ended. 2. Voluntary arbitration, mediation, and conciliation, which require good will and mutual confidence would give way as they ha\-e in New Zealand. 3. Trade agreements would be less useful. 4. Public opinion would be entirely eliminated. 5. It would widen the gulf between capital and labor. F. It is too great an experiment. 1. Too great a change from existing methods. (Ely. Outlines of Economics, p. 405) (a) There is nothing in our system of govern- ment or industry preliminary to it. (b) Anglo-Saxon institutions are always a gradual growth ; evolution, not re\-olution. (c) Drastic legislation is seldom good legisla- tion. 2. On too large a scale. (a) Too large territory. (b) Too much capital involved. (c) Too many industries. (d) Too many courts required, too great in expense. (e) Too great variety of conditions. BRIEFS XXV 3. Experiments should always be tried on a small scale. III. Compulsory Arbitration is impracticable. A. The system has failed wherever it has been tried. 1. In New Zealand. (a) 169 strikes have occurred in the first 25 years after its adoption. (Research Report no. 23, National Industrial Conference Board p. 31). (b) Courts have been unable to enforce their awards. (c) No permanent good results have been shown. (d) There is general dissatisfaction. Pros- perity since 1895 not due to Compulsory Ar- bitration. (Reeves. State Experiments in Australia and New Zealand. Vol. II. p. 162) (e) Conciliation is gradually superceding Compulsory Arbitration. (Research Re- port No. 23, National Industrial Confer- ence Board, p. 28) 2. In Australia. (a) Frequent strikes have occurred. (b) The courts have been unable to enforce their awards. (c) It has caused disrespect for the courts, and for law and authority. (d) It has made industrial warfare more bitter. (e) In West Australia the system has been abandoned. 3. In Kansas. (a) The Coal miners struck in protest the day after its adoption. (b) Union leaders refused to recognize the law and were sent to jail. (c) Organized labor has been advised to move out and to stay out of the state. (d) The feeling between Capital and Labor has grown more bitter. n BRIEFS B, Even if Compulsory Arbitration has been successful in the South Sea Islands that fact would prove nothing for the United States because conditions are so very different. (Research Report No. 23, National Industrial Conference Board p. 3). 1. In size. (a) New Zealand is smaller in area than tJ+^j/jr^it Colorado. / ' i> ' ■ , (f (b) It has abouK 1 1*00,000 people, less than one per cent of the population of the U.S. 2. In development. (a) New Zealand has very little modem indus- try. (b) Only 80,000 persons employed in factories. (c) There were only four strikes in the two years before the experiment was begun. (d) Population is homogenous — 98 per cent of the white population is of British blood. (e) Conditions are the same throughout the two small islands of New Zealand, but are very different in the different sections of our vast country. 3. Form of government. (a) United States is a decentralized or federal government while New Zealand is highly centralized. (b) Non-interference vsrith personal liberty has always been the American principle, while New Zealand is the land of fads and "isms." They have government railroads, telegraphs, telephones, gas-plants, electric plants, government insurance, government mines and/lactories. (c) In New Zealand the "invisible government" is pro-labor. C. If it should be very successful in Kansas, that fact would prove nothing for the other states. 1. Kansas is an agricultural state. 2. It has very little industry. 3. Union men make a very small part of the vot- ing population. BRIEFS xxvii Conditions here are unfavorable to the experiment. I. Federal form of government; there must be na- tional and state courts. a. Distrust of the courts by workingmen. (Indus- trial Commission 14:46, Monthly Labor Review 10:337-45) Compulsory Arbitration could not be made to work out here. I. Awards could not be enforced on either em- ployers or employees, nor their sympathizers. (a) How could any court compel a million men to resume work if they refused to do so? (x) By fines? How collect them? It is doubtful whether the courts could reach the union treasury. It would not be practicable to fine each workman separately. In either case it is doubt- ful whether the fine could be collected. (Reconstruction 2:150) (y) By imprisonment? How imprison the great number involved in any of the great strikes. There are not enough jails and penitentiaries to hold them. (z) Mandatory Injunction proceedings in the Federal Courts failed to end the bituminous coal strike of 1919. (b) The great corporations could not be com- pelled to obey an award. (x) They would prolong litigation until the resources of the unions were exhausted. (y) They would flood the industrial courts with petty cases until they were years behind in their docket, as has been done in Australia and New Zealand, a. It is open to too great abuses. (a) Politics will influence the courts. (b) Judges are often financially interested. 3. Impossible to get a just decision. (a) Courts would have to decide what is a fair wage in each separate trade, or a minimum wage as in done in New Zealand. nil BRIEFS (b) A fair wage or fair minimum wage in a small town would not be fair in New York City or Boston, for the cost of living is higher in the latter place. F. There is general public opposition and distrust. (Re- port of the Industrial Commission. XIX:86l) 1. Opposed by workingmen. (Report of the In- dustrial Commission IV 1762 and 764 and files of the American Federationist). 2. Employers also oppose it. 3. Scholars and statesmen are opposed to it. (a) Carroll D. Wright, late Commissioner of Labor. (Forum. 15:323-31) (b) President Hadley of Yale. (c) Charles Francis Adams. (d) Prof. John R. Commons (American Fed- erationist 24:25) (e) William J. Bryan (Commoner 20:3 Ja. '20) COMPULSORY INVESTIGATION' Resolved, That Strikes and Lockouts should be prohibited by law until investigation of the differences between employer and employees has been made by an official body having powei to summon witnesses, to administer oath, and to compel the production of the books and records of the parties, and until the findings of this body have been published. Affirmative Introduction A. In the case of food supply, coal, clothing, and all pub- lic utilities, or industries affected with a public in- / terest, the general welfare demands uninterrupted service. B. The Affirmative is not proposing to make strikes and lockouts unlawful, but merely claiming that the dis- pute must first be investigated, and the findings of the tribunal published. It is then left to public opinion to enforce the award, the parties still hav- ing the right to call a strike or lockout. I. Existing conditions in the industrial relations demand a remedy. A. There are great evils connected with industrial war- fare. B. Both parties are injured. C. The general public is always injured, sometimes more than either antagonist. D. Present methods do not afford a satisfactory remedy. II. Compulsory Investigation offers the desired remedy. A It is sound in theory.. I. Compulsory Investigation will create an intel- ligent and fair public opinion. 1 This Brief may be elaborated by referring to the corresponding points in the previous brief. XXX BRIEFS 2. It does not take away the ultimate rights of either employer or employee, nor compel them to accept the award. B. The welfare of the people demands an intelligent pub- lic opinion. C. It is the duty of the state to investigate the differences between employer and employee and to publish the findings. I. Only in this way can an intelligent public opinion be created. D. Compulsory Investigation will lessen the dangers that threaten our institutions. III. Compulsory Investigation is practicable. A. It has been very successful wherever tried. 1. In Canada it has been a success since 1907. (a) During the first twelve years of the law there were only 24 strikes within the scope of the Act that were not "averted or set- tled." 2. In Colorado it has been successfully tried after that state had been torn by industrial warfare for several years. (Monthly Labor Review 10: 810- 1 1 Mr. '20) 3. It has been successfully used in Denmark, Nor- way and New Zealand. B. Conditions in this country generally are favorable to its adoption here. G. It is the natural remedy of the age, the lo^cal next step. 1. No better remedy has ever been proposed. 2. It is in harmony with the spirit of the age. 3. It has steadily grown in favor. (a) It has recently been adopted in Colorado, Norway, Denmark and New Zealand. (b) It has been recommended by many of our ablest scholars and statesmen, (w) Hon. William L. McKenzie King, author of the Canadian law. (x) President Wilson recommended it to Congress in his addresses on Aug. 29, 1916 and Dec. S, 1916). BRIEFS xxxi (y) William J. Bryan (Commoner 20:3 Ja. '20) (z) Charies Francis Adams. (Report on the Anthracite Coal Strike, 1903) (c) It has never been abandoned by any coun- try that has adopted it. (d) The Transportation Act of 1920 is a de- cided step forward. Negative Introduction. A. The plan here proposed can do very little towards les- sening industrial warfare. I. It cannot prevent interruption of service. (a) Strikes will occur in violation of the law, as they have in Canada. (b) Strikes are lawful after the period reserved for investigation. I. Compulsory Investigation is unnecessary. A. Strikes are not a sufficient necessity. B. There are now strong factors making for industrial peace. II. Compulsory Investigation is unwise and undesirable. A. It is wrong in principle. B. It is unjust to employers in many cases. I. Employees will take advantage of the law to file grievances that would not be presented except for the Investigation Law. C. It is often unfair to employees. I. The delay will give employers the advantage. D. It would destroy present methods of securing indus- trial peace. E. It is too great an experiment. III. Compulsory Investigation is impracticable. A. It has failed wherever tried. I. In Canada. (Bulletin 233 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; Review of Reviews 55:190) (a) It applies to only an insignificantly small part of the industrial disputes of the Do- minion. m BRIEFS (b) There were 204 illegal and 18 legal strikes and lockouts during the first ten years of the law. (c) No permanent beneficial results have been attained. 2. In Colorado (Monthly Labor Review 10:810-11 Ap. '20) (a) Strikes have occurred in violation of the law. (b) Industrial conditions have not been per- manently improved. B. Even if it had been successful in Canada, that fact would prove nothing for the United States because of the difference in industrial conditions. 1. Canada has fewer people than New York City and Chicago. 2. Canada is sparsely settled, has but few large cities, and but little modern industry. C. Conditions here are unfavorable to the experiment. D. Compulsory Investigation could not be made to work out here. I. Awards could not be enforced. (a) They have not been enforced in Canada, where there have been thousands of viola- tions of the law and only 23 prosecutions. (b) American labor leaders openly declare they will not obey the law if it is adopted. E. There is general public opposition and distrust. 1. Employers oppose it. 2. Workingmen are against it. (See files of Amer- ican Federationist, Literary Digest 53:1581) 3. The majority of scholars and statesmen are op- posed to it. BIBLIOGRAPHY An asterisk (♦) before a title means that the article is reprinted, complete or in part, in this volume. A dagger (t) is used to indicate a few of the other best references. Bibliographies and Briefs Baker, George P. and Huntington, Henry B. Principles of argumentation. Ginn and Co. 1905. An affirmative brief, p. 234-5. Brookings, W. D. and Ringwalt, R. C. Briefs for debates. Long- mans, Green and Co. 1895. A national board of arbitration for railroad disputes, p. 162-4. Briefi and bibliography. Bulletin of the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. No.' 233. Jl '18. p. 149-S0. Bibliography of operation of the Industrial Disputes In- vestigation Act of Canada. Carpenter, Oliver C. Debate outlines on public questions. Broadway Publishing Co. 1912. Briefs and references, p. 131-8. Gibson, Laurence M. Handbook for literary and debating societies. Hodder & Stoughton (London) 1905. Ought arbitration in trade disputes to be enforced by law. Syllabi and references, p. 24-6. Independent. 88:260. N. 6, '16. Briefs and references. E. M. Phelps. Resolved, That a compulsory arbitration law should be enacted to settle all labor disputes on railroads and other common carriers. Labor Gazette, i :4i-2. Ja. '16. Bibliography of official docu- ments of concerted wage movements of railway employes 1912-1915. Labor Gazette, i :iS7-9. N. '16. Arbitration of railway labor disputes. Library of Congress. List of recent references on industrial arbitration. H. H. B. Meyer 1920. [mineographed] Library of Congress. Select list of references on industrial ar- bitration. Compiled by A. P. C. Griffin. 1903. New England Triangular Debate — Compulsory arbitration of labor disputes on interstate railroads, Wilson, 1914. Resolved, That the Federal goTernment should require compuliorj arbitration of labor disputes on interstate railroads. xxxiv BIBLIOGRAPHY tPhelps, Edith M. University debaters' annual, 1916-1917- Wilson. 1917. Chap. III. p. 99-146. "Resolved, that Congress should establish a permanent board of arbitration with compulsory powers to arbitrate and to settle disputes arising between employers and employees of railroads doing interstate business, constitutionality conceded." Coe College debate. Briefs, bibliography, and speeches, , ,. . Chap. V. p. 191-225. "Resolved, that Capital and Labor should be compelled to settle their disputes in legally established courts of arbitra- tion." Columbia University debate. Briefs, bibliography and speeches. tPhelps, Edith M. University debaters' annual, 1917-1918. Wilson, 1918. Chap. I. p. 1-S3. "Resolved, that Compulsorjr Arbitration should be adopted for all labor controversies involving railroads and^ other pub- lic service companies." University of Chicago debate. Briefs, bibliog- raphy, speeches. Chap. IV. p. 147-qi. "Resolved, that Congress should enact legisla- tion, providing for the compulsory arbitration of all labor disputes in interstate public utilities as a permanent policy." University of Iowa debate. Briefs, bibliography, speeches. Ringwalt, R. C. Briefs on public questions. Longmans, Green and Co. 1906. Compulsory Industrial Arbitration, p. 210-8. Briefs and bibliography. Shurter, E. D. and Taylor, C. C. Both sides of 100 public questions briefly debated. Hinds, Noble, and Eldredge. 1913. National Board of Arbitration for Railroad Disputes, p. 142-3. University of North Carolina Record. July 1917. No. 148. Ex- tension Series No. 22. p. 39-41. "Resolved, That Congress should pass a law requiring com- pulsory arbitration of labor disputes where a greater part of the busi- ness in which they are engaged is interstate commerce." Bibliography and brief outline of the argument. University of North Carolina Record. Nov. 1917. No. 152. Extension Series No. 26. 84p. "Resolved, That Congress should enact a law providing for the com- pulsory arbitration of industrial disputes." Briefs, bibliography and re- prints. [This pamphlet, especially the Brief, is largely a condensation of the second edition of the Debaters' Handbook.] University of Oklahoma; Extension Division. Bulletin n.s. 137. University Extension Series. No. 34. Oct. i, 1917. ii2p. "Resolved, That the Federal Government should require compulsory arbitration of labor disputes on interstate railroads." Reprints and bibliography. Books and Pamphlets "•■Adams, Thomas S. and Sumner, Helen L. Labor problems. Macmillan Co. 1905. Chap. VIII. p. 287-332. The Agencies of Industrial Peace. Addresses before the National Convention of Employers and Employees at Minneapolis, September, 1902. BIBLIOGRAPHY xxxv Altgeld, John P. Live questions. Donohue and Henneberry. 1890. p. 7-21. Protection of noncombatants or arbitration of strikes. American Mining Congress. 17th Annual Session (Phoenix). D. 7, '14. p. 231-9. Compulsory arbitration. Samuel 0. Dunn. Barnett, George E. and McCabe, David A. Mediation, investi- gation and arbitration in industrial disputes. Appleton. 1916. Barns, William E. Labor problem. Harper and Bros. 1886. Chapter X. p. 231-55. Trade unions and arbitration. Bliss, W. D, P. Arbitration and conciliation in industrial dis- putes. Church Union. 1895. *Bliss, W. D. P. New encyclopedia of social reform. Funk and Wagnalls. igoB. Article on arbitration and conciliation, p. 5S-65; also articles on strikea, strike-breaking, boycotting, blacklisting, etc. Broadhead, Henry. State regulation of labour and labour dis- putes in New Zealand. P. S. King. London. igoB. Carlton, Frank T. The history and problems of organized labor. D. C. Heath and Co. 191 1 Chap. IX. p. 228-62. Methods of promoting industrial peace. Chapman, Sydney J. Work and wages. Longmans, Green & Co. 1908. Vol. II. Chap. IV. p. 206-303. Principles and methods o£ industrial peace. Clark, Victor S. Labor movement in Australasia, A study in social democracy. Henry Holt and Co. igo6. Chaps. VII-X. p. 138-245. Commons, John R., ed. Trade unionism and labor problems. Ginn & Co. 1905. Introduction p. 1-12 and Chapter VIII. p. 195-221. Crompton, H. Industrial conciliation. P. S. King & Co. Lon- don. 1876. Dawson, William H. The German workman. Scribners. igo6. Chap, XIV. p. 176-93. Industrial courts of arbitration. Dunn, Samuel O. Regulation of railways. D. Appleton & Co. igi8. Chap. X. p. 171-90. Peaceful settlement of labor disputes or strikes. Eliot, Charles W. Future of trade unionism and capitalism in a democracy. G. P. Putnam's Sons. igio. Ely, Richard T. Labor movement in America. Macmillan Co. IQ05. xK.xvi BIBLIOGRAPHY Ely, Richard T. Studies in the evolution of industrial society. Macmillan Co. 1903. Part II. Chapter X. Industrial peace. Friedman, Elisha M. Labor and reconstruction in Europe. E. P. Dutton & Co. 1919. Oilman, Nicholas P. Methods of industrial peace. Houghton, MifHin Co. 1904. Gray, J. Grathan. Australasia old and new. Hodder and Stoughton. London. 1901. Groat, George G. Introduction to the study of organized la- bor in America. Macmillan. 1916. Chaps. XII and XIII. p. 204-38. Arbitration. Hamilton, William F. Compulsory arbitration in industrial disputes. Butterworth & Co. 1913. Howe, Frederick C. Socialized Germany. Scribners. 191 5. Chap. XIII. p. 182-91. Labor and industrial courts. Howell, George. Conflicts of capital and labor. 2nd edition. Macmillan Co. 1890. Chap. XI. p. 433-53. Conciliation and arbitration in trade disputes. Howell, George. Labor legislation, labor movements, and labor leaders. E. P. Dutton and Co. 1902. King, Hon. W. L. Mackenzie. Industry and humanity. Hough- ton, MifHin Co. 1918. Chap. VII. p. 167-232. Principles underlying peace. Knapp, Martin A. Government mediation in railway labor dis- putes, an Address at the second annual convention on the National Association of Railway Commissioners. Published by the Interstate Commerce Commission. 1909. Knoop, Douglas. Industrial conciliation and arbitration. P. S. King, London. 1905. Labour Year Book. [Great Britain]. Co-operative printing society. London. La FoUette, Robert M. (ed.) The making of America. John D Morris & Co. Vol. VIII contains the following articles: 104-9. The limitations of conciliation and arbitration. Samuel Gompers. 109-17. Is compulsory arbitration practicable? Seth Low. 118-26. Objections to compulsory arbitration. Joseph P. Archibald. Lalor, John J. Cyclopaedia of political science, political econ- omy and political history of the United States. M. B. Gary & Co. 1883. Vol. II. p. 503 5. Article on industrial arbitration and conciliatioa. BIBLIOGRAPHY xxxvii ♦Le Rossignol, James E. and Stewart, William D. State social- ism in New Zealand. Thomas Y. Crowell & Co. igio. Chap. XIII. p. 216-37. The Arbitration act. Chap. XIV. p. 238-49. Compulsory arbitration in theory and practice. Chap. XV. p. 250-68. Strikes. ♦Lloyd, Henry D. Country without strikes. Doubleday, Page & Co. 1900. Lloyd, Henry D. Newest England. Doubleday, Page & Co. 1901. Lowell, Josephine Shaw. Industrial arbitration and concilia- tion. G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1893. ♦McLaughlin, A. C. and Hart, A. B. Cyclopedia of American government. D. Appleton & Co. 1904. Vol. I. p. 66-8. Arbitration of labor disputes. C. F. Getteiny. McNeill, George E. Labor movement : The problem of today. A. M. Bridgman & Co. 1887. Chapter 20. p. 497-507. Mabie, E. C. and White, L. D. Compulsory arbitration of la- bor disputes on interstate railroads. Dartmouth-Brown- Williams debate. Wilson. 1914. Marot, Helen. American labor unions. Henry Holt. 1914. p. X49-61. Arbitration. ♦Mitchell, John. Organized labor. American Book & Bible House. 1903. Chap. XXXVIII. p. 337-46. The strike versus compulsory arbitration. ♦Mote, Carl H. Industrial arbitration. Bobbs-Merrill Co. 19 16. National Civic Federation. Report of the proceedings of the conference held under the auspices of the National Civic Federation at New York, December, 1901. G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1902. National civic federation proceedings twelfth annual meet- ing. J. J. Little and Ives Co. 1912. Contains the following addresses; 4-7. A plea for industrial peace. Cardinal Gibbons. 25-34. Government mediation in railroad labor disputes. Martin A. Knapp. 34-Q. Mediation and arbitration of railway labor disputes in the United States. Charles P. Neill. National industrial conference board, 15 Beacon St., Boston, Mass. Issues a series of "Research Reports.'' No. s. The Canadian Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. 28 p. April, 1918. No. 10. Arbitration and wage-iixing in Australia. 52 p. Oct., 1918. No. 21. Works councils in the United States. 13s p. Oct., 1910. *No. 23. Conciliation and arbitration in New Zealand 46 p. Dec, 1919. No. 26. A Works council manual. '32 p. Feb., 1920. xxxviii BIBLIOGRAPHY Palgrave, R. H. I. Dictionary of political economy. Macrail- lan & Co. London. 1900. Vol. I. p. 51. Parsons, Frank. Story of New Zealand. C. F. Taylor. 1904. *Peters, John P. (ed.) Labor and capital. A discussion of the relation of employer and employed. G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1902. Pigou, A. C. Principles and methods of industrial peace. Macmillan Co. 1905. Rankin, M. T. Arbitration and conciliation in Australasia. Al- len and Unwin. 1916. *Reeves, W. Pember. State experiments in Australia and New Zealand. Grant Richards. London. 1902. Vol. II. p. 69-181. ♦Report of the Board of Arbitration in the matter of the con- troversy between the Eastern Railroads and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers. 1912. General considerations, p. 86-109. Minority report, p. 121-3. Scholefield, Guy H. New Zealand in evolution. Charles Scrib- ner's Sons. 1909. Stockett, J. -Noble. The arbitral determination of railway wages. Houghton, Mifflin Co. 1918. Stuffern, Arthur E. Conciliation and arbitration in the coal industry of America. Houghton, Mifflin Co. 1915. Thompson, Slason (ed.) The Railway library 1911. Gunthorp- Warren Co. igi2. p. 225-8. Arbitration of railway labor disputes. F. O. Melcher. *Trachtenberg, Alexander L. The American Labor Year Book. Rand School of Social Science. New York City. Vol. I. 1916. Vol. 2. 1917-18, p. 136 et seq. Vol. 3. 1919-20. *Webb, Sidney and Beatrice. Industrial democracy. Long- mans, Green & Co. 1902. Womer, Parley P. The Church and the labor conflict. Mac- millan. 1913. Chap. XI. p. 228-50. The Establishment of Labor Courts. Wright, Carroll D. Industrial conciliation and arbitration. Rand, Avery & Co. 1881. Wright, Carroll D. Industrial evolution of the United States. Charles Scribner's Sons. 1901. BIBLIOGRAPHY xxxix Periodicals American Catholic Quarterly. 25:109-19. Ja. '00. Industrial ar- bitration. Rev. Rene Holaind. American Economic Association, Publications, 3d series. 10: 158-79. Ap. '09. Canadian Industrial Disputes Act. A. Shortt. American Economic Review. 5 :sup245-69. Mr. '15. Public regu- lation of railway wages. Frank H. Dixon. *American Economic Review. 6:324-42. Je. '16. Wage theories in industrial arbitration. Wilson Compton. American Economic Review. 7:195-8. Mr. '17. Arbitration awards under the Erdman and Newlands acts. D. A. Mc- Cabe. American Employer. 2:153-8. O. '13. Compulsory labor arbi- tration. Hon. Joseph M. Brown. Message of the Governor of Georgia. American Federationist. 8:38-42. F. '01. As to compulsory arbitration. Henry White. American Federationist. 8:48-9. F. '01. The right "to strike at will." Samuel Gompers. American Federationist. 8:107-14. Ap. '01. American trade unions and compulsory arbitration. Walter MacArthur. American Federationist. 9:307-10. Je. '02. Limitations of con- ciliation and arbitration. Samuel Gompers. American Federationist. 15 :447. Je '08. Industrial Disputes Act of Canada. John A. Flett. ♦American Federationist. 20:17-31. Ja. '13. Compulsory ar- bitration in the railroad engineers' award. Samuel Gom- pers. American Federationist. 20:115-25. F. '13. Tying workers to their tasks through compulsory government investigation. Samuel Gompers. American Federationist. 20:209-14. Mr. '13. Industrial peace: Sins committed in its name (editorial). Samuel Gompers. fAmerican Federationist. 21 :3i6-20. Ap. '14. Lesson for com- pulsory arbitrationists. Samuel Gompers. American Federationist. 21 :73l-3. S. '14. Compulsory arbitra- tion's latest evangelist. Samuel Gompers. American Federationist. 22:843-5. 0. '15. Chicago's strikes — their lesson. V. A. Sorray. American Federationist. 22:853-4. O. '15. , Invasion by commis- sion. Samuel Gompers. xl BIBLIOGRAPHY American Federationist, 22:1041-7- D- 'IS- That invasion by commission editorial. Samuel Gompers. American Federationist. 23:437-52. Je. '16. Benevolent com- pulsion in Colorado. Samuel Gompers. American Federationist. 23:929-36. O. '16. Compulsory service or freedom, which? Samuel Gompers. t American Federationist. 23:1146-8. D. '16. The Railroad Brotherhoods' strike. [Extract from the Report of the ex- ecutive council of the American Federation of Labor to Baltimore Convention.] tAmerican Federationist. 24:21-5. Ja. '17. Compulsory service unconstitutional. Samuel Gompers. American Federationist. 24:45-6. Ja. '17. Freedom must not be surrendered. Samuel Gompers. tAmerican Federationist. 24:126-7. F. '17. The yoke will not be worn. Samuel Gompers. American Federationist. 24:201-3. Mr. '17. Freedom gives national virility. Samuel Gompers. American Federationist. 24:290-1. Ap. '17. Five to four on slavery. Samuel Gompers. American Federationist. 26:142-3. F. '19. Industrial arbitration in Australia. George S. Beeby. tAmerican Federationist. 26: 1046-8. N. '19. Era of slavery has passed. Samuel Gompers. tAmerican Industries. 16:41. Jl. '16. Is the compulsory ar- bitration system doomed? American Industries. 17:21-3. D. '16. Compulsory arbitration in Australia fails. A. St. Ledger. American Journal of Politics. 5 :487. N. '94. Compulsory arbi- tration. D. M. Fredericksen. American Journal of Social Science. 21 :i47-58. S. '85. Arbitra- tion of labor disputes. Rev. Washington Gladden. American Journal of Social Science. 28:66-85. O- '9i- Wisdom is better than weapons of war. Mrs. C. R. Lowell. American Journal of Social Science. 28:86-100. O. '91. Com- pulsory arbitration. Seymour Dexter. American Journal of Social Science. 31 :lxiii-lxxii. Ja. '94. Compulsory arbitration. Rev. H. L. Wayland. American Labor Legislation Review. 5 :756-6o. D. '15. Trade unions and trade disputes. BIBLIOGRAPHY xli American Law Review. 28:595-7. Ag. '94. Arbitration in con- tests between capital and labor. American Law Review. 51 :8oi-82. N. '17. Power and duty of the state to settle disputes between employer and em- ployees. George S. Ramsay. American Machinist. 24:901-4. Ag. 8, '01. Industrial arbitra- tion. Chauncey H. Castle. American Magazine of Civics. 8:337. Ap. '96. Legislative remedy for labor disputes. H. A. Drake. American Political Science Review. 3 :209-io. My. '09. Arbitra- tion amendment in N.ew Zealand. William M. Leiserson. Annalist. 8:260. Ag. 28, '16. To end great strikes forever. Annals of the American Academy. 20:29-34. Jl. '02. Limitations of conciliation and arbitration. Samuel Gompers. Annals of the American Academy. 24:285-95. S. '04. Arbitra- tion, of industrial disputes. E. E. Clark. Annals of the American Academy. 33 :440-7. Mr. 7, '09. Pres- ent state of labor legislation in Australia and New Zea- land. Victor S. Clark. Annals of the American Academy. Vol. 36. No. 2. S. '10 is de- voted entirely to "the settlement of labor disputes'' and contains the following and several others: * p. 302-10. Compulsory arbitration in the United States. Cornelius J. Doyle. t p. 311-20. Necessity of industrial arbitration. Rabbi Joseph Krauskoff. p. 419-37. Canadian industrial disputes investigation act. F. A. Acland. p. 438-44. Settlement and prevention of industrial disputes in New Zealand. Paul Kennaday. p. 445-52. German courts for the arbitration of industrial disputes. Harris Weinstock. tAnnals of the American Academy. 37:203-11. Ja. '11. Indus- trial arbitration in Australia. P. S. Eldershaw and P. P. Olden. Annals of the American Academy. 44: 1-144. N. '12. The out- look for industrial peace, p. 1-9. Canadian Industrial Disputes Act. Marcus M. Marks, p. 18-27. Conditions fundamental to industrial peace. George B. Hugo. xlii BIBLIOGRAPHY Annals of the American Academy. 69 : 140-279. Ja. '17. Con- tains the following: t p. 140-9. Evolution of legal remedies as a substitute for violence and strikes. Henry W. Ballentine. t p. 150-6. The advantages and defects of compulsory arbitration. Frank T. Carlton, p. 157-69. Canadian legislation concerning industrial disputes. F. A. Acland. p. 170-2. The attitude of organized labor toward the Canadian Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. A. B. Garretson. p. 173-82. The trend of voluntary conciliation and ar- bitration in labor disputes. George M. Janes, p. 223-8. Federal arbitration legislation. L. E. Hbfl- man. t p. 229-36. Why I believe the interstate commerce com- mission should have power to fix wages and hours of labor on interstate carriers. Oscar W. Underwood p. 237-46. Shall the interstate commerce commission and the state public utility commissions fix wages on the rail- roads and on local public utilities? Delos F. Wilcox, t p. 268-79. Government arbitration and mediation. James T. Young. Arena. 7: 30-6. D. '92. Compulsory arbitration. Rev. Ly- man Abbott. Arena. 7:306-11. F. '93. Compulsory national' arbitration. Rabbi Solomon Schindler. Arena. 7 : 587-94. Ap. '93. Compulsory arbitration — a reply. C. A. Reed. Arena. 16 : 622. S. 'g6. Compulsory arbitration — A prac- ticable remedy. N. T. Mason. ♦Arena. 17:663. Mr. '97. Compulsory arbitration. Frank Parsons. Arena. 17: 922-8. My. '97. Conciliation vs. arbitration. Cour- tenay De Kalb. Arena. 23:499-515. My. '00. Delusion of compulsory arbi- tration. P. H. Coggins. Arena. 28:561-8. D. '02. Private property and public rights. Edwin Maxey. Arena. 29; 1-25. Ja. '03. Great coal strike and its lessons. Ernest H. Crosby. BIBLIOGRAPHY xliii fArena. 31:1-11. Ja. '04. Abolition of strikes and lockouts. Frank Parsons. +Arena. 31 : 464-71. My. '04. Political revolution in New Zea- land which laid the foundation for the establishment of industrial arbitration on demand. Frank Parsons. Arena. 32:303. S. '04. Industrial peace through arbitration. Arena. 39: 64-S. Ja. '08. Principles of arbitration. F. M. Willis. Arena 39 : 532-8. My. '08. Compulsory arbitration. T. Schroeder. fArena. 40: 137-41. S. '08. Compulsory arbitration under storm sails. Edward Tregear. Atlantic Monthly. 67: 34-44. Ja. '91. Compulsory arbitration. Charles W. Clark. t Atlantic Monthly. 90: 667-74. N. '02. Australasian cures for coal wars. H. D. Lloyd. t Atlantic Monthly. ni:S33-9- Ap. '13. Industrial peace or war. Everett P. Wheeler. ♦Bellman. 22: 35. Ja. 13, '17. Compulsory arbitration. Bulletin International Railway Congress Assn. [English edition] 27:300-14. The question of compulsory arbitration in the railway service. Marcel Peschaud. Business Digest. 4:261-2. N. 7, '17. Does Canada's compul- sory act compel? ♦Call of the Moo^e, April and May, 1914. Industrial peace. Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King. Canadian Law Times. 36:207-22. Mr. '16. Canadian legisla- tion concerning industrial disputes. F. A. Acland. Canadian Magazine. 29:247-8. Jl. '07. An instance of indus- trial arbitration. J. F. Mackay. Cassier's Magazine. 23:558-65. F. '03. Remedy for strikes, or investigation and publicity as opposed to compulsory arbitration. Charles Francis Adams. Catholic World. 72: 145-57. N. '00. Country without strikes. Rev. John A. Ryan. Central Law Journal. 83: 122-3., Ag. 17, '17. Australian arbi- tration court effective against strikes. J. S. Ryan. Central Law Journal. 83:199-200. S. 22, '16. Compulsory ar- bitration the logical evolution of workmen's compensation acts. xliv BIBLIOGRAPHY Century. 31 (n. s. 9) :946-52. Ap. '86. Strikes, lockouts and arbitration. George M. Powell. Century. 90 (n. s. 68) 1433-40. Jl. '15. A way to industrial peace. George Creel. Charities and the Commons. 21 :7i-2. O. 3, '08. To arbitrate or conciliate. Chautauquan. 34:10. O. '01. Society's right to industrial peace. Chicago Legal News. 49:6. Ag. 3, '16. Organized arbitration of trade disputes. S. Rosenbaum. Collier's Weekly. 37:21-3. Je. 30, '06. The arbitration courts of Australia. Florence F. Kelly. ♦Colliery Engineer. 34:294-6. D. '13. Arbitration as a factor in the mining industry. William B. Wilson. ♦Commoner. 20:3. Ja. '20. An industrial peace plan. William J. Bryan. Contemporary Review. 93 : 308-25. Mr. '08. Arbitration courts and wages boards in Australasia. J. R. Macdonald. Current Literature. 27:158. F. '00. Compulsory arbitration in New Zealand. Henry D. Lloyd. Current Literature. 29:513-15. N. '00. Compulsory arbitration in New Zealand. tCurrent Literature. 33 : 596. N. '02. Compulsory arbitration. William A. Stone. tCurrent Literature. 34:86. Ja. '03. Better than strikes. W. Pember Reeves. Current Opinion. 57:68-9. Jl. '14. Groping towards industrial peace. Current Opinion. 68 : 472-8. Ap. '20. How Kansas broke a strike and solved the labor problem. Gov. Henry J. Allen. Economic Journal. 8:461-73. N. '98. Industrial conciliation^a retrospect. L. L. Price. Economic Journal. 9:85. Mr. '99. Compulsory arbitration. Economic Journal. 12:320. S. '02. Mr. Wise's (New South Wales) Industrial Arbitration Act. W. Pember Reeves. Economic Journal. 25:321-8. S. '15. Artificial regulation of wages in Australia. G. S. Beeby. Economic Journal. 25 : 329-46. S. '15. Industrial arbitration in New South Wales. F. A. A. Russell. Economic World, n. s. 13 : 43-5. Ja. 13, '17. Canadian compul- sory labor disputes investigation act: Is it a success in Canada and does it promise a solution for the United States? R. M. Easley. BIBLIOGRAPHY xir Economist. 73:557-8. S. 16, '11. The prevention of strikes by law. Edinburgh Review. 191 : 1-21. Ja. '00. Conciliation and arbi- tration in trade disputes. Edinburgh Review. 219: 195-211. Ja. '14, The compulsory settle- ment of industrial disputes. W. G. Constable. Electric Railway Journal. 40:730. O. 10, '12. Extract from the Australasian of Je. 15, '12. Electric Railway Journal. 40:759. O. 10, '12. Arbitration in Australia. J. S. Badger. Electric Railway Journal. 41 : 212-24. F. i, '13. Government me- diation in railroad labor disputes. Seth Low. Electric Railway Journal. 41:318-19. F. 22, '13. Needed amendment of the Erdman Act. Electric Railway Journal. 41:791. My. 3, '13. Compulsory arbitration. Electric Railway Journal. 46: 174-5. J'- 3'. 'i5- Labor and arbi- tration. Electric Railway Journal. 48: 1 106-9. N. 25, '16. Labor disputes and public utilities. Engineering Magazine. 20:920-6. F. '01. Arbitration of labor questions necessary to industrial ascendancy. Charles B. Going. Engineering Magazine. 24:149-51. Ag. i, '02. Arbitration or litigation. Engineering Magazine. 44:597-8. Ja. '13. Railway arbitration (editorial) . Engineering Magazine. 51 : 748-9. Ag. '16. Are labor troubles preventable ? Engineering News. 69:733-4. Ap. 10, '13. Legislation to avoid railway strikes. Engineering News-Record. 82:1233. Je. 19, '19. To arbitrate jurisdictional building strikes. Financial Review of Reviews. 7:5-13. O. '11. Proposed indus- trial court for settlement of labor disputes. C. W. Macara. Fortnightly Review. 97:585-98. Ap. '12. (n. s. vol. 91), Anti- strike legislation in Australasia. Sidney Low. Forum. 1 : 307-13. Je. '86. Arbitration and labor disputes. Thomas M. Cooley. Forum. 8: 406-16. D. '89. Do we want industrial peace? W. G. Sumner. xlvi BIBLIOGRAPHY Forum. 14 : 14-25. S. '92. Lesson of Homestead ; A remedy for labor troubles. Chauncey F. Black. tForum. 15 : 323-31. My. '93. Compulsory arbitration an im- possible remedy. Carroll D. Wright. Forum. 18: 1-19. S. '94. A lesson of recent civil disorders. T. M. Cooley. Forum. 30:737-51. F. '01. American trade-unions and com- pulsory arbitration. W. MacArthur. tForum. 48:553-64. N. '12. Industrial war. Hugo H. Lusk. Forum. 60:267-9. S. '18. Labor regulation: the problem of the war labor policies board. William B. Wilson. Green Bag. 19:694-701. D. '07. Industrial peace legislation in Canada. John King. Gunton's Magazine. 10 : 138. F. '96. Compulsory arbitration. Jerome Dowd. Gunton's Magazine. 14 : 236. Ap. 'gS. Industrial arbitration in Congress. Carroll D. Wright. Gunton's Magazine. 23 : 371. N. '02. Triumph of arbitration. Gunton's Magazine. 25:110-5. Ag. '03. A permanent labor Court of Appeals. Gunton's Magazine. 25 :369-72. O. '03. New plan of arbitration. Gunton's Magazine. 27:246-56. S. '04. Industrial peace. Harper's Weekly. 54:9-iO- N. 30, '12. The "get together" idea. Robert Sloss. Harper's Magazine. 131 : 675-80. Party of the third part. W. E. Weyl. Harvard Graduates' Magazine. 28:14-25. S. '19. Arbitration in labor disputes. R. D. Weston, ■•farvard Law Review. 29:13-39. N. '15. A new province for law and order. Henry B. Higgins. Harvard Law Review. 32:189-217. Ja. '19. New province of law and order. Henry B. Higgins. Harvard Law Review. 32:892-901. Je. '19. Effect of an increase in the living wage by a court of industrial arbitration upon vested rights and duties under pre-existing awards. W. J. Brown. Harvey's Weekly. 3:6. Ap. 3, '20. Mr. Gompers objects. Independent. 50:657. S. i. '98. Arbitration in railway affairs. Independent. 51 :2029-3O. Jl. 27, '99. Compulsory arbitration. Independent. 52:1274. My. 24, 'oo. New Zealand's remedy for strikes. BIBLIOGRAPHY xlvii Independent. 52 : 2423-4. O. 4, '00. Benefits of arbitration. Car- dinal Gibbons. Independent. 53 :2742-3. N. 7, '01. Labor situation in New Zea- land. Edward Tregear. Independent. 54:1835-7. Jl. 31, '02. Industrial arbitration in Australia. H. T. Burgess. Independent. 54:1850-1. Jl. 31, '02. Constitution government in industry. Independent. 54:2065-8. Ag. 28, '02. National federation. R. M. Easley. *Independent. 54 : 2219-20. S. 18, '02. Compulsory arbitration. William A. Stone. Independent. 54:2228-30. S. 18, '02. Dictation by the unions. John Mitchell. Independent. 54:2378-9. O. 2, '02. Compulsory arbitration. Independent. 54 : 2446-7. O. 16, '02. Strike should be arbitrated. Cardinal Gibbons. tindependent. 54:2681-2. N. 13, '02. Do we want compul- sory arbitration? John B. Clark. tindependent. 55 : 1908-10. Ag. 13, '03. Industrial arbitration in New Zealand. Edward Tregear. Independent. 56:357-9. F. 18, '04. Arbitration in New Zealand. Richard J. Sheldon. Independent. 56:1440-4. Je. 23, '04. Arbitration, conciliation, trade agreement. John R. Commons. Independent. 65 : 1049-52. N. 5, '08. Canada's labor dispute act. W. R. Givens. Independent. 69:1467-8. D. 29, '10. Compulsory arbitration in France. Independent. 71 :5S2-3. S. 7,. '11. Labor arbitration on trial (editorial). ♦Independent. 72:885-7. Ap. 25, '12. Has compulsory arbitra- tion failed? Edward Tregear. Independent. 72:908-9. Ap. 25, '12. Compulsory arbitration, (editorial). ♦Independent. 74:273-5. F. 6, '13. The solution of industrial peace. Independent. 75:182-4. Jl. 24, '13. The amended Erdman act Independent. 87:324-5. S. 4, '16. Canada's solution of the rail'- road problem. Independent. 88:62-4. O. 9, '16. Shall force or reason rule. Charles E. Hughes. xlviii BIBLIOGRAPHY ♦Independent. 88:139. O. 23, '16. Where do the people come in? ♦Independent. 89: 142-4. Ja. 22, '17. The right to strike. Austin B. Garretson. ♦Independent. 89: 143-4. Ja. 22, '17. Trial by jury. Elisha Lee. Independent. 100:35-7. N. i, '19. Congress considers strikes. tindependent. loi : 385-6, 409-10. Mr. 13, '20. Let the people freeze. Gov. Henry J. Allen. Independent Review (London). 9:310-23. Je. '06. Conciliation and arbitration in trade disputes. I. H. Mitchell. Industrial Management. 59:290-3. Ap. '20. The Kansas Court of Industrial Relations : an attempt that is being watched with keenest interest. P. F. Walker. International Socialist Review. 9:444-50. D. '08. New Zealand myth. R. R. LaMonte. International Socialist Review. 17:458-9. F. '17. Compulsory ar- bitration in Australia. Scott Bennett. Iron Trade Review. 63 :255-7. Ag. i, '18. Compulsory arbitra- tion is opposed by investigators of British industrial un- rest. J. Horton. Iron Trade Review. 65: 1272-3. N. 6, '19. Seek national indus- trial court : Society of industrial engineers in national con- vention urges president to establish agency with powers to enforce decisions. Iron Trade Review. 66:169-71. Ja. 8, '20. Offer national arbi- tration plan. ♦Iron Trade Review. 66:171. Ja. 8, '20. Voluntary arbitration not the solution, says Judge Gary. Johns Hopkins University Studies. 19:264-9. Ap. '01. State ac- tivities in relation to labor in the United States: industrial conciliation and arbitration. W. F. Willoughby. Johns Hopkins University Studies. 34:29-37. 1916. Arbitration and control, George M. Janes. Journal American Social Science Association. 21:147-58. '86. Arbitration of labor disputes. Washington Gladden. Journal of Political Economy. 16:88-93. F. '08. Settlement of industrial disputes in Canada. W. W. Edgar. Journal of Political Economy. 24:254-83. Mr. 'i6. Settlement of disputes under agreements in the anthracite industry. E. Sydenstricker. Journal of Political Economy. 26:425-60. My. '18. War labor program and its administration. L. C, Marshall. BIBLIOGRAPHY xlix Journal of Political Economy. 26:882-900. N. '18. Compulsory arbitration in Great Britain during the war. Milton Moses. Journal of Political Economy. 27:421-56. Je. '19. Work of wage adjustment boards. A. M. Bing. Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation, n.s. '10:262- 5. D. '10. Review of legislation, 1901. New South Wales. E. L. de Hart. Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation, n.s. 10:285- 9. D. '02. Review of legislation, 1901, West Australia. R. W. Lee. Juridical Review. 14:394-403. D '02. Industrial arbitration in New South Wales. F. R. Sanderson. Labor Gazette. 1:21. N '15. Canadian Industrial Disputes Act. Labor Gazette, i : 155. N. '16. The operation of the Canadian Industrial Disputes Act. Labor Gazette, i : 156. N. '16. Law to prevent strikes. Offi- cial studies of anti-strike legislation. Law and Labor, i : 1-4. O. '19. Two bills for the better pro- tection of public welfare against unwarranted strikes and lockouts. Law and Labor. 1:5. D. '19. The President's appeal for arbi- tration, October 24th, 1919. *Law and Labor, i :S-6. D. '19. The President's statement on October 2Sth. Law and Labor, i : 7-8. D. '19. Acting President Lewis's reply to the President, October 30th. Law and Labor, i : 20-3. D. '19. Labor provisions of the pro- posed railroad legislation. *Law and Labor, i : 23. D. '19. Organized labor and the rail- road bills. *Law and Labor. 2 :3i-3. F. '20. The Kansas Industrial Court Bill. *Law and Labor. 2:45. F. '20. The National Grange and the Cummins Bill. Law and Labor. 2 :54-7. Mr. '20. Labor provisions of the Rail- road Bill. *Law and Labor. 2:85-9. Ap. '20. Address of Governor Allen. Literary Digest. 51 :890-i. O. 23, '15. Colorado's "Republic of Labor." Literary Digest. 53 : 543-4. S. 2, '16. Arbitration and the eight hour day. 1 BIBLIOGRAPHY ♦Literary Digest. 53:1581-3. D. 16, '16. The President's anti- strike message. Literary Digest. 62:9-11. S. 13, '19. The Cummins cure for our railroad distress. Literary Digest. 64:14-15. Ja. 10, '20. National court for la- bor. Literary Digest. 64:17-18. F. 7, '20. Kansas strike cure. Living Age. 273:451-61. My. '12. Anti-strike legislation in Australasia. Sidney Low. tLiving Age. 304:508-12. F. 28, '20. Arbitration in Australia. P. Airey. fMcClure's Magazine. 30:149-56. D. '07. Canadian act to aid in the prevention and settlement of strikes and lockouts. C. W. Eliot. tMcClure's Magazine. 33 : 515-19. S. '09. Best way to prevent industrial warfare. C. W. Eliot. Michigan Law Review. 13 : 185-204. Ja. '15. A comparison of some methods of conciliation and arbitration of industrial disputes. James H. Brewster. Mining Congress Journal. 3 : 1-2. Ja. '17. Compulsory investiga- tion of industrial disputes. Nation. 40 : 377-8. My. 7, '85. Arbitration. Nation. 42 : 354. Ap. '86. President Cleveland on arbitration. Nation. 44:112-3. F. 10, '87. Arbitration. Nation. 59 : 42. Jl. 19, '94. Limits of arbitration. Nation. 66 : 436-7. Je. 9, 'p&. Railroad labor arbitration. Nation. 70:471. Je. 21, '00. Arbitration, compulsory and other. Nation. 73:488. D. 26, '01. Progress of labor arbitration. Nation. 74 : 165. F. 27, '02. A new scheme to avoid labor troubles. Nation. 81 : 50-2. Jl. 20, '05. Crisis of industrial arbitration. Nation. 95:500-1. N. 28, '12. The railway wage award, (ed.) Nation. 96:433-4. My. i, '13. Another labor dispute settled. Nation. 103:145. Ag. '17, '16. Experiments in industrial arbi- tration. Nation. 103:184. Ag. 24, '16. Railway strikes. Nation. 103 : 479. N. 23, '16. Classes and the public. Nation. 103:550. D. 14, '16. (editorial). Nation. 104: 121-2. F. i, '17. The President and the railways. Nation. 104: 179-80. F. 15, '17. Railways and strikes. Nation. 110:755-7. Je. 5, '20. Henry Allen's industrial court. Frank P. Walsh. BIBLIOGRAPHY li National Review. 30 : 360-70. N. '97. Working of compulsory arbitration in labor disputes. W. Pember Reeves. National Review. 39 : 880-96. Ag. '02. Industrial arbitration act of New South Wales. B. R. Wise. National Review. 54 : 306. O. '09. Canadian experiment. F. A. Acland. National Review. 59:296-303. Ap. '12. Strikes and the Australian remedy. National Review. 59:1030-5. Ag. '12. The Australian remedy. P. Airey. New Republic. 4 : 40-2. Ag. 14, '15. Arbitrated strike. F. Hack- ett. New Republic. 7: 12-13. My. 6, '16. To prevent industrial war. William Z. Ripley. New Republic. 8:222-3. S. 30, '16. Against compulsory ar- bitration. G. P. West. New Republic. 8: 31S-16. O. 28, '16. The ignorant public. New Republic. 9:315-17. Ja 20, '17. Beyond arbitration. New Republic. 14: 314-15. Ap. 13, '18. National labor policy. New Republic. 21:155-7. Ja. 7, '20. To avert or postpone industrial conflicts. New Republic. 22: 179-82. Ap. 7, '20. The president's in- dustrial conference. Felix Frankfurter. Nineteenth Century. 27:987-1000. Je. '90. Labor disputes and the Chamber of Commerce. S. B. Boulton. Nineteenth Century. 40: 743-58. N. '96. Arbitration and labor disputes. Sidney and Beatrice Webb. Nineteenth Century. 52: 393-9. S. '02. Conditions of labor in New Zealand. Tom Mann. Nineteenth Century. 67:37-47. Ja. '10. General strike: its consequences and a remedy. Bernard C. Malloy. North American Review. 142:502-6. My. '86. Strikes and arbitration. T. V. Powderly. North American Review. 143:317-28. O. '86. Arbitration. Richard T. Ely. North American Review. 155:370-5. S. '92. A knight of la- bor'.s view. T. V. Powderly. North American Review. 160: 371-4. Mr. '95. How to pre- vent strikes and lockouts. Stockton Bates. North American Review. 174: 175-81. F. '02. Conference for industrial peace. Oscar S. Straus. Hi BIBLIOGRAPHY North American Review. 175:91-8. Jl. '02. Strikes and the public welfare. John Handiboe. North American Review. i7S:597-6o6. N. '02. Compulsory arbitration: a half-way house to socialism. J. A. Hobson. North American Review. 191:644-51. My. '10. Right to strike: its limitations. J. J. Feely. Outlook. 56: 1 15-18. My. 8, '87. Arbitration and conciliation practically applied. H. Oscar Cole. Outlook. 63 : 877-9. D. 9, '99. Visit to the compulsory arbi- tration court of New Zealand. H. D. Lloyd. Outlook. 68:946-8. Ag. 24, '01. Self enforced arbitration. Outlook. 72: 10-12. S. 6, '02. Arbitrate the arbitrable points. Abtam S. Hewitt. Outlook. 72:235-6. O. 4, '02. Compulsory arbitration dis- cussed. Outlook. 72:914-15. D. 20, '02. Civic federation discussion. G. C. Sykes. Outlook. 74:392-3. Je. 13, '03. Industrial war and peace. Outlook. 74:915. Ag. 15, '03. Resisting industrial arbitra- tion. Outlook. 80:671-6. Jl, IS, '05. An experiment in industrial harmony. Frank Parsons. Outlook. 83:261-3. Je. 2, '06. Settlement of labor disputes. Outlook. 83 : 271-3. Je. 2, '06. Compulsory investigation of labor disputes. Everett P. Wheeler. Outlook. 86:88-9. My. 18, '07. Industrial war. Outlook. 86: 542-4. Jl. 13, '07. Industrial mediaevalism. Outlook. 86:841-2. Ag. 24, '07. Are strikes worth while? Outlook. 88: 8-9. Ja. 4, '08. Conciliation vs. strikes. Outlook. 88:32-7. Ja. 4, '08. Canadian experiment in indus- trial peace. O. D. Skelton. Outlook. 88: 567. Mr. 7, '08. Conciliation the remedy. Outlook. 89:967. Ag. 29, '08. Canadian Pacific strike. Outlook. 90:828-32. D. 12, '08. How strikes are settled in New Zealand. O. L. Triggs. Outlook. 92: 779-80. Jl. 31, '09. Press steel car strike. ♦Outlook. 94:517-18. Mr. 5, '10. War on the people. Outlook. 94: 526-30. Mr. 5, '10. Land without strikes. P. Kennaday. ♦Outlook. 94: 648-9. Mr. 26, '10. Measure to prevent strikes. BIBLIOGRAPHY liii tOutlook. 94: 653-4. Mr. 26, '10. Way to peace. Outlook. 94: 774-6. Ap 2, '10. Why labor arbitration has failed. Henry White. Outlook. 9S: 854-5. Ag. 20, '10. End of the grand trunk strike. Outlook. 96: 507-13- O. 29, '10. Mackenzie King and Cana- dian labor troubles. Elmer E. Ferris. Outlook. 97:247-9. F. 4, '11. M. Briand's plan. Outlook. 101:5-6. My. 4, '12. Mediation in labor disputes. 102:752-7. D. 7, '12. The railway arbitration, a re- Outlook, view. Outlook. Outlook. Outlook. Outlook. Outlook. Outlook. Outlook. *Outlook. 103:463-4. Mr. I, '13. 104:637-8. JI. 26, '13. 113:582-4: Jl. 12, '16. 114:56-8. S. 13, '16. 114; 121-3. S. 20, '16. 114:256-65. O. 4, '16. 114: 714-15. N. 29, '16. 114:782-3. D. 13, 'i6. the President. Outlook. 115:603-4. Ap. 4, '17. ganized labor. Outlook. 117:306-7. O. 24, '17. Paul W. Brown. Outlook. 124 : 644-50. Ap. 14, '20. A strike averted (ed.) The railway arbitration. A tribal war. The strike and after. Can strikes be prevented. Strikes and the Canadian law. Time to act. Frederick M. Davenport. The railway situation and Dangerous tendencies of or- Industrial peace by miracle. The path to industrial peace. Labor and the open shop (ed- The courts uphold Governor *Outlook. 125 : 12. My. s, ' itorial) . Outlook. 125 : 58.' My. 12, Allen. Political Science Quarterly. 17:553-67. D. '02. Is authoritative arbitration inevitable? John B. Clark. Political Science Quarterly. 18:112-40. Mr. '03. State arbitra- tion and the minimum wage in Australasia. Henry W. Macrosty. Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science. 7 : 1-188. Ja. '17- p. i-g. American experience in settlement of disputei. William L. Chambers. p. 10-18. The Canadian Industrial Disputes Act. Victor S. Clark, tp- 19-30. The Australian system of compulsory arbitration. Mathew B. Hammond. *p. 36-44. Objections of labor to compulsory arbitration. W. S. Carter. liv BIBLIOGRAPHY p. 44-80. Constitutional aspects o£ compulsory arbitration. Thomas I. Parkinson. . . ■ *p. 81-7. Discussions of trade unions and compulsory aroitration. p. 94-107. The Erdman, Newlands, and Adamson Acts. David A. McCabe. p. 165-9. Arbitration of recent labor disputes. Oscar S. Straus. Public. 22:1108. N. 29 '19. Compulsory investigation. Public Opinion. 17:832. N. 29, '94. Arbitration congress at Chicago. Public Opinion. 17:863. D. 6, '94. Carroll D. Wright on com- pulsory arbitration. Quarterly Journal of Economics, i : 86-91. O. '86. Legislation for labor arbitration. H. M. Williams. Quarterly Journal of Economics, i : 487-97. Jl. '87. Action under the labor arbitration act. Edward Cummings. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 9:353-71. Jl. '95- Industrial arbitration in the United States. Edward Cummings. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 10:407. Jl. '96. Industrial arbitration : Its methods and its limitations. S. N. D. North. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 12 : 468-70. Jl. '98. Act for arbitration of controversies between railways and their em- ployees. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 15 : 403-6. My. '01. Arbitra- tion and conciliation in France. William F. Willoughby. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 17:614-42. Ag. '03. Report of the Victorian industrial commission. A. D. Weber. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 24:561. My. '10. Recent changes in Australasian laws against strikes. V. S. Clark. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 24 : 660-712. Ag. '10. Com- pulsory arbitration in New Zealand. James E. Le Rossignol and William D. Stewart. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 27 : 263-94. F- 'i3- The locomotive engineers' arbitration: Its antecedents and its outcome. William J. Cunningham. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 28:360-72. F. '14. Media- tion and arbitration of railroad wage controversies; A year's developments. Fred W. Powell. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 29:98-148. N. '14. Wages boards in Australia. M. B. Hammond. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 29:326-61. F. '15. Wage boards in Australia. M. B. Hammond. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 29 : 563-630. My. '15. Wages boards in Australia. M. B. Hammond. BIBLIOGRAPHY ly Quarterly Journal of Economics. 31 : 404-46. My '17. Regula- tion of wages in New Zealand. M. B. Hammond. Railway Age Gazette. 49 : 192-3. Jl: 29, '10. The right to strike, its limitations. Joseph J. Feely. Railway Age Gazette. 50:820-1. Ap. 7, '11. President Delano on arbitration of railway labor disputes. Railway Age Gazette. 50:825-6. Ap. 7, '11. President Delano on the railway labor situation. F. A. Delano. Railway Age Gazette. 50:934-5. Ap. 21, '11. Arbitration of railway labor disputes. P. H. Morrissey. Railway Age Gazette. 50:979-80. Ap. 28, '11. Arbitration of labor disputes. W. S. Carter. Railway Age Gazette. 50: 1096-7. My. 12, '11. Arbitration of railway labor disputes. Railway Age Gazette. 50: 1098-9. My. 12, '11. Another letter from Mr. Delano on the arbitration of labor disputes. F. A. Delano. Railway Age Gazette. 50:1099-1100. My 12, '11. Railway labor situation. Railway Age Gazette. 50:1235-6. Je. 2, '11. Arbitration of railway labor disputes. F. O. Melcher. Railway Age Gazette. 54 : 762-5. Mr. 28, '13. Arbitration of the firemen's wage controversy. Railway Age Gazette. 58: 929-32. Ap. 30, '15. Public regula- tion of wages of railway employees. Frank H. Dixon. Railway Age Gazette. 58: 962-5. My. 7, '15. Arbitration award in enginemen's wage controversy. Railway Age Gazette. 61:323. Ag. 25, '16. A suggestion for arbitration. Railway Age Gazette. 61: 1027. D. 8, '16. Involuntary servi- tude and railroad strikes. Railway Age Gazette. 61:1037-9. D. 8, '16. President Wil- son urges law to prevent strikes. Railway Age. 67:212-14. Ag. i, '19. Bi-partisan labor boards. W. N. Doak. Railway Review. 56:636-7. My. 8, '15. Mr. Kruttschmitt sets forth his views on industrial mediation and concilia- tion. Railway Review. 58: 138. Ja. 22, '16. Strikes and the Ca- nadian law. Ivi BIBLIOGRAPHY *Reconstruction. 2:24-6. Ja. '20. Mr. Wilson asks for com- pulsory arbitration. Here is Australia's experience. W. Francis Ahearn. *Reconstruction. 2: 150-2. Ap. '20. Compulsory arbitration the next battle prize, — why it failed in New Zealand. Charles Edward Russell. Review of Reviews. 6: 168-74. S. '92. Strikes and their reme- dies: A report from the Antipodes on conciliation and arbitration. Review of Reviews. 10: 178-84. Ag. '94. Labor troubles: Hints of new remedies from the Antipodes. W. P. Reeves. Review of Reviews. 16: 735-6. D. '97. Compulsory arbitra- tion in labor disputes: How it works in New Zealand. Review of Reviews. 23:328-33. Mr. '01. New way of set- tling labor disputes. John R. Commons. Review of Reviews. 29:622-3. My. '04. Labor arbitration law in New South Wales. Review of Reviews. 37: loo-i. Ja. '08. Industrial peace legis- lation in Canada. Review of Reviews. 37 : 746-7. Je. '08. State intervention in labor wars. Review of Reviews. 44:477-80. O. '11. Industrial courts. Helen L. Sumner. Review of Reviews. 45:322-5. Mr. '12. A preventive of strikes — work of the anthracite conciliation board, Louis Graves. tReview of Reviews. 46: 367-8. S. '12. Doubtful efficacy of the Australian remedy for strikes. Review of an article in the National Review (London), by P. Airey. ♦Review of Reviews. 48: 144-6. Ag. '13. A threatened rail- road strike. Review of Reviews. 54: 394-5. O. '16. Norway adopts com- pulsory arbitration. ♦Review of Reviews. 55: 189-90. F. '17. The Canadian com- pulsory investigation act. Ralph M. Easley. tReview of Reviews. 55: 190-2. F. '17. Compulsory arbitra- tion in railroad disputes. Albert Chandler. Review of Reviews. 61 : 292-4. Mr. '20. Governor Allen's solution. Edna O. Whitcomb. Review of Reviews. 61 : 294. Mr. '20. The court of industrial relations. BIBLIOGRAPHY Ivii Review of Reviews. 6i : 597-602. Je. '20. Liberty and law in Kansas. Henry J. Allen. Saturday Evening Post. Je. 6, '12. Compulsory arbitration. ♦Saturday Evening Post. 192: 6-7, 72, 75. Mr. 6, '20. A substi- tute for strikes. Gov. Henry J. Allen. Saturday Review. 74: 556-7. N. 12, '92. Industrial arbitra- tion. Saturday Review. 95: 160-1. F. 7, '03. Labor and compul- sion. ♦Scribner's Magazine. 61 : 306-14. Mr. '17. Government pre- vention of railroad strikes. Samuel O. Dunn. ♦Seamen's Journal. 33: 1-2. Ap. 21, '20. No compulsory arbitration. Victor A. Olander. Sunset. 35: 856. N. '15. Colorado .pacifists experiment. Sunset. 35: 1071-82. D. '15. Australia, the social melting pot, Edward F. Adams. Survey. 22:844-86. S. 25, '09. One way to settle labor troubles. Elizabeth G. Evans. Survey. 27: 1936-9. Mr. 16, '12. State intervention in strikes. Paul Kennaday. Survey. 28: 188-92. My. 4, '12. A promising foundation for industrial peace. Allan T. Burns. Survey. 28:399-403. Je i, '12. Canadian industrial disputes act. Ethelbert Stewart. Survey. 28: 684-5. Ag. 31, '12. A new engine for concilia- tion. Henry Sterling. Survey. 29: 743-6. Mr. i, '13. Staving off the firemen's strike. Survey. 30: 429. Je. 28, '13. A bill to end railroad strikes. Survey. 32: 71+85-6. Ap. 18, '14. The third man and his part in industrial disputes. John A. Fitch. Survey. 32:455-8. Ag. i, '14. Settling labor disputes in Aus- tralia. Mary Chamberlain. Survey. 34:280. Je. 26 '15. Arbitration of Chicago's street railway strike. Survey. 35:398. Ja. i, '16. Mediation and arbitration. John A. Fitch. Survey. 36: 623-8. S. 23, '16. The fundamental principle of arbitration. John A. Fitch. Survey. 37:201-2. N. 25, '16. Capital and labor on arbitra- tion. Iviii BIBLIOGRAPHY Survey. 37: 254. D. 2, 'i6. Compulsion in Australia and Can- ada. Survey. 37:256-8. D. 2, '16. A league to enforce industrial peace. tSurvey. 37:274. D. 9, '16. The President on labor disputes. Survey. 37:477-82. Ja. 27, '17. Involuntary servitude and the right to strike. John A. Fitch. tSurvey. 37:496. Ja. zy, '17. Oscar Straus's plan to prevent strikes. Survey. 37: 737-8. Mr. 31, '17. The supreme court on strikes. John A. Fitch. *Survey. 37:746-54. Mr. 31, '17. Nine years of the Canadian act. The experience with compulsory investigation and its application to the United States. Ben M. Selekman. tSurvey. 37:754-9+764-5. Mr. 31, '17. The Canadian Disputes Act. A symposium. John R. Commons, Charles W. Eliot, J. E. Williams, William O. Thompson, James O'Connell, James C. Watters, H. R. Towne, Harris Wein- stock, Elisha Lee. tSurvey. 38:244-5. Je. 9, '17. Secretary Wilson's plan to prevent strikes. Survey. 42: 192-5. My 3, '19. The war labor board, a war- time experiment with compulsory arbitration. John A. Fitch. ♦Survey. 42:399-401. Je. 7, '19. The Australian system of dealing with labor disputes. George Beebe. Survey. 43 : 339-41. Ja. 3, '20. Plan of the President's indus- trial conference for boards of inquiry and adjustment. Survey. 43:424-32. Ja. 17 '20. Proposed industrial plan: a symposium of criticism of the President's conference re- port. Survey. 43 : 819-34. Mr. 27, '20. Report of the industrial con- ference. [The report reprinted in full] ♦Survey. 44: 7-8+48. Ap. 3, '20. Industrial peace by law— the Kansas way. John A. Fitch. System. 37: 739-41, 861-3. Ap. '20. How Cedar Rapids ban- ished strikes. Alfred Pittman. Textile World Journal. 53:93-S> 166. My. 25, '18. Arbitra- tion — its uses and benefits. Henry P. Molloy. Unpopular Review. 9:21-38. Ja. '18. Industrial peace and world peace. BIBLIOGRAPHY lix Westminster Review. 159: 18-23. Ja. '03. How shall labor and capital be reconciled? Charles F. Adams. Westminster Review. 159:24-8. Ja. '03. Country without strikes. Alice Henry. Westminster Review. 163:307-13. Mr. '05. Arbitration and government employees. S. W. Belderson. World Today. 3:2153-5. D. '02. Arbitration of labor dis- putes. W. W. Willoughby. World Today. 13:1057-9. O. '07. Strike in New Zealand. James E. Le Rossignol. World's Work. 3: 1781-3. F. '02. Successful prevention of strikes. Hugh H. Lusk. World's Work. 5 : 2789-90. N. '02. Can arbitration in labor troubles be effective? World's Work. 5:2856. D. '02. Means to effective arbitra- tion. Frederick W. Job. World's Work. 26:438-44. Ag. '13. How Canada prevents strikes. W. L. Mackenzie King. World's Work. 31 : 363-5. Mr. '16. Labor and capital after the war. E. T. Good. World's Work. 34: 15-17. My '17. Way to end railroad strikes. ♦World's Work. 39: S31-2. Ap. '20. Striking at public neces- sities. ♦World's Work. 39:547-8. Ap. '20. The new railroad law. Ray Morris. Yale Review. 3:376-407. F. '95. Industrial conciliation and arbitration in Europe and Australasia. E. R. L. Gould. Yale Review. 11:225-8. N. '02. Work of the industrial com- mission: The hazards of arbitration. Yale Review. 19:32-54. My. '10. Victorian wages boards and the New Zealand conciliation arbitration act. Paul Kennaday. Government Publications United States Publications ♦Address of the President [Wilson]. Ag. 29, '16. Pamphlet, also printed as House Document 1340, ist session, 64th Con- gress, and in Congressional Record, Vol. 53, Part 13, p. I333S-7 and 13361-3. Ix BIBLIOGRAPHY ♦Address of the President [Wilson]. D. 5, 'i6. Pamphlet, also in Congressional Record. D. S, 'i6. Annual message of the President [Wilson]. D. 2, 1919. Pamphlet, also in the Congressional Record. Annual reports, Commissioner of mediation and conciliation. Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor. Published bi-monthly from i8g6 until 19 12. ♦Bulletin of the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. No. 233 Jl. '18. Operation of the industrial disputes investigation act of Can- ada. Benjamin M. Squires. Congressional Record. Vol. 42. Part 8. p. 299-304 of Appendix. 60th Congress, ist Session, My. 26, '08. Investigation of con- troversies between capital and labor by commissions ap- pointed by the President. Speech of Hon. William H. Ryan, giving letters from various labor leaders. Congressional Record. Vol. 43. Part i. p. 114-34. 6oth Con- gress, 2d Session. D. 10, '08. Debate on H. R. 15447. "To provide for the investigation of controversies affecting inter- state commerce and for other purposes." Congressional Record. Ja. 22, '17. Compulsory arbitration. William H. Coleman. * Congressional Record. D. '19 and Ja. '20. Numerous speeches, chiefly in the Senate during December. Consular Reports. 65:110-14. '01. Labor legislation in New Zealand. Frank Dillingham. 75 : 526. '04. Arbitration in New South Wales. Orlando H. Baker. Hearings before the House Sub-Committee on Labor, March 16 to April 13, 1904, on H. R. 9491 to create a national ar- bitration tribunal and to define the duties and powers of the same. I47p. 1904. Hearings before the Senate Committee on education and labor, April 7, 1904, on S. 3259 to create a national arbitration tribunal and to define the duties and powers of the same. 4op. 1904. ♦Hearing before the Senate Committee on interstate commerce. August 31, 1916 (64th Congress, ist Session), on proposed bills, in connection with legislation relative to the threatened strike of railway employees. I57p. Also printed as Senate Document 549. BIBLIOGRAPHY Ixi Hearing before the Senate Committee on interstate commerce January 2, 1917. Government investigation of railway dis- putes. 294p. Hearing before the House Committee on interstate and foreign commerce on H. R. 19730, providing for compulsory media- tion in railway disputes, January 17, 19, and 23, 1917. 242P. Hearing before the Senate Committee on interstate commerce on the extension of time for relinquishment by the govern- ment of railroads to corporate ownership and control. 3 vols. 1919. Hearing before the Senate Committee on interstate commerce on S. 2906. 1919. 146P. Hearing before the House Committee on interstate and foreign commerce, July 15 to October 4, 1919, on the return of rail- roads to private ownership 1919. 17 parts. House Document 853, 62d Congress. 2d Session, Je. 7, '12. Mediation, conciliation and arbitration. House Report 8077, S9th Congress, 2d Session. F. 25, '07. In- vestigations of controversies affecting interstate commerce. Includes "Investigation and publicity as opposed to compulsory arbi- tration," by Charles Francis Adams. House Report 621, 6oth Congress, ist Session. F. 3, '08. In- vestigation of controversies affecting interstate commerce. Also includes "Investigation and publicity as opposed to compulsory arbitration," by Charles Francis Adams. House Report 853, 62d Congress, 2d Session. Je. 7, '12. Media- tion, conciliation and arbitration. Monthly review of the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. I : 14-15. Ag. '15. Compulsory arbitration in Denmark. I : SI. Ag. '15. Annual arbitration reports. (Australia) I : loo-i. O. '15. New Zealand awards. I : 62. N. '15. Agencies of mediation, investigation, and arbitration. 1 : 81-3. N. '15. Industrial arbitration in Norway. 1 : 10-12. D. '15. The compulsory industrial disputes investi- gation act of Colorado. 2 : 23-8. Ja. '16. The Canadian industrial disputes investiga- tion act. 2:89-110. F. '16. Industrial peace in Australia through minimum wage and arbitration. Henry B. Higgins. 3 : 255-62. Ag. '16. Arbitration and conciliation in Austra- lasia. Mary T. Rankin. Ixii BIBLIOGRAPHY 3:353-9- S. '16. Minimum wage legislation in Australasia. Paul S. Collier. 3:360-1. S. '16. Compulsory arbitration in Norway. 3 '■ 430-3- O. '16. Arbitration of railroad labor disputes. 3 : 608-9. N. '16. Proposed legislation in Sweden for the settlement of industrial disputes. 3 : 716-9. D. '16. Canadian industrial disputes investigation act in operation. *4: 11-19. Ja. 17. Industrial conciliation and anti-strike legis- lation relating to public utilities in various countries. 4: ig-2S. Ja. '17. Conference on labor disputes and public service corporations. 4:239-40. F. '17. Laws of various countries for the adjust- ment of disputes between railroads and their employes. 4:360-5. Mr. '17. Compulsory arbitration and minimum wage in munitions industries in France. 4:697-701. My. '17. Canadian industrial disputes investiga- tion act in operation. 4:912. Je. '17. Extension of application of Canadian in- dustrial disputes investigation act, 1907. +5 : 413-23. S. '17. The industrial disputes investigation act. Benjamin M. Squires. S • 525-7. S. '17. Compulsory work laws and laws to pre- vent interference with employment. 7:181-4. Jl. '18. Industrial arbitration act of New South Wales. *7: 457-60. Ag. '18. Conciliation and arbitration in Great Britain. 7: 1438-9. N. '18. Provision to prevent strikes and lockouts in Minnesota during the war. 7: 1853-4. D. '18. Arbitration in shipbuilding dispute in Australia. 8 : 588-90. F. '19. Compulsory arbitration in Great Britain during the war. 8:1758-65. Je '19. Industrial peace in Australia through minimum wage and arbitration. ♦9 : 277. Jl. 'ig. Compulsory arbitration in Norway. 10 : 337-45- F. '20. Labor, its grievances, protests, and de- mands. 10 : 808-9. Ml"- '20. Kansas court of industrial relations. *io:8io-ii. Mr. '20. Colorado industrial commission. BIBLIOGRAPHY Ixiii 10 : 863-70. Ap. '20. Report of the President's Industrial conference 10 : 880-7. Ap. '20. Analysis of labor provisions of the new transportation act. 10: 1062-4. Ap. '20. Provisions for dealing with labor dis- putes in Great Britain during the war. 10:1126-8. My. '20. The Kansas court of industrial rela- tions. 10 : 1290-2. My. '20. Conciliation and arbitration in New Zealand. (In the Monthly Review are also numerous articles on strikes, trade agreements and on the mediation and conciliation work of the Federal Government.) National war labor board. The aims and purposes of the Na- tional war labor board. I5p. 1918. New Zealand industrial conciliation and arbitration law. De- partment of labor, igoo. Railway strikes and lockouts. A study of arbitration and con- ciliation laws of the principal countries of the world, pro- viding machinery for the peaceful adjustment of disputes between railroads and their employees, and laws of certain countries for the prevention of strikes. U. S. Board of Mediation and Conciliation. 367?. 1916. House Document 2117, 64th Congress 2d Session. N. i, '16. Report. Commission on industrial relations, 1916. Report of the industrial commission. 1900-1902. ♦Report on the anthracite coal strike (May-October, 1902). 1903. Report of the board of mediation and conciliation, 1913- 1917. 3op. 1918. tReport of the [second] industrial conference called by the President [Wilson] Mar. 6, 1920. Reprinted in full in Survey 43:819-34. Mr. 27, 20. Senate Document 493, 64th Congress, ist Session. Railroad labor arbitration: Report of U. S. board of mediation and conciliation on the effects of arbitration proceeding upon rates of pay and working conditions of railroad em- ployes. 1916. Senate Document. 650, 64th Congress, 2d session, Transla- tion of the Norwegian law relating to compulsory arbitra- tions in labor disputes. 1917. Ixiv BIBLIOGRAPHY Senate Report 1025, 64th Congress, 2d session. Report of the committee on interstate commerce amending the act providing mediation, conciliation, etc. I9'7- Senate Report. 304, 66th Congress, ist session. Report of the committee on interstate commerce. November 10, igip. i7p. ♦Text of Canadian industrial .disputes investigation act and summary of industrial conciliation and anti-strike legisla- tion relating to public utilities of various countries. Bu- reau of labor statistics. 2ip. 1917. State Publications California. Arbitration in wage and other disputes betvireen capital and labor. Tenth biennial report of the bureau of labor statistics. 1901-1902. Colorado. Reports of the industrial commission of Colorado. 1916 to date. Georgia. Message of Gov. Joseph M. Brown. June 25, 1913. ♦Kansas. Message of Gov. Henry J. Allen. January 5, 1920. Kansas. The Kansas court of industrial relations. Kansas state printing plant. Topeka. 1920. I4p. Text of the law. Maryland. Compulsory arbitration. Fifth annual report of the bureau of labor statistics. 1896. p. 184-202. Massachusetts. Compulsory arbitration in New South A\'ales. Labor Bulletin. igo2. No. 21. p. 26. Massachusetts. Compulsory arbitration in New Zealand. La- bor Bulletin. 1901. No. 2. p. 128. Massachusetts. Recent cases under the Canadian industrial dis- putes investigation act. Labor Bulletin. 13 : 62-5. F. '08. Minnesota. Views of Governor Lind on compulsory arbitration. Seventh biennial report of the Bureau of Labor. 1900. P- 323-4- Nebraska. New Zealand law relating to arbitration and con- ciliation. Seventh biennial report of the Bureau of Labor and Industrial Statistics. 1900. p. 459-96. New York. Compulsory arbitration in New Zealand. Bulletin of Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1899. i : 177. New York. Desirability of compulsory arbitration between cor- porations and employees. Governor's message. i8gi. BIBLIOGRAPHY Ixv New York. New Zealand arbitration law. Bulletin of Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1903. 5 : 346. New York. Working of the New Zealand compulsory arbitra- tion law. Board of mediation and arbitration, fifteenth an- nual report. 1901. p. 381. New York. Public service commission, First district. Proposed plan to provide for fair and reasonable wages and working conditions and to prevent interruption of the service on street railroads, etc. 1917. Virginia. New Zealand law relating to arbitration and concilia- tion. Third annual report, Bureau of Labor and Industrial Statistics. 1900. p. 219-241. Decisions of the Courts Wilson vs. New. 243 U. S. 332. In this case the Utiited States Supreme Court, with four justices dissenting, held that Congress has "authority under the circumstances [threat of a railway strike] to compulsorily arbitrate the dispute be- tween the parties by establishing as to the subject matter of that dispute a legislative standard of wages operative and binding as a matter of law upon the parties, — a power none the less efficaciously exerted because exercised by direct legislative act instead of by the enactment of other and appropriate means." Canadian tPuhlications ♦Annual reports of the Registrar of boards of conciliation and investigation of the proceedings under the industrial disputes investigation act of 1907. Labor Gazette, [Monthly]. Department of Labor, Ottawa. Contains many articles on the operation of the Canadian Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. Industrial Warfare The literature on strikes, lockouts, boycotting, blacklisting, intimidation, sabotage, violence^ deportation, strike-breaking, picketing, and the other phases of industrial warfare is now so voluminous that only a limited bibliography can be given here. Further references may be found in the Readers' Guide, Public Affairs Information Service, and the bib- liographies mentioned below. Bibliographies fBureau of Railway Economics Library. (6oi-i3th St. N. W., Washington, D. C.) List of references on the right to strike. Compiled by Mary B. Ladd. Pamphlet.. i6p. Re- print from Special Libraries, December, 1919. Ixvi BIBLIOGRAPHY Library of Congress. Select list of books with references to periodicals on labor, particularly relating to strikes. Com- piled by A. P. C. Griffin. 1903. Review, i : 370+372. S. 6, '19. Books and Pamphlets *Adams, Thomas S., and Sumner, Helen L. Labor problems. Macmillan. 1911. Chap. VI. Strikes and boycotts. ♦Bliss, W. D. P. New encyclopedia of social reform. Funk & Wagnalls. 1908. p. 1167-72. Strikes and lockouts. p. 127. Boycotting. p. z 19-20. Blacklist. Bolen, G. L. Getting a living. Macmillan. 1903. Chap. IX. Strikes, lockouts and boycotts. Chap. X. Questionable policies of trade unions. Brissenden, Paul F. The I. W. W., a study of American syn- dicalism. Longmans, Green & Co. 1919. Buchanan, J. R. Story of the labor agitator. Outlook Co. 1903. Burns, W. J. The masked war. 1910. Carlton, Frank T. The history and problems of organized labor. D. C. Heath. 191 1. Chap. VII. p. 157-89. Coercive methods. Cleveland, Grover. The government in the Chicago strike of 1894. Princeton university press. 1913. Cohen, Julius H. Law and order in industry. Macmillan. 1916. Commons, John R. et al. History of labor in the United States. 2 vols. Macmillan. 1918. Crowther, Samuel. Why men strike. Doubleday. 1920. Gilman, Nicholas P. Methods of industrial peace. Hough- ton, Mifflin Co. 1904. Chap. VIII. p 240-76. Strikes and lockouts, the blacklist and the boycott. Groat, George G. An introduction to the study of organized labor in America. Macmillan. 1916. Chap. X and XI. p. 159-203. The strike. ♦Harper's Encyclopaedia of United States History. Harpers. 1912. Vol. 3. Articles on "Dynamite Outrages." Howell, George. Conflicts of capital and labor. Macmillan. i8go. Chap. IX. p., 346-93. Strikes, their objects, coit «nd rMults. BIBLIOGRAPHY Ixvii Huebner, Grover G. Blacklisting. Wisconsin free library commission. Legislative reference dept., Comparative leg- islation bulletin. No. lo. Madison. 1906. Huebner, Grover G. Boycotting. Wisconsin free library commission Legislative reference dept., Comparative legis- lation bulletin. No. 9. Madison. 1906. Hungerford, Edward. The railroad problem. McClurg. 1917. Hunter, Robert. Violence and the labor movement. Mac- millan. 1914. Laidler, Harry W. Boycotts and the labor struggle. John Lane Co. 1914. Lavasseur, P. E. American workman. Johns Hopkins Press, igoo. p. 232-75. The strike. League for industrial rights (formerly the American anti- boycott association). Strikes on public utilities and va- rious other pamphlets. 135 Broadway, New York City. McLaughlin, A. C, and Hart, A. B. Cyclopedia of Amer- ican government. Appleton. 1914. Vol. 3. p. 436-9. Strikes. Marot, Helen. American labor unions. Henry Holt. 1914. p. 200-14, Strikes and violence. ♦Mitchell, John. Organized labor. American Book and Bible House. 1903. National industrial conference board. Research report no. 3. Strikes in American industry in wartime (April 6 to Oct. 6, 1917). March 1918. 2op. Nicholson, J. Shield. Strikes and social problems. Macmil- lan. 1S96. Ciiap. I. p. 1-21. Strikes and a living wage. *Trachtenberg, Alexander. The American labor year book. Rand school of social science. New York. Vol. I. 1916. p. 47 et seq. Vol. II. 1917-18. p. 70 et seq Vol. III. 1919-20. p. 161 et seq.; 333-5. Wright, Carroll D. Battles of labor. Geo. W. Jacobs Co. 1906. Periodicals American Economic Association, Publications. 3rd series. 7: 176-217. F. '06. Violence in labor disputes. Thomas S. Adams and others. Ixviii BIBLIOGRAPHY American Federationist. 17:988-9. N. '10. Labor's right not to sell. Samuel Gompers. American Magazine. 72:473-82. Ag. '11. Cost of a quarrel. A. S. Crapsey. ♦American Magazine. 89:9, 100, 105. F. '20. What these strikes cost you in money. Roger W. Babson. American Statistical Association, Publications. 11: 169-94. Je. '08. Strike statistics. Ira Cross. Arena. 23: 194-203. F. '00. Strikes, trusts, boycotts, and the blacklist. F. D. Tandy. Atlantic Monthly. 90 : 656-67. O. '02. Quarter century of strikes. A. P. Winton. Cassier's Magazine. 23:727-35. Ap. '03. Echoes from the recent Pennsylvania coal strike. George F. Baer. Century. 81:632-3. F. '11. Lawlessness in support of a cause. Columbia Law Review. 17:502-22. Je '17. Railway strikes and the Constitution. Arthur A. Ballantine. Columbia University Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law. io:i-n8. '98. Sympathetic strikes and sjon- pathetic lockouts. Fred. S. Hall. tContemporary Review. 116:496-503. N. '19. Labor unrest and the need for a national ideal. B. S. Rowntree. Current History. 11:54-6. O. '19. The police strike in Bos- ton. Current Opinion. 66: 199-200. Mr. '19. To stop all strikes and save $3,000,000,000 annual industrial loss. Economic Journal. 19:602-9. D. '09. Swedish general strike, T. H. Penson. Electric Railway Journal. 45: 1 165-8. Je. 19, '15. Chicago's two day strike. Everybody's Magazine. 33: 121-3. Jl. 'iS- Straight stufi about those Danbury hatters and about boycotting. Independent. 55: 1493-7. Je. 25, '03. Sympathetic strike. J. S. Stevens. Independent. 57=376-9. Ag. 18, '04. Labor rebellion in Colorado. William E. Walling. Independent. 66: 1052-3. My. 20, '09. French postal strike. ♦Independent. 88 : 139. O. 23, '16. Where do the people come in? BIBLIOGRAPHY Ixix Independent. 98:483-5. Je. 28, '19. Where do the people come in when capital and labor fight it out? Elsie Gluck. Industrial Management. 52:433-40. Ja. '17. Intolerable burden and cost of needless and senseless labor strikes. F. A. Van- derlip and Thomas A. Edison. Industry, i : 5, 8-9. Mr. 15, '19. Government by capitulation, Johns Hopkins University Studies. 34:9-123. 1916. The con- trol of strikes in American trade unions. George M. Janes. Law and Labor, published monthly since January 1919 by the League for Industrial Rights. A monthly periodical on the law of the labor problems from the em- ployers' point of view. ♦Literary Digest. 42:295-6. F. 18, '11. What strikes have cost the miners. Literary Digest. 46:626. Mr. 22, '13. Making coal strikes pay. Literary Digest. 47:747-8. O. 25, '13. Do strikes pay? Literary Digest. 62:15-7. Ag. 30, '19. High cost of strikes. Literary Digest. 62 :7-8. S. 27 '19. Policeman's right to strike. Literary Digest. 63:14-5. N. 29, '19. Labor's right to strike. McClure's Magazine. 20 : 323-36. Ja. '03. Right to work. R. S. Baker. McClure's Magazine. 23 : 43-57. My. '04. Reign of lawless- ness. R. S. Baker. McClure's Magazine. 38:347-64. Ag. '11. The Dynamiters, a great case of Detective Burns. Harvey J. O'Higgins. Nation. 88 : 479-80. My. 13, '09. French state employees. Nation. 109:790-2. D. 20 '19. End of Boston's police strike. A. Warner. New Republic. 21 : 224-7. Ja. 21, '20. Can the strike be abandoned? W. Lippmann. North American Review. 174:757-68. Je. '02. Strikes in the United States. Carroll D, Wright. North American Review. 181 : 603-15. O. '05. Public and the coal conflict. H. E. Rood. North American Review. 191:644-51. My. '10. The right to strike, its limitations. Joseph J. Feely. Oregon Voter. 19:301-2. N. 22, '19. The right to strike. Outlook: 71 :534-5. Je. 14, '02. Strikes in vital industries. ♦Outlook. 78:969-72. D. 17, '04. Violence in labor conflicts. Slason Thompson. Outlook. 81 : 1050. D. 30, '05. Russian strike and anti-strike measures. Ixx BIBLIOGRAPHY Outlook. 86 : 542-4. Jl. 13, '07. Industrial mediaevalism. Outlook. 92 : 869-70. Ag. 14, '09. Swedish strike. ♦Outlook. 94:517-18. Mr. 5, '10. War on the people. Outlook. 98:12-3. My. 6, '11. Murder is murder. Theodore Roosevelt. Outlook. 98:915-6. Ag. 26, '11. Sabotage. Outlook. 103:62-5. Ja. II, '13. Government by dynamite. Outlook. 107 : 67-73. My. 9, '14. The strike war in Colorado. W. T. Davis. tOutlook. 114:147-8. S. 20, '16. Strikes and the public. Paul W. Brown. Outlook. 121 : 136-8. Ja. 22, '19. An industrial war on the pub- lic (editorial). tOutlook. 123 : 223-9. O. 29, '19. The labor crisis and the people. Outlook. 123 : 536-7. D. 24, '19. Strikes we have survived. Pearson's Magazine. 28: 121. O. '12. What strikes cost work- ers. A. L. Studer. Political Science Quarterly. 29 : 626-63. D. '14. The West Vir- ginia coal strike. Lawrence R. Lynch. Quarterly Review. 223 : 485-506. O. '14. Strikes from the workmen's point of view. Railway Age Gazette. 61 : 1084. D. 15, '16. The right of public service employes to strike. Review. 2:170-1. F. 21, '20. Limitation of the right to strike. Review of Reviews. 39 : 534. My. '09. France and organized labor. Review of Reviews. 40 : 481-2. O. '09. Swedish general strike. A danger signal. Review of Reviews. 49 : 732-4. Je. '14. Industrial war in Colorado. Review of Reviews. 60 : 341-3. O. '19. Boston's police strike. Sunset. 37:39. O. '16. The right to strike. Survey. 32:304-5. Je. 13, '14. The closed shop and the labor boycott. H. W. Laidler. Survey. 33 : 241-58. D. 5, '14. Law and order : The issue in Colorado. John A. Fitch. Survey. 37 : 737-8. Mr. 31, '17. The supreme court on strikes. John A. Fitch. Survey. 42:645-6. Ag. 2, '19. Epidemic of strikes in Chicago. Graham Taylor. Survey. 42:881-2. S. 20, '19. Boston polict strike. BIBLIOGRAPHY Ixxi Survey. 43 : 58-64. N. 8, '19. Closed towns, intimidation as it is practiced in the Pittsburg steel district — the contrast in Ohio. A. W. Shaw. Twentieth Century Magazine. S ; 386. F. '12. Lawless union- ism. World's Work. 10 : 6199-204. My. '05. Strike breaking as a new occupation. Leroy Scott. World's Work. 25 : 49-61. N. '12. The battle line of labor. Samuel P. Orth. World's Work. 25 : 197-205. D. '12. The battle line of labor. Samuel P. Orth. World's Work. 25:275-85. Ja. '13. The battle line of labor. Samuel P. Orth. World's Work. 25 : 431-7. F. '13. The battle line of labor. Samuel P. Orth. World's Work. 25 : 676-9. Ap. '13. The power of the railroad brotherhoods. Gilson Willets. Yale Law Journal. 5 : 13-26. O. '94. Legal restraint of labor strikes. William P. Aiken. Government Publications Bulletin of the Bureau of Labor. 9: 1097-1117. No. 54. S. '04. Strikes and lockouts in the United States, 1881-1900. G. W. W. Hanger. ''"Congressional Record. 59:1057-63 (of daily record). Ja. 5, '20. Letter from Samuel Gompers and a reply by Senator Charles S. Thomas. Monthly Review of the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Various articles on strikes and lockouts in the United States and in foreign countries. Report, Commission on Industrial Relations. Report of the Industrial Commission. 1900-2. Report on the anthracite coal strike. (May-Oct. 1902). 1903. Report on the Chicago strike of June- July 1894. ♦Twenty-first Annual Report of the Commissioner of labor. Strikes and lockouts. 1906. The 3rd, loth, i6th, and 21st Annual reports of the Commissioner of Labor were devoted to strikes and lockouts. While the latter volume is for the years igox-ipos, it contains a summary of the entire period under investigation, 1881-1905. It also contains a chapter on strikes and lockouts in foreign countries and one on the laws of the variouB states relating to strikes, blacklisting, boycott, etc. ""United States. Shipping Board. Statement on the cost of strikes, December 6, 1919. COMPULSORY ARBITRATION AND COMPULSORY INVESTIGATION OF INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES INTRODUCTION President McKinley once said that so long as there have been Capital and Labor, there have been strikes. In recent years, as Capital and Labor have become better organized and more centralized and as industry has developed and life become more complex, strikes have frequently been greater in extent, involving more workmen and causing greater loss to both Capital and Labor and greater inconvenience and suf- fering to the general public. More than this, the oflScial sta- tistics compiled at Washington show that strikes and lock- outs are increasing. The Twenty First Annual Report of the United States Commissioner of Labor (p. 85) says that voluntary arbitration has resulted in the settlement of only 1.6 per cent of the strikes and 2.3 per cent of the lockouts between 1901 and 1905 inclusive. When boards of voluntary arbitration have offered their services to adjust differences between Capital and Labor, they have frequently received no more satisfaction than to learn that one party or the other either had "'nothing to arbitrate," or considered their dif- ferences "a well established principle of human welfare, a principle that cannot be disputed and therefore is not prop- erly a matter for arbitration." Sometimes such boards have been further enlightened by being informed that this position did not mean that the party in question had "rejected the principle of arbitration." The year and a half that have elapsed since the close of the world war have been a period of great industrial unrest, world wide in extent. In Europe, America, Australia, Japan and elsewhere, there have been industrial wars and rumors 2 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF of war, strikes and threats of strikes. In thi? country there has been, as Senator Thomas said, a "perfect carnival of strikes," some extensive in scope, such as that of the coal miners and the steel workers, and some that were smaller but have caused very great inconvenience to the people of the community concerned, such as strikes of the street car men, drug clerks, telephone operators and elevator operators. Some strikes have effected the country at large though com- paratively few men went out, as was the case of the railroad switchmen, the expressmen, the New York printers, and the longshoremen. There have been some unusual strikes, such as that of the actors in New York City, of the clerks in the Chicago City Hall, of the Policemen in Boston and Cincinnati, and of the City Firemen in several cities. There have been sympathetic strikes, general strikes and outlaw strikes. In England there was a serious railroad strike, in Spain a medical strike, in France and Italy a general strike, and in • Japan several strikes in true western style, with riots and sabotage. So great are the losses and inconveniences resulting from industrial warfare, so bitter are the animosities it engenders, and so serious the element of uncertainty it injects into busi- ness, that scholars and statesmen have long sought a more efficient remedy than mediation, conciliation and voluntary arbitration. In 1894 New Zealand adopted compulsory in- dustrial arbitration as a result of the strike of the Seamen's Union which disorganized the trade of the islands. This law applies only to registered unions, and there is no penalty for failing to register, but among the registered unions, both during a hearing by a Council of Conciliation or a Court of Arbitration, and after an award of agreement has been made, strikes and lockouts are illegal and may be punished by a fine. Even a gift of money to help the strikers is prohibited and is punishable in the same way. The system was soon afterwards adopted in the Commonwealth of Australia and in several of the individual states of that Commonwealth. At first it worked with a considerable measure of success in both countries, though it is true that the laws have been frequently amended and that the later results seem much less favorable than those of the earlier years. The Dominion of Canada under the leadership of Hon. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 3 William L. Mackenzie King, adopted the "Industrial Disputes Investigation Act" in 1907, after a prolonged coal strike had seriously interfered with industry and public comfort and had directed attention to the evils of industrial warfare. Although this law is entitled "An Act to aid in the Prevention and Settle- ment of Strikes and Lockouts in Mines and Industries con- nected with Public Utilities", and although many of its advo- cates are always emphatic in stating that it is not compulsory arbitration, the act provides that a strike or lockout in the in- dustries within its scope shall be illegal until the dispute has been investigated and reported upon by an official board ap- pointed for the purpose. This law, therefore, ought to be called the "Compulsory Delay, Investigation, and Publicity Act," but this system is usually referred to "Compulsory Investigation" as distinguished from Compulsory Arbitration, Some of the op- ponents of the law in Canada call it the "Parade Act," because of its publicity features. The Canadian Industrial Disputes Investigation Act applies only to mines and public utilities, including railways and ship- ping, but other industries may be brought within its scope by agreement of both parties to the dispute. Unlike the New Zealand law, the awards are not binding upon either party, nor is a strike or lockout illegal after the findings of the board have been published, the law leaving it to public opinion to enforce the awards. In 1910 Denmark adopted a limited form of Compulsory Arbitration similar to the New Zealand system. In the same year a similar bill was introduced in Norway. This bill was changed to provide the Canadian form of Compulsory Investi- gatiori and was adopted in 1915. The next year, however, a bill providing lor a limited form of the New Zealand system was adopted by Norway, but it also contained the provision that it should last only as long as the European war. The Canadian plan of Compulsory Investigation was adopted by the State of Colorado in 1915. The Canadian system was also adopted in New Zealand in 1913 to apply only to the unions which were not registered and therefore did not come under the Compul- sory Arbitration Law of 1894. In 1917 the New Zealand sys- tem was adopted in France by a decree of the Minister of Muni- tions but it applies only to those establishments that are en- gaged in the manufacture of "armaments, munitions, and war materials." 4 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF In 'January 1920 the Legislature of Kansas in special session adopted the recommendation of Governor Allen and passed the first Compulsory Industrial Arbitration law in America, creating a state Court of Industrial Relations composed of three judges appointed by the governor. The law does not cover all indus- trial disputes, but applies only to those industries declared to be "affected with a public use." Such industries include the manu- facture of food and clothing, the mining of fuel, the transporta- tion of food, clothing, and fuel, and all public utilities and com- mon carriers. The Court of Industrial Relations is given power to "settle and adjust all controversies," and may proceed upon its own initiative, or upon the complaint of either party, or of ten taxpayers, or of the Attorney General of the state. Strikes and lockouts are prohibited in industries within the scope of the act. In any case where production ceases the state may take over the industry and operate it. Any person violating the law or any order of the court may be punished by a fine of one thous- and dollars, or imprisonment in jail for one year, or both fine and imprisonment. Any officer of a corporation, employer of labor, or officer of a labor union, who uses his position to get others to violate the law or any order of the court may be fined five thousand dollars, or imprisoned in the penitentiary at hard labor for two years, or both such fine and imprisonment. In none of the above mentioned countries have strikes and lockouts been entirely prevented nor is it claimed by the advo- cates of either system that more can be done than to reduce industrial warfare to a minimum. While there is no "land without strikes," many persons believe that labor troubles have been greatly reduced under each of these systems. In Canada there were 222 strikes in industries within the scope of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act during the first ten years of the law, 204 of which were illegal. The official figures, on the other hand, show that during the first twelve years of the law, .374 applications were filed, 287 boards granted, and only 24 strikes "not averted or settled." In New Zealand there were no strikes or lockouts during the first twelve years (1894-1905) of Compulsory Industrial Ar- bitration, but there were 169 strikes and lockouts during the thirteen years that followed. While strikes have occurred in violation of all of these laws, there have been but few prosecutions for such violation. This is particularly true in Canada. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES S In the United States a law providing for voluntary arbi- tration was passed by Congress in 1888. It applied to any controversy between a railroad or other transportation com- pany engaged in interstate commerce and any class of its em- ployees which might "hinder, impede, obstruct, interrupt, or affect such transportation of property or passengers." The law provided that either party might propose in writing to submit the differences to arbitration, and if the other party should accept the proposition, each side should select one arbitrator and the two should select a third. These three persons made up the Board of Arbitration. There was also a provision that each of the arbitrators selected by the par- ties should be impartial and disinterested, but no provision was made for selecting the third arbitrator if the two failed to agree upon one. A Board, once created under this law, had power to administer oaths, subpoena witnesses, require the production of records, etc. but no provision was made for enforcing the awards. The law also provided that in any controversy, when the parties might create an Arbitration Board, the President, of his own initiative, might select two Commissioners, who, with the Commissioner of Labor, should constitute a temporary commission, with powers similiar to a Board of Arbitration, for the purpose of examin- ing the causes of the controversy. No Arbitration Board was ever created under the Act of 1888, and only one Commission, which was appointed in July 1894, a month after the beginning of the strike at the Pullman Car shops. This Commission did not settle the strikes that led to its creation, but it made a recommending for a permanent strike commission, with more drastic pow- ers of investigation and recommendation. The sympathetic railroad strike growing out of the Pullman strike was a bitter and violent industrial war that interfered with the carrying of the mail and threatened the cities with starvation. The final result was the passage of the Erdman Act, approved June 1st 1898, which superceded the act of 1888. The Erdman Act applied only to controversies between interstate carriers and those of their employes who were "actually engaged in train operation or train service.'' It provided for government mediation and conciliation if either of the parties should request it, and for arbitration if both parties requested and agreed to it in writing, each naming 6 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF an arbitrator, and these two selecting the third. This Board had power to subpoena witnesses, administer oaths, require the testimony of witnesses and production of books, papers, contracts, agreements an4 records. Its awards were to be "valid and binding" upon both parties, but no employe was to be "compelled to render personal service without his con- sent." No very serious railroad strike occurred on an interstate railroad for more than twenty years after the passage of this law and some people have concluded that the law was very successful. There was only one attempt to utilize the pro- visions of the Erdman Act during the first eight and a halt years of its existence, and this one attempt resulted in a com- plete failure. In the six years that followed the act was resorted to in about sixty cases, but in only four of these were the arbitration features of the law employed. A threatened strike of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engi- neers of the eastern railroads in 1912 was settled by arbitra- tion outside of the provisions of the Erdman Act, and the Board of Arbitration that settled the matter recommended the adoption of compulsory arbitration of the disputes be- tween railways and their employes. On July IS, 1913, the Newlands Act was adopted. This amends the Erdman Act which provided for a Board of three, one representing the employers, one of the employees, and a third chosen by these two. Under the Newlands Act the Board may consist of three or six as the interested par- ties may desire. If a Board of six is decided upon each of the parties to the controversy selects two representatives and these four select the remaining two. The Newlands Act also provides for a Board of Mediation and Conciliation, and this Board selects the neutral member or members of an Arbitration Board if the representatives of the interested parties fail to do so within five days where it is a Board of three or within fifteen days where it is to be a Board of six. If either party refuses to agree to arbitration, then the other party may apply to the Board of Mediation and Con- ciliation and in cases where an interruption of traffic is immi- nent, this Board may act on its own initiative, but in either case, it only acts as a Board of mediation and conciliation. In other words, there are no compulsory features embodied in the Newlands Act. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 7 In 1916 after a strike had been voted by the employees of the American railroads who, refusing to arbitrate the matter, had made a demand for an eight hour day without any decrease in pay which the officials of the roads had refused to grant. President Wilson in an address to Congress recommended the adoption of "A provision making illegal any railroad strike or lockout, prior to the investigation of the merits of the case," or, in other words, the adoption of the Canadian system of Com- pulsory Investigation as regards disputes between Railroad offi- cials and their employees. This recommendation the President "very earnestly renewed" in his annual address to Congress on December 5, 1916, but Congress did not enact such legislation. Congress did yield to the demands of the railway employees for an eight hour day, and passed what is known as the Adam- son Act, the constitutionality of which came before the Supreme Court in the case of Wilson vs. New, and was decided on March 19, 1917. (243 U.S 332). By vote of five to four the court held that Congress had "Authority under the circum- stances to compulsorily arbitrate the dispute between the parties by establishing as to the subject matter of that dispute a legisla- tive standard of wages operative and binding as a matter of law upon the parties, — a. power none the less efficaciously ex- erted because exercised by direct legislative act." On March i, 1920 the railroads of the country were re- turned to their owners in accordance with the provisions of the Transportation Act of 1920, (the Esch-Cummins law). The original Cummins bill as passed by the Senate in December, 1919 contained a provision for the Compulsory Arbitration of all labor disputes between the railroads and their employees, but the House of Representatives refused to concur in this provision and it was eliminated in the joint conference. The Transportation Act includes a plan for the conciliation and arbitration of labor disputes. It provides for local Adjustment Boards and a national Labor Board composed of nine members appointed by the President subject to the approval of the Sen- ate. Three members of this Board represent the railway em- ployees and are selected by the President from a list of at least six names submitted to him by the representatives of the rail- ways in such manner as the Interstate Commerce Commission may prescribe. Three represent the railway owners and are selected in a similar manner. The other three represent the public and are selected by the President without previous nom- 8 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF ination. The Labor Board deals primarily with appeals from the decisions of local Adjustment Boards, but it also has powers of original initiative. Strikes are not made illegal pending an in- vestigation by the Labor Board or an Adjustment Board, nor is any award or decision of either made obligatory on the parties. The Labor Board, however, has full power to investigate any and every dispute, to compel the attendance and testimony of witnesses, and it can examine the books and records of the parties, thus assuring full publicity. The report of the (second) Industrial Conference called by the President (March 6th 1920) gives a plan designed to reduce to a minimum the interference with industry caused by strikes and labor unrest. It declares "Prevention of Disputes is worth more than Cure," and recommends "Employe Representation" saying "Employes need an established channel of expression and an opportunity for responsible consultation on matters which affect them in their relations with their employers and their work. There must be diffused among them a better knowledge of the industry as a whole and of their own relation to its suc- cess. Employe Representation will not only enable them better to advance their own interests, but will make them more definitely conscious of their own contribution and their own responsibili- ties." The report also suggests a plan of machinery to adjust disputes in general industry by conference, conciliation, in- quiry and arbitration. The plan discards compulsory arbitration and the prohibition of strikes pending an investigation, but pro- poses a National Industrial Board, Regional Adjustment Con- ferences, and Boards of Inquiry. The worst penalty suggested is publicity, but the report does recommend that Regional Boards of Inquiry be given power to subpoena witnesses, to examine them under oath, and to require the production of books and papers. The last forty years have witnessed fundamental changes in our industrial system. During the earlier part of this period most of our basic industries were consolidated into giant cor- porations. During the latter part of the period the national and local labor unions have merged into one giant federation. The American Federation of Labor was organized in 1881 (though not taking its present name until five years later) with about a quarter of a million members. By igoo it had doubled its mem- bership, then having over a half million members. Its member- ship was tripled in the next decade, giving it over a million and INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 9 a half in 1910. Since that time it has again doubled its member- ship, reporting on April 30, 1919 a membership of over three and a quarter millions with forty-six state federations, 816 city central bodies, in national and international unions, 4nd 33,852 local unions. At the present time (May, 1920) its membership is over four million. Today both Capital and Labor are highly organized for indus- trial warfare. Both organized employers and employes have treasuries with reserve funds for war emergencies and both are fighting with propaganda. Thirty or forty years ago Capital looked with little favor upon Compulsory Arbitration, but sev- eral of the prominent labor leaders favored its adoption. Now employers are looking upon Compulsory Arbitration more favor- ably, but the leaders of organized labor in this country are al- most unanimous in their opposition both to Compulsory Ar- bitration and to Compulsory Investigation. They hold that either plan would be a violation of the rights of the working classes, that either plan takes away from labor its only weapon and leaves it unarmed to fight organized capital, and that either plan would produce a condition of involuntary servitude pro- hibited by the thirteenth amendment to the Federal Constitu- tion. They insist that the working men have a long established and well recognized "right to strike." The existence of this right was denied by representatives of four large farmers organizations in a memorial drawn up on February 11, 1920 and addressed to Congress. These organ- izations were the National Grange, the American Bureau Fed- eration, the Cotton States Board, and the Association of State Farmers' Unions. The memorial says, in part, "Those who be- lieve labor has an inherent right to organize a strike, believe that such organizations have a right to starve the people of the cities to death on the one hand, and to destroy the property of the farmers on the other. No such right has ever existed and no such right exists now. It is economically unsound and the American people can and will work out some other method for the settlement of such controversies. No set of men has ever had the moral or legal right to destroy property or cause suffer- ing by conspiring together, and the welfare of the people must ever remain superior to that of any class or group of people." A middle ground on this point is taken by Hon. Elihu Root in suggesting a policy to be embodied in the Republican National platform, according to the World's Work (39:531.) He is 10 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF quoted as saying "We should not attempt to take away the right to strike. It is labor's great protection. But we should by law limit the right to strike at the point where it comes in conflict with the communities' higher right to self protection. No man and no set of men can justly claim the right to undertake the performance of a service upon which the health and life of others depends, and then to abandon the service at will. The line between such a performance and an ordinary strike should be drawn by law." A similar statement is embodied in the "Declaration of the Cleveland Chamber of Commerce" (Survey 43: 749, Mr. 13 '20) from which we read, "The Employes' right to strike and the employers' right to lockout his employes are both secondary to the public's right to service. In essential industries, govern- ment services, and public utilities prompt settlement of disputes should be effected by the efforts of both parties. The public's right to uninterrupted service during the period of settlement is a primary consideration." The "right to strike" is denied, and compulsory arbitration is endorsed by many of our prominent scholars and statesmen. Among this number are Governor Henry J. Allen of Kansas, Ex-Gov. Joseph W. Brown of Georgia, William Allen White, Senator A. B. Cummins, and a majority of the Senators in the Sixty-sixth Congress. Compulsory Investigation has been en- dorsed by President Wilson, William J. Bryan, Hon. William L. McKenzie King, of Canada, Hon. G. D. Robertson, the Minister of Labor in Canada, and many others. Judge Curran of Kansas has said (Outlook 125 : 58) "The divine right to strike where it affects the health and welfare of the public must be relegated to the realm where the divine right of kings has been sent." There is one point upon which almost everybody seems to agree, that strikes and lockouts are a bad thing, that they cause losses to both antagonists as well as loss and suffering to inno- cent people, and are to be avoided whenever possible. While very few will defend modern industrial warfare, and weak is their attempt, yet it goes on and will go on for generations after this in spite of the fact that one United States Senator has said on the floor of the Senate [December 18, 1919] that he would give his "very soul and go down damned through all eternity" to "fix some scheme whereby men in their personal and international and industrial relations would submit to reason rather than passion." Lamab T. Beman PART I INDUSTRIAL WARFARE Aluch of the material in Part One is ex parte, the utter- ances of interested parties in the industrial conflict. It is our desire to present both sides as fully and fairly as is possible in the limited space at our command. Any debate or discussion of Compulsory Arbitration or Compulsory In- vestigation must have as a foundation a knowledge of In- dustrial Warfare. STRIKES' Definition Strikes are concerted cessations of work by wage-earners, designed to coerce their employers into compliance with their demands, during which efforts are made to keep other workmen from filling the places temporarily vacated. The improvement or the maintenance of the existing conditions of employment is the usual question at issue in strikes, though many are called to secure recognition of the unions, and many are sympathetic strikes. The public always asso- ciates strikes with trade unions, but about a third of the strikes of the last thirty years were started by men belong- ing to no labor organization. Generally labor unions later have entered the field to direct and support these strikes of the unorganized. The strikes begun by labor organizations generally find their initiative in the local unions directly involved. In many unions the vote of more than a majority of the members of the locals particularly affected is required to authorize any strike even if not local. To secure financial support from the general union treasury, strikes must have the sanction, also, of the officers of the national organization. Only in the building trades do the local union officials have the power to call strikes on their own initiative. Strikes duly authorized are generally conducted under the direction of a representative of the national union, co-operat- ing with committees of the local directly involved. Strike Benefits To the men on strike, weekly payments of a certain amount are made, and sometimes milk, clothing and grocer- ies are furnished directly. Workmen not belonging to the union, if they join in the strike, receive the same benefits as do the union members. ^ Cyclopedia of American Government, vol. 3, p. 436-8. 14 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION'OF Unions are able to pay these strike benefits because they collect funds for these emergencies in times of peace, and during strikes, unions frequently levy special assessments for their support upon the members who are employed. Contributions are also solicited from other unions and from the general public. When unions can no longer financially support a strike, it is almost sure to collapse. Strike-Breakers In most strikes employers are not content simply to close their factories. To defeat the striking workmen in their de- mands, it is necessary to show that the factory can be operated without them. This necessitates getting new work- men, either from among the unemployed, or from profes- sional strike-breakers. In large cities, agencies exist which stand ready to supply strike-breakers, and the armed guards necessary for their protection. To the strikers it is all important that their places shall not be filled by other workmen. To turn back those whom the employer has secured, the strikers institute picketing (see). Peaceful picketing is frequently effective in inducing workmen who have been secured by the employer through ignorance of the existence of a strike to turn back, sometimes by paying their transportation expenses. Violence in Strikes When peaceful methods fail to prevent the employer's filling their places, strikers resort at times to acts of violence. Non- union workmen are threatened and even assaulted, and efforts are made to destroy the employer's property. In the United States protection to employers against acts of violence has been far less efficient than in Europe. Because of the political power of the wage-earners, local officials have sometimes been un- willing to prosecute strikers who violate the law. Even where the state militia has been called in, violence has not always been checked. Upon only a few occasions have federal troops fig- ured in strikes. Because of the inadequacy of police protection, employers frequently hire armed guards to conduct workmen to and from the factory to their lodging-houses, and to protect them while INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES is at work. Sometimes these squads have been given commissions as deputy sheriffs, with power to make arrests. Sympathetic Strikes and Boycotts Workmen in the same industry by continuing to work help to defeat the men who are out on strike. Not infrequently the employer transfers a part of his orders to other factories. Sympathetic strikes in these factories are then called by the union. In a sympathetic strike, strictly speaking, the sympathis- ing union strikes to help another union, but without a direct grievance or demand of its own. The sympathetic strikes of most common occurrence take place in the building trades. The members of as many as twenty unions are frequently employed upon the same building; only through sympathetic strikes can these act together to bring work to a standstill. All told, less than five per cent of all strikes are sympathetic. Labor union men in other industries seldom give aid to strikers through sympathetic strikes. The chief manner in which they aid strikes is through their refusal to purchase from dealers the products manufactured by the employers involved in the strike and by their contributions through their unions. Al- most all trade union boycotts have been inaugurated to assist strikes, but they are of real assistance only in those industries where a considerable portion of the product is consumed by union men. How Strikes are Ended Most strikes end within a comparatively short time, many lasting but a single day. Usually some sort of an adjustment is reached between the strikers and their employer, sometimes through reference of the disputed questions to a neutral board of arbitration. More frequently the adjustment is secured through direct negotiations between the union and the employer. Quite often the employer refuses to recognize any one in the negotiations other than his own employes. If the union, how- ever, is sufficiently strong, it insists that the employer shall make a trade agreement with it, to govern the conditions of employ- ment which are to prevail in the future. Observance of such trade agreements, since they are unenforceable at law, depends upon the strength of the organization on both sides. i6 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF If the employer wins a complete victory, he refuses to recog- nize the strikers as a body, but usually re-employs most of them. The union leaders are likely not to get back their old positions, and may be prevented from getting work elsewhere. Effect of Strikes Of the strikes undertaken in the last thirty years, by trade unions, one-half have been won by laborers, and one-third by employers, the rest were compromised. A majority of the strikes not called by labor organizations, on the other hand, have been won by the employers. Strikers have always been more successful in times of prosperity than in those of depression. While demand is keen, employers can ill afford to have their factories closed, and at such times there are few unemployed to take the places of strikers. Slack times, on the other hand, make it difficult for strikers to win, for factories may be closed without much in- jury to the employers, and other workmen may easily be had. A satisfactory net balance of gains and losses sustained through strikes has never been struck. John Mitchell has computed that the average time lost through strikes does not amount to one day per year for all workmen. The net losses directly traceable to strikes are equal to three cents per year for each inhabitant of the county. That strikes make em- ployers more ready to grant the demands of the laboring men seems certain. For every advance in wages secured through strikes more than a dozen are won without them, in many cases out of fear of strikes. History of Strikes Not until the interests of the masters had become distinctly different from those of their workmen, could strikes play any real role in industry. In most industries this stage was not reached until the nineteenth century was well advanced. The first epidemic of strikes throughout the country occurred in 1827-29. Prior to 1881 about 1500 strikes are known to have taken place. Official annual statistics since 1881 show that the number of strikes has been increasing, but at a less rapid rate than has the population. Statistics show, also, that the importance of wage demands as a cause of strikes has been slowly declining. Within the INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 17 last decade the question of the recognition of the union and of union rules has been responsible for as many strikes as have disputes over wages. Strike Legislation During the first decades of the nineteenth century workmen who went out upon strikes were in some cases convicted of conspiracy to raise their wages, which was an offense in com- mon law. When juries in the thirties refused to convict, this form of prosecution for striking ceased. Not until after the Civil War, however, were statutes enacted expressly legalizing strikes. Only a few states ever adopted such laws ; and most of them applied only to strikes directly involving questions of wages or hours of labor. During the sixties most industrial states enacted laws pro- hibiting intimidation in labor controversies. In the eighties some of them made it criminal for men to participate in com- binations with the purpose primarily to injure employers or non- union workmen. At the same time few states declared boy- cotting to be a criminal offense. More recently Alabama and Colorado enacted laws making picketing illegal. On the other hand, a number of states have enacted laws declaring peaceful picketing to be lawful. Maryland, California and Oklahoma have even gone so far as to provide that acts done by labor combinations shall not be deemed criminal un- less they are unlawful when undertaken by individuals. Statute law has had, however, but a slight importance in determining the legality of the activities of strikers. Such re- strictions as it has placed upon their conduct have usually been nothing more than restatements of the common law. The few laws enacted to remove common law restrictions have been so construed by the courts as to render them almost meaning- less. Court Decisions Court decisions upon the legality of the activities of strikers have often been contradictory. As to combinations to strike, the view now accepted in perhaps the majority of jurisdictions is that their legality depends upon the objects they aim to ac- complish, and upon the means they employ to gain these ob- jects. It is an illegal object primarily to conduct strikes to in- i8 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF jure employers or non-union workmen. Illegal means are em- ployed in furthering a strike when resort is had to "intimida- tion" or "coercion." On passing upon the issue of fact, whether the aim of strikers has been primarily to advance their own interests, or to do injury to others, many courts have failed to discover the former when S33 This brief table conveys its own analysis, although it should be added that had the arrests in connection with labor conflicts been publicly reported in other cities with anything like the fullness they are in Chicago newspapers, the exposure of the appalling prevalence of violence attend- ing strikes would have been even more startling. This leads to the explanation that in gathering the above facts, I had to rely on published accounts. Experienced and trustworthy newspaper men were employed in sixteen widely separated news centers of the country to examine the files of the lead- ing newspapers of their respective sections. Where they returned "several" wounded or arrests, it has been entered for only two; and where the reports read "many" the entry has been made three. The inquiry was instituted to secure the concrete facts, if possible, and some reliable data as to the mortality through the unceasing war which labor unions have been waging in the United States during recent years. The National Bureau of Labor has told us that strikes and lockouts from 1881 to 1900, inclusive, have cost employees $306,683,223, and em- ployers $142,659,104. The Labor Associations report how many of their strikes are successful, are compromised, or fail; the numbers engaged, losses, and gains. It is estimated that the labor troubles of 1902-03 reduced the purchasing ability of the American people $1,000,000,000. Records are kept of the number of murders, suicides, and lynchings an- nually. But hitherto no well-organized attempt has been made to gather into comprehensive shape the appalling rec- ord of violence and lawlessness partially disclosed in the foregoing tables. During the period covered by my inquiry, there were no serious labor disturbances in many of the States. The con- dition in various agricultural states was well summarized in the report of my Minnesota correspondent, as follows: In this section strikes are the exception rather than the rule. What few labor disagreements arise are settled by arbitration. This is an agricultural country, and the only strikes of any importance generally re- INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 25 suit from railroad or street-car, flour-mill, or iron mine troubles. There have been no railroad or street-car strikes during this period, and the two or three little disputes in the mines brought no violence. The mill strikes last fall were reasonably orderly, only four persons being mal- treated, I could not find a single strike productive of violence in the Dakotas. Of course these states are even less industrial and more agricultural than Minnesota. My correspondent from Oregon and Washington wrote: The results of my exhaustive inquiries appear meagre because the above period was one of prosperity for our Northwest, work was easily found, and there were no racial complications. Manufacturing is com- paratively new and unimportant here, class distinctions are practically unknown, and the workers, as a rule, know their employers personally. Under such circumstances labor troubles are bound to be rather smaller and less bitter than those of the East. On the other hand, the difficulty of obtaining anything like full statistics of the violence attending strikes is indi- cated in the following extract from the report of my San Francisco correspondent, who attempted to cover California and Nevada: I regret to say that my report by no means is as complete as I hoped to make it at the outset, as I found that nothing was published with ref- erence to a large number of assaults due directly to the many strikes which have occurred here and elsewhere in this State during the period re- ferred to. Especially is this true of the country districts and the mining troubles; the reason being, apparently, that the correspondents feared to dwell upon these occurrences lest they should hurt the reputation of their town, or for personal reasons. I was also astonished to find that in many instances, even in San Francisco, the papers failed to follow up the troubles between employers and employed, and, unless reported to the police, no mention is made of the assaults. That the cold figures in the above tables do not begin to tell the whole harrowing tale of violence and outrage attending strikes during the period mentioned may be judged from the fact that in the State of Pennsylvania alone, be- tween May 1st and November 3rd, 1902, in connection with the "Peaceable strike" with which Mr. John Mitchell was more or less identified, there were: Thirty occupied dwellings dynamited. Forty trains obstructed or wrecked. Four dams and bridges dynamited. Scores of houses burned, stoned, shot into, or otherwise attacked. Unnumbered riots and assaults with clubs, stones, and other weapons. Cattle poisoned, doctors forbidden to attend the sick, ministers boy- cotted for ministering to the dying. The story of the reign of terror in the Pennsylvania an- thracite coal region during the last great strike has never been and can never be written. From beginning to end it was attended by every conceivable description and degree of human fiendishness. Malicious and criminal mischief held 26 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF carnival in many districts. Outbreaks of minor deviltry did not spare the mother bearing her infant in her arms, or innocent children on their way to school. Clergymen were notified not to bury dead non-unionists, and union men re- fused to worship at the same altar with the industrious "scab" who preferred to work rather than see his family starve. "Violence'' seems a very moderate w'ord by which to de- scribe deeds like these, which might more adequately be termed savagery. Nor must it be inferred that the industrial war as waged in Pennsylvania or Colorado has any monopoly of the bar- barity that breaks the peace of the commonwealth, defies the law, and sets man against man through every member of his family. In every section of the country like condi- tions and passions have produced like results. We have seen funerals stoned in Chicago, and graves and crematories dese- crated in San Francisco by striking unionists. It may be that violence is not necessary to the success of any strike, but the testimony of incontrovertible facts proves that violence and lawlessness in some form or other is the almost inseparable concomitant of all strikes involving large bodies of men. We hear some leaders pleading pub- licly for peace, but they and their followers know that a strike imeans a breaking off of peaceable relations and an appeal to force, which at every stage employs the terms, tactics and weapons of war in contempt of the law and in defiance of the sovereign authority of the State. A strike involving large bodies of rugged men, where the employer exercises his legal right to fill the places of the strikers, unattended by verbal and physical violence, includ- ing assaults, boycotts, ostracism, vile epithets, hanging in effigy, threats, intimidation, -stoning, slugging, shooting, de- struction of property, dynamiting, arson, assassination, mur- der, or some of these symptoms of peace-defying passions, is a rare speci&s of strike, almost as unknown as it is in- nocuous. To ask men to unite in self-sacrifice for principle, in- volving, as most strikes necessarily must, deprivation and distress to themselves and those dependant on them, and expect them to see their places filled without the resentment INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 27 that would kill the thing it hates, is to imagine men eman- cipated from the passion that sent Cain forth a fugutive on the face of the earth. A strike without violence of some sort is a barren ideality that exists only in the minds of self- deceived sentimentalists, professional agitators, and unsophis- ticated economists. Since the above was written, I have gathered the follow- ing additional statistics from the reports in the Chicago newspapers covering the three months to September 30th, 1904, which show that there has been no abatement in the violence attending labor strikes: Killed, Injured, and Arrested in Strikes in the United States During Three Months, July i to September 30, 1904. Killed Injured Arrested Non-union men 9 260 41 Union strikers 5 22 540 Officers 4 33 .... Total 18 315 581 Making a total for the two years and nine months of: Killed Injured Arrested Non-union men 125 1,626 415 Union strikers 56 173 5,699 Officers 17 167 .... Total 198 i,q66 6,114 If the returns for the last three months included in this table were anything like as comprehensive as those for the preceding two years and a half, the showing would be a still more startling contradiction of the theory that strikes can be conducted without violence or that they are so con- ducted. DYNAMITE OUTRAGE' One of the most sensational events in the history of in- dustrial labor in the United States began at Indianapolis, Ind., on April 23nd, 191 1, when John J. McNamara, secre- tary-treasurer of the International Association of Bridge and Structural Iron Workers, was arrested on a charge of mur- der in connection with the explosion that wrecked the build- ing of The Times newspaper at Los Angeles, Cal., on Oc- ^ Harper's Encyclopaedia of United States History, Vol. 3. 28 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF tober 1st, igio, when twenty-one persons were killed, and a property loss of $1,000,000 was sustained. This arrest was soon followed by that of his brother, James B. McNamara and Ortie E. McManigal; by the extradition of all three to Los Angeles; and by their indictment on May 4th following by the Grand Jury of that city. These proceedings were followed by the arrest in Indianopolis of William J. Burns, the detective who had worked up the case, and several legal representatives of Los Angeles, on a charge of having kid- napped the McNamaras and McManigal; their release on bail; the discovery of considerable quantities of dynamite stocks hidden in various places; the confession of McMani- gal, implicating the McNamaras and disclosing methods of dynamite outrages, and the pledge of ample funds for the defence of the accused. The McNamaras and many con- spicuous labor leaders declared the proceedings — so far as here outlined — the result of a conspiracy by capital against organized labor. The general public had been aware for several years of numerous mysterious wreckings of buildings, bridges, via- ducts, and other large public, private, and corporate struc- tures by dynamite but as none of the perpetrators of such outrages had been apprehended, the incidents were usually attributed to "some labor trouble," and then passed out of mind. The disclosures in the Los Angeles case, however, threw a new light on the subject, and this was intensified by the publication of a list of seventy dynamite outrages that had occurred between the summer of 1905 and mid-March, 191 1, compiled by the National Erectors' Association. Com- menting on this list the New York Times said: "Practically no part of tlie United States has been free from dyna- mite outrages during the last few years. In nearly all cases there was a careful preparation, showing that the outrages were planned and executed by men who knew their business. "Many of the outrages entailed a loss of life, and all caused consid- erable financial losses. Contractors, in some cases, have been driven into bankruptcy because of the lack of confidence in their ability to con- struct without disaster, and some contractors have been compelled to put their work in other hands. ''Planning of a professional nature has been a striking feature of all the outrages. In numerous instances clocks operating the explosives were set to cause the explosion in different parts of the country at exactly the same minute. Homes have been endangered, although in most cases the bombs failed either to explode or were found in time to prevent disaster." After spending ten weeks in the county jail at Los An- geles, John J. and James B. McNamara pleaded "not guilty" INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 29 to nineteen charges of murder on July 12th, Judge Walter Bordwell having overruled every point advanced by the de- fence for the quashing of the indictments. The task of se- lecting a jury proved a formidable one, owing to objections interposed by counsel on both sides. By the middle of No- vember 325 men had been drawn and only five accepted, and it was then believed that the jury-box would not be filled before the end of the year. In the meanwhile (October 28) Charles W. Miller, United States attorney at Indianapolis, Ind., filed a petition in the Sounty Criminal Court, charging that a conspiracy had ex- isted to unlawfully transport dynamite and nitroglycerine on passenger trains engaged in interstate commerce from that city through Indiana, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Missouri and California to Los Angeles, and asking possession of the in- criminating evidence seized by the police at the offices in that city of the International Association of Bridge and Structural Iron Workers, of which John J. McNamara was was secretary, and at other places in Indianapolis, to be used in a federal grand jury investigation. By December ist, however, Detective Burns had woven such a close net-work of evidence around the accused that on that day James B. McNamara pleaded guilty to murder in the first degree, in open court, in having placed the dyna- mite under the Times Building in Los Angeles, and his brother, John J. McNamara, pleaded guilty to having caused a similar explosion at the Llewellyn Iron Works, also in Los Angeles, from which no fatalities occurred. On Decem- ber Sth, Judge Bordwell sentenced James B. McNamara to imprisonment for life and his brother to fifteen years. In making his written confession James B. McNamara declared that on the night of September 30th, he had placed a suit- case containing sixteen sticks of 80 per cent, dynamite, set to explode at one o'clock the next morning, in Ink Alley, a portion of the Times Building; that it was his intention to injure the building and scare the owners; and that he did not intend to take the life of any one. After the sensational termination of the McNamara trial in Los Angeles the federal grand jury there, as well as that at Indianapolis, Ind., began a rigid inquiry to discover the person or persons "higher up" who had planned, sanctioned 30 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF and supplied the funds for the dynamiting operations in va- rious parts of the country. In this inquiry they were at first greatly aided by Ortie E. McManigal, who had confessed to having personally caused many explosions by direction of James B. McNamara, and later by several former employes of McNamara at his headquarters in Indianapolis, and the seizure of a large quantity of records and other evidence, be- sides many stocks of dynamite that had been secreted in out-of-the-way places. The following are brief statements from the list com- piled by the National Erectors' Association: Dynamite Outrages, 1905-1911 One of the earliest of the attacks was in the summer of 1905, when a watchman on a bridge under construction for the Central Vermont Railroad at Miller's Falls, Mass., was assaulted. The following morniug the foreman found thirteen sticks of dynamite on the bridge. The fuse had been lighted, but had become extinguished. During the same summer an engineer found dynamite in the fire-box of a hoisting engine used in the construction of the Kimberley Avenue bridge, over the West River, for the city of New Haven, Conn. An attempt was made on March 12, igo6, to dynamite the Hotel Frankfort, Cleveland, Ohio, where a number of employees of a bridge construction company were boarding. The dynamite exploded, but the wrecked part of the building was reached in time to prevent destruction by fire. Three sticks of dynamite were discovered in the firebox of a hoist- ing engine used in the construction of the Arcade Building in Cleve- land on April 2, 1906. The fuse had been attached and, tt appeared, had been lighted. An attempt was made one month later to wreck a derrick used in constructing a bridge on the Buffalo & Susquehanna Railroad. The at- tempt was frustrated. A derrick used in the construction of the Central Railroad of New Jersey was dynamited and destroyed on May 31, igo6. Dynamite was found on a derrick used in the construction of a Nickel Plate viaduct on September 2$, 1905. A time clock was found also. The infernal machine probably had been dropped from a passing train, as the package had beea broken open and the dynamite scattered. During the construction of a viaduct for the P. V. & C. Railroad, near Clairton, Penn., a derrick car was dynamited. The outrage was committed on Oct. 12, 1906. A watchman was decoyed away from the place and assaulted. Dynamite exploded under a bascule bridge over the Cuyahoga River at Whiskey Island, near Cleveland, Ohio, on Dec. 30, 1906. The damage was slight. In September, 1907, a hoisting engine, used at the plant of the American Steel and Wire Company, Cleveland, was dynamited and de- stroyed. The dynamiting was done at night. Early in the morning of Oct. 30, 1907, an attempt was made to wreck the Baltimore & Ohio bridge at Voungstown, Ohio. The dynamite exploded, but the bridge was not wrecked. Two months later dynamite was placed under a railroad bridge on the Newark Branch of the Erie Railroad, near Harrison. N. J. The dynamite damaged one of the girders and blew out thirty-six square feet of buckle plate. The damage was $2,000. Two _ tons of material which was to have been used on the Parma Road Bridge on the Cleveland Short Line was damaged to such an ex- tent on Dec. 31, 1907, that it had to be replaced. There was a loss of $500. On the same night ten tons of material for the construction of the INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 31 L. E. & P. Railroad's Mill Creek viaduct was damaged and a loss of $1,200 resulted. Several girders for the Eagle Avenue Bridge, Cleveland, were dyna- mited the night of Jan. 17, 1908, and considerable surrounding property was damaged. Thirty sticks of dynamite were found in various parts of a derrick- car used in the construction of a Chicago & Northwestern Railroad bridge over the Mississippi River at Clinton, Iowa, on February 16, igo8. Only a small part of the dynamite exploded. The damage was $2,000. A month later a derrick-car on the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railroad at Buena Park, Chicago, was dynamited. During the same month a charge of dynamite was placed on a draw- bridge at Perth Amboy, N. J., causing a $1,500 loss. A bridge near Bradshaw, Md., was damaged the same night. A hoisting crane used in the construction of the Chelsea Piers, New York, was damaged to the extent of $1,000 the night of April 5, 1908. A loss of $1,000 was caused on April 13, igo8, when dynamite waa placed under material prepared for the Philadelphia Elevated Railroad. An explosion of dynamite caused a loss of $2,000, April 26, 1908, at a bridge at Fall River, Mass. Dynamite caused a loss on May 3, ic)o8, to the Cincinnati Hamilton and Dayton Railroad's Miami River bridge at Dayton, Ohio. Much of the material had to be replaced. An attempt was made the night of May 21, igoS, to destroy a draw- bridge over the Bronx River of the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad, A watchman was assaulted and his cries caused the would-be perpetrators to flee. The men discarded a suitcase in their flight, con- taining 103 sticks of dynamite and two coils of fuse. A bridge of the same company at Baychester, N. Y.. was damaged to the extent of $1,500 early the next morning. An apparent attempt was made the night of May 24, 1908, to destroy a Baltimore & Ohio bridge at Aiken, Md. A watchman pursued a man who was loitering about the bridge, and the fugitive tripped over a guy wire. The next morning' five sticks of dynamite were found where he fell. An attempt was made»June 2, 1908, to dynamite a Baltimore & Ohio bridge at PerryviUe, Md. Four men approached the bridge, but were frightened away by a watchman, leaving dynamite behind them. The same night an explosion of dynamite wrecked a steel derrick, twisted the rear wall of a big steel building out of shape, and did other damage at Cleveland, Ohio. Fourteen sticks of dynamite, unexploded, were found later with burned fuses attached. The evening of June 15, 1908, a charge of dynamite exploded under a pile of material used in the construction of a bridge for the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad at Somerset, Mass., entailing a loss of about $1,000. Two charges of dynamite were exploded on the bridge of the Lehigh Valley Railroad at Buffalo, N. Y., the night of July 1, igo8, weakening the structure and causing a loss of $1,500. The Illinois Central Railroad bridge in Chicago was dynamited on August 6, 1908. The loss was nearly $20,000. The same night the Harrison Avenue viaduct at Louisville, Ky,, was damaged by either dynamite or nitroglycerine. Two charges of dynamite were exploded on the Eighteenth Street bridge in St. Louis, Mo., on the morning of August 9, 1908. An attempt was made on October 15, 1908, to destroy a bridge at Holyoke, Mass. Two watchmen found the burning fuse and put it out before any damage was done. A charge of dynamite wrecked a portion of a bridge at Cleveland, Ohio, on November 30, 1908. The damage was $500. Dynamite wrecked a building in Kansas City, Mo., on December 24, 1908. A loss of $500 was caused at Indiana Harbor, Ind., on March 18, 1909, when a carload of steel was dynamited. During the same month, at the same place, two packages of dynamite with a fuse attached were thrown from a Lake Shore freight train. No damage was done. The southeast side of the new opera house at Boston, Mass., was destroyed by dynamite March 27, 1909. 32 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF A part of a viaduct at Hobokcn, N. J., and considerable surround- ing property, was damaged by dynamite on March 30, 1909. Several persons had narrow escapes, five or six being injured. A derrick-car doing construction work at Kansas City, Mo,, was dynamited on April 29, 1909. The Cincinnati Southern bridge at Cincinnati was damaged by dyna- mite the next month. Another attempt was made to wreck the same bridge on May 24. 1909, two charges of dynamite being exploded. Considerable damage was done on June 7, 1909, to the New York Central Railroad's bridge across East Ferry Street, Buffalo, N. Y. A loss of $2,000 was caused by the dynamiting of material await- ing delivery June 26, 1909, for the Pennsylvania Railroad bridge at Steubenville, Ohio. The same night the Main Street viaduct at Kansas City, Mo., under construction, was dynamited. A suit-case containing gun-cotton was exploded under a pile of steel girders in the yard of the Whitehead & Kales plant at Detroit, Mich., on June 9, 1909. A third attempt to wreck the Cincinnati Southern's viaduct was made August 12, 1909. The dynamite caused $700 damage. Dynamite partly wrecked a railroad bridge in New York City, August IS, 1909. A month later dynamite destroyed a derrick used in the construction of a viaduct over the New York Central Railroad tracks at Buffalo, N. Y. Another attempt on this same viaduct was made on October 6, 1909. Four buildings under construction by Albert von Spreckelsen in In- dianapolis were damaged on October 24, 1909. The total estimated loss was $13,000. The buildings were a telephone exchange, a library build- ing, Mr. von Spreckelsen's planing-mill, and his barn. A crane bein^ used in the construction of a bridge near Cleveland, Ohio, was dynamited on Nov. 4, igop, causing a loss of $40,000. A watchman was buried under the debris and narrowly escaped death. A bomb was exploded under four cars of structural steel on a Michi- gan Southern side track in Chicago on January 22, 19 10. It is estimated that the damage was $3,000. The plant of the Pacific Coast and Lumbw Company, Oakland, Cal., was wrecked by dynamite during the summer of 1910, being the fourth time in two years. An office building being erected in Seattle, Wash., was destroyed by dynamite in September, 1910. Dynamite was used in two places in Peoria, 111., on the night of September 4, 1910. The plant of the Lucas Bridge and Iron Works was wrecked and the night watchman was injured seriously. Two car- loads of steel girders for use in a railroad bridge at Peoria were dyna- mited. A two-gallon can of nitroglycerine was found hidden in the steel girders of the new railroad bridge the next day. A time clock had been set, but the explosion was prevented by faulty electrical connec- tions. The clock had been set to discharge the nitroglycerine at the same hour the Lucas plant was destroyed. A bomb exploded at the plant of the Winslow Brothers' Company at Chicago, on September 15. 1910. The Los Angeles Times Building was destroyed on October 1, 1910. twenty-one lives being lost. The property loss was $1,000,000. This was the worst disaster due to an explosive that had been recorded. A search the ^ next day disclosed dynamite near the home of Gen. Harrison Gray Otis, owner of the "Times," and the home of the secre- tary of the Merchants' Association. In the summer of 19 10, dynamite was exploded in a new church structure at Clinton, Ind., and the building wrecked. Shortly before a bridge at the place was wrecked by dynamite. On March 20, i9iit dynamite was exploded beneath a new wing of a hotel under construction at French Lick, Ind. Early in the morning of March 24, 191 1, dynamite exploded in the basement of the new court-house at Omaha, Neb., causing a large loss. The same night the office of the Caldwell & Drake Manufacturing Company at Columbus. Ind., were dynamited and destroyed. The plant was not damaged. The Omaha court-house was built by the Columbus concern. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 33 Ore conveyors of Pickands & Mather of North Randall, Ohio, were totally destroyed by dynamite on March 25, ipii. St. Peter's Street (South Bend, Ind.) viaduct was dynamited on April 2, igti. The same day an attempt 'to wreck Grand Trunk Bridge across St. Joseph River was thwarted. The Springfield (Mass.) muncipal building, in course of construction, was damaged by two dynamite explosions on April 4, 19 11. The Westchester & Boston Railway viaduct at Mount Vernon, N. Y., was wrecked by dynamite on September 3, igii. The new Lyon County court-house in Yerington, Nev., built of re- inforced concrete, was damaged beyond repair by a dynamite explosion, December j8, 1911. THE BOYCOTT A boycott in labor disputes may be defined as a combi- nation of workmen to cease all dealings with another, an employer or, at times, a fellow worker, and, usually, also to induce or to coerce third parties to cease such dealings, the purpose being to persuade or to force such other to com- ply with some demand or to punish him for non-compliance in the past. The boycott may be divided into the primary, the second- ary, and the compound boycotts. A primary boycott, an unimportant form, may be defined as a simple combination of persons to suspend dealings with a party obnoxious to them, involving no attempt to persuade or to coerce third persons to suspend dealings also. A secondary boycott consists of a combination of work- men to induce or persuade third parties to suspend business relations with those against whom they have a grievance. A compound boycott appears when the workmen use co- ercive and intimidating measures in preventing third parties from dealing with the boycotted firms. Compound boycotts are of two kinds: those involving threats or pecuniary injury and those involving threats of actual physical force and violence. The primary, secondary and compound forms of the boy- cott may be directed against a fellow workman or against an employer of labor. If directed against a workman, it is sometimes called a labor boycott. In enforcing a boycott, effort is sometimes made to induce or coerce customers to withdraw patronage from the "unfair" employer; sometimes to induce or coerce sellers to cease supplying an "unfair" ^American Labor Year Book, igifi. p. 84-5. Bv Harry W. Laidler. 34 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF employer with needed material; sometimes to induce or co- erce employes to quit work. The last named form is known in law as a labor boycott. Five states prohibit boycotting by name. Thirty-three ■■tate.s make illegal one or more forms under statutes relating to conspiracy, coercion, intimidation, interference with em- ployment, and enticing employes. The common law decisions in the states have generally held the primary boycotts legal. As nearly as can be ascer- tained, the highest courts have flatly decided against second- ary or compounding boycotting in some fourteen states. In two states labor boycotts only have been condemned. The cases among others in which boycotting has been declared legal are: Lindsay Co. vs. Montana Federation of Labor (Montana 1908) 96 Pac. 127; Parkinson and Co. vs. Buildings Trades Council (California 1908) 98 Pac. 1027; Pierce vs. Stablemen's Union (California 1909) 103 Pac. 324; National Protective Association vs. Cummings (New York 1902) 63 N. E. 369; and Mills vs. U. S. Printing Co. (New York 1904) 99 App. Div. 605. INTIMIDATION AND DEPORTATION* In the early spring of 1917 a number of small strikes oc- curred among the loggers of Idaho and eastern Washington. These strikes were repeated until about the first of June. Two thirds of the lumber workers of Idaho, Montana, and eastern Washington were out and the strike had spread to the eastern slope of the Cascades in Washington. It was at this time that a series of persecutions started which continued throughout the war. Two Camps of the third Oregon Infantry were sent to Cle Eum and they rounded up all the pickets, threw them into the stockade at Ellensburg, Wash., where they were held for months without charges being placed against them. Soldiers were sent to many points in Washington and Idaho where the same thing occurred. In the meantime the strike had spread into the rich timber belt of Puget Sound and by July IS, 1917 fifty thousand lumber workers were on strike, 1 Extract from an article by Peter Stone. Acting Secretary-Treasurer of the 1, W. W. in The American Labor Year Book, 1919-1920, p. 191-2. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 3S their demands being a basic eight hour day and sanitary camp conditions. On June 12, 1917 fourteen thousand miners in the city of Butte, Mont., went on strike following the loss of two hundred sixty lives in a fire in the Speculator mine. The strike was principally for the abolition of the blacklist and for union control of safety appliances underground. This strike was called and conducted jointly by the I. W. W. and the Inde- pendent Miners' Union of that city. The strike was, however, taken up by the I. W. W. miners in Arizona, where twenty-four thousand miners went out. On July 10 nearly a hundred miners in Jerome, Ariz., were taken from their homes early in the morning by the so-called Loyalty League. They were loaded on cattle cars. The train was headed towards ^ California, but was turned back at the state line by the officials of that state. The men were then taken to Prescott, Ariz., where they were held in jail for three weeks before they were released. At Bisbee, Ariz., at five o'clock in the morning of July 12, two thousand company officials, gunmen, business men etc., armed with rifles, similarly dragged twelve hundred strikers and their sympathizers from their beds and compelled them to march miles to Lowell and neighboring towns. They were finally coralled into a ball park at Lowell, until a train of cattle cars was made up. The miners were forced into the cars amid rioting, in which one man, a striker, was killed. The train was sent through the desert and finally taken charge of by the United States soldiers encamped at Columbus, N. M. Here they stayed for three months, being furnished army ra- tions, waiting for the government to give them protection in returning to Bisbee. This the government steadfastly refused to do, and finally, when the army rations were cut off, the camp broken up. Some of the men drifted back to Bisbee where they were promtly arrested. Others scattered to different parts of the country. STRIKE-BREAKING ' The most recent institution for meeting the exigencies of modem industrial life is an establishment concerned in strike- >New Encyclopaedia of Social Reform, p. 1167. 36 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF breaking. This is an agency which provides men to factories, street-car lines, etc., the employees of which have gone on strike. The strike-breakers are not a hoodlum class, neither are they men looking for excitement or occasional work; but a set of picked men, each skilled in a particular line of work. The agency has about 225,000 men on its lists in different trades throughout the United States. The handling of such an army of workmen and their proper placing at times of need re- quires system. Candidates, in order to get their names on the list, must pass a rigorous examination as to character and physical and professional fitness. A corps of twenty-three men is detailed to examine candidates. When a strike is impending or has been declared, this agency is notified by the employers, and it con- tracts to supply a sufficient number of skilled men to take the place of the strikers, and then selects its men, each of whom must sign an agreement to keep at work on the new job at least thirty days. Traveling expenses in addition to good wages are paid by the agency. The agency maintains a commissary and a quartermaster's department to feed and house the strike- breakers, and is able to fill the strikers' places within a very short time. Strike-breakers are, however, frequently exposed to violence on the part of the strikers and their friends. A department of protection has been formed by the agency to provide adequate protection for its men. The head of this department is in touch with sheriffs and police officials all over the country. His men, numbering between 500 and 600, are sworn in as special deputies on each occasion so as to have a legal standing; they are under military discipline and must pass an examination equivalent to that for the police department of New York. While the department of protection is well organized and reckless or irresponsible men are kept out, it is nevertheless a reflection on the city, state or county to have need of this private army of detectives or deputies for the protection of private or corporate property. The agency has succeeded well in breaking strikes, and has attained large financial success. But it is open to the same objection as the Pinkertons (q.v.) and other private semimilitary organizations within the state having the privileges but not the responsibilities of public of- ficials. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 37 THE PINKERTON AGENCY AND LABOR STRUGGLES ' In 1852 Allan G. Pinkerton, a Scotchman, involved in the Chartist outbreak in Birmingham, emigrated to the United States, and here, having from love of adventure secured the arrest of a band of counterfeiters, established in Chicago a detective agency. His agency was successful, and during the War of the Rebellion, Mr. Pinkerton superintended the secret service of the army. When the industrial conditions of the country led to violence and strikes, Pinkerton organized a body of armed men who were hired to protect the property of the employers. Later, in the labor troubles in Pennsylvania, Pink- erton's Agency was employed against the Molly Maguires, a secret society founded in the coal-mining section of Pennsyl- vania, which was exposed chiefly through the instrumentality of James McParlan, a detective, and Franklin B. Gowan, Presi- dent of the Pennsylvania & Reading Coal & Iron Company. Henceforth the Pinkerton Agency was employed more and more by employers to defend their works from threatened violence on the part of mobs in connection with strikes. They became bitterly hated by working men. The working men claim that the Pinkertons do more than protect the property of their employers. They claim that the agency goes into the slums of the great cities, hires desperadoes and men of the worst character, swears them in as special detectives, and then sends them not only to protect the property of employers, but to incense the populace and provoke it to violence, then firing upon the populace on the least provocation. The working men claim that the Pinkertons create more evil than they allay. Stories are circulated of the Pinkertons secretly doing violence themselves, laying it to working men, and then firing on them. In the great Homestead strike Pinkertons in large numbers and armed with rifles were brought to Homestead, the working men rising and repulsing them as they would an invading army. Working men claim that the duty of protecting property should be left to the police; that if these are not sufficient, the army should be called in, but that bodies of reckless armed private mercenaries should not be allowed to fire on citizens. As a • New Encyclopedia of Social Reform, p. 896-7. 38 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF result of this popular feeling, Congress appointed a committee to investigate into the employment of such private armed bodies of men, and some states passed bills forbidding such employ- ment. Nevertheless, the Pinkerton and other agencies are con- tinually employed in times of strikes, and the former is said to have been particularly active in the Colorado labor struggles. During the Haywood trial (June 1907) attempts were made By labor agitators to charge the Pinkerton agents with foment- ing strife among and violence on the part of the Western Federation of Miners. A number of letters from operatives in the pay of the Pinkerton agency were placed in evidence in court, which, however, proved nothing more than spjfing on the part of these men. The letters were obtained and placed before the court on behalf of the defense by Morris Fried- man, a young Hebrew-American, who testified that he had been stenographer to McParland, the manager of the Denver agency, and admitted that he had taken many letters from that office, without asking anybody's permission, for use at the "proper time and place, as I have done." These letters, together with other evidence, were, however, stricken out and withdrawn from the jury in the Haywood trial (1907) as soon as the defense rested without making the necessary connection to make them material. Friedman admitted having written a book based on his observations in the Pinkerton office under the title "The Pinkerton Labor Spy." The publishers of this work in their preface state that they "recognize the Pinkerton agency as an indispensable instrument to the capitalist class in the great and unceasing struggle with labor." (For a complete statement of this phase, and a statement of contrary views, see article Western Federation of Miners in New Encyclopedia of Social Reform.) The assertion that Pinkerton agents have been engaged in espionage in the interests of capitalists has not been denied, and the practice concerns this work, therefore, only in its re- lations to society. The Pinkertons were responsible for the disbanding of the "Molly Maguires" ; for the capture of a gang of thieves who had robbed the Adams Express Company safe of $700,000 on a New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad train (Jan. 6, 1866), and in dispersing a body of murderers who had terrorized the State of Indiana for a number of years. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 39 Why do private corporations employ private detective agencies instead of calling upon the police of the municipal- ities and the constabulary of the states? Is it from choice or from necessity? Why do, moreover, the government of the United States, the governors of the states, and the mayors of the cities in this country permit such agencies to exist? Other civilized countries do not permit private police agencies to inter- fere with the state agencies of public safety. Why, then, has such a condition arisen in this country? There can be only one answer to these questions. The inade- quacy and the inefficiency of our police force — taking this work in its widest sense, as implying all agencies that have to do with the prevention and detection of crime, the maintenance of pub- lic safety, and the protection of life and property. This inef- ficiency may be due to one or all of three causes: (l) Paucity of numbers in the force; (2) intellectual deficiency of the men employed; (3) lack of integrity. THE RIGHT TO STRIKE ' What is the right of strike? If it means the right of men to quit private employment individually or collectively every one will concede it. No man can be made to work against his will in free America, except he becomes a vagrant or a convict. But the right to quit work essentially involves the correspond- ing right to continue at work, and one is just as sacred as the other. Government should not deny or diminish either. It should, if need be, sustain men in the exercise of both. Upon this proposition I think we agree. But beyond this point the divergence begins. The mere right to quit working does not define the organized wage earner's conception of a strike. That is purely negative and ac- complishes nothing. What he understands and what he has been taught to understand by his leaders, by political parties, and candidates anxious for his vote, is that the strike is a weapon which he has the right to wield offensively or defen- sively in order to effectuate the purpose for which he invokes it. He may, in pursuance of it, disregard contracts, compel others to strike, prevent others from taking his place and con- 1 Extract from a letter of Senator Charles S. Thomas to Samuel Gompers, Congressional Record, December 2, 19 19. 40 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF tinuing operation; he may destroy property and terrorize com- munities if by doing these things or any of them he may ac- complish his object, even though it may rise to the dignity of a conspiracy against trade. He does not, it is true, openly avow his right to go so far as this, but in practice they feature every prolonged strike of any magnitude. The word itself implies force; violence lurks within it. Aggression is its synonym. Henry George, himself a trade- unionist than whom labor had no better friend nor abler cham- pion, thus characterized the strike in a letter to Pope Leo XIII : "Aiming at the restrictions of competition — the limitation of the right tp labor — its methods are like those of the army, which even in a righteous cause are subversive of liberty and liable to abuse while its weapon, the strike, is destructive in its nature both to combatants and noncombatants * ** * Labor associations^ can do nothing to raise wages but by force. It may be force applied passively or force applied actively or force held in reserve, but it must be force. They must coerce or hold the power to coerce employers; they must coerce those among their own members disposed to straggle; they must do their best to get into their hands the whole field of labor they seek to occupy, and to force other workmen either to join them or to starve." * * * We judge the strike by what we know it to be in practice. There it is war against competition. Woe to the man or the men who would take the place of the strikers. Quoting again from Henry George : "They must do their best to starve workmen who do not join them; they must by all means in their power force back the scab as a soldier in battle must shoot down his mother's son, if in the opposing ranks, a fellow creature seeking work, a fellow creature, in all probability more pressed and starved than those who bitterly denounce him and often with the hungry, pleading faces of wife and child behind him. And in so far as they succeed, what is it that trades, guilds and unions do but to impose more restriction on natural rights; to create "trusts" in labor to add to privileged classes other somewhat privileged classes: to press the weaker to the wall." Mr. Foster says they must be "exterminated like vermin." We must not too severely denounce this policy, for it is the inexorable consequence of the denial to the citizen of the right to work when and as he will whether he affiliates with his fellows or not. The source of our present difficulties is the failure of government to recognize and to vindicate this funda- mental right, which no man of intelligence has ever publicly challenged, but to which all men have long been callously in- different. This is the real menace of the coal strike, and is the element which invokes the interference of the government. The miners may refuse to work and be within their constitutional rights ; but while they so refuse, few men dare to continue mining and INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 41 fewer to enter that field, however dire the necessity for fuel, because of the certain danger involved. They are sure to en- counter the power of the national organization, to be expressed in terms of boycott, violence, assault, and murder. Without the protection of their government, the industry is suspended. It is a basic one, and that spells the ultimate suspension of all dependent mdustries. Idleness, nonproduction, food and fuel scarcity, suffering, starvation, riot, lawlessness, and demoraliza- tion. Nation wide in extent are the inevitable consequences. These affect us all, everywhere. It has become the nation's business. It is its most insistent business. It will be effectu- ally attended to whatever the cost and however we may differ regarding congressional discussion and department assurances. Meanwhile all, I trust, will perceive in the pending strike the futility of industrial warfare. It is expensive, destructive, estranging. Only by recognizing our reciprocal rights, duties, and obligations, and the essential of every element of society and economics to the whole, by the acknowledgment of our mutual dependence and its resulting sympathy, by the humane and cordial cooperation of employer, employee, manager, farmer, capitalist, and ruler for the common good can we solve the unhappy and deep-seated problems now surrounding us and maintain our high position in the civilized world. When pas- sion, class antagonisms, and selfishness give way to the convic- tion that industrial war, whatever the immediate result, means mutual disaster, the sober common sense and enlightened judg- ment of the common people will peacefully but effectually solve our difficulties and tide us over all domestic crises. Civilization is not a creation but an evolution. It is the fruit of spontaneous cooperation continuing through centuries. Vio- lence can destroy but can not promote it. Thrift and produc- tion are its corner stones. I trust the minds and consciences of all men many swiftly perceive these fundamental truthsj com- pose their differences, and begin the old life anew. MR. GOMPERS' REPLY ^ You ask : What is the right of a strike? If it means the right of men to quit private employment individually or collectively, everyone will concede it. No man can be made to work against his will in free America except he becomes a vagrant or convict. ' Extract from the letter of Samuel Gompers to Senator Charln S. Thomas, Congressional Record, January 5, 1920. 42 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF Very true. That is what labor contends. Then why are the miners pilloried as enemies of government. Why are they de- clared disloyal because they struck. You add: But the right to quit work essentially involves the corresponding right to continue at work, and one is just as sacred as the other. Certainly. That right is possessed by the workers. Free men can work or quit work for any reason or no reason. No one can control their labor except themselves, for it is not a com- modity. It is a part of their very being. Therefore the "right" to work or not to work is inherent in the workers themselves. But the idea seems to be arbitralily to take away this natural right by acting as if the labor of a human being is a com- modity or an article of commerce. In the attitude of labor in peace and in war in March, 191 7, previously referred to, this was incorporated: We maintain that it is the fundamental step in preparedness for the Nation to set its own house in order and to establish at home justice in relations between men. Previous wars, for whatever purpose waged, developed new opportunities for exploiting wage earners. Not only was there failure to recognize the necessity for protecting rights of workers that they might give that whole-hearted service to the country that can come only when every citizen enjoys rights, freedom, and opportunity, but under guise of national necessity labor was stripped of its means of defense against enemies at home and was robbed of the advantages, the protections, the guaranties of justice, that had been achieved after ages of struggle. For these reasons workers have felt that no matter what the result of war, as wage earners they generally lost. Does it not appear now that the autocratic methods used dur- ing the war and accepted by the workers as a means to win the conflict are now to be continued in the interest of the em- ployers? It is not fair. It is not right. Can such a policy be defended by honest men? You state that "civilization is not a creation but an evolu- tion." More than 2,500 years ago the workers had tlieir trade- unions. They were called collegias, and when permitted by law their activities were confined to sick and burial benefits. Wherever these collegias existed the enlightenment of the people was the greatest. For their ethics were adopted by the people as a whole. Members of these collegias 500 5 ears before the Christian era declared, among other things, for the principle of one wife. Since trade-unions were first formed they have sought the economic advancement of humanity. They were the pioneers in America in demanding compulsory education. Their efforts INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 43 brought safety, sanitary, and health legislation. Their every aspiration has been to bring happiness into the home. In order to make plain the position of the American Federation of Labor to the whole people, a few extracts from the proceedings of conventions will not be out of place. They are — In 1887 it was declared: The opportunities of the American Federation of Labor are that it may become a grand and powerful^ organization, fulfilling its great mia- sion to bring the working people into the various organizations of the trades, to assist in the amelioration of their conditions, to raise mankind to a higher level, aspiring to a nobler civilization. In 1888 this declaration was made: The beneiit the American Federation of Labor has been in the period of its existence to the toiling masses of our country is more, prooably, than will be told before generations to come. There is scarcely a divi- sion of thought upon the question that the workers, being the pro- ducers of all the wealth of the world, should at least enjoy more of the results of their toil. On every hand we see fortunes amassing, elegant mansions and immense business houses rearing; we see the intricate machinery in its rotary motions the genius of man, all applied to the production of the wealth of the world; and yet in the face of this thousands of our poor, helpless brothers and sisters, strong, able-bodied, willing to woi'k, unable to find it, hungry and emaciated, without suffi- cient to properly nourish the body or to maintain the mental balance. On the other hand, others bent by their long-continued drudgery and unrequitted toil. While these wrongs have been upon the body politic from ages gone by, we can yet trace the improvements in the condition of the people by reason of our various organizations. Wherever the working people have manifested their desire for improvement by or- ganization there, as with a magic wand, improvement has taken place. Wherever the working people are the poorest, most degraded, and miserable, there can we find the greatest lack of organization; and in the same degree as the basis of organization is improved, there can we see the greatest improvement in the material, and social condition of the people. In 1902 the convention declared: This session of the American Federation of Labor marks an episode in the progress of enlightenment unparalleled in the world's history. We meet in solid phalanx, regardless of creed, regardless of dogma; with national pride but without international prejudice. The world is our field of action, and man is our brother. We not only proclaim, under the unsullied and untarnished banner of trade unionism, but live the principles of liberty, equality, fraternity, and justice. Ours is an affiliation of men of like interests and of kindred spirit. It is the nat- ural growth of a sentiment for unity that binds and seals the compact for harmony, fidelity, and fellowship. Our cause demands that there is no worker so deep down in the abyss of misery and despair that we dare refuse to extend a helping hand in his uplifting; that there is no high pinnacle of grandeur to which the toiling masses should not aspire to attain. The trade unions are of, by, and for the wage-workers primarily, but there is no effort which we in our movement can make but what will have its beneficent salutary influence upon all our people. The misery of the past, the struggles of the present, and the duty of the future, demand that no effort be left untried, that all energy be exercised and opportunity taken advantage of to organize the toilers of our country upon the broad platform of the trade union, in full affiliation with the American Federation of Labor. The dim, dismal past, with all its pain and travail, must give way to the better *und brighter future for which the workers have borne the burdens and made the sacrifices that the people of our time, and for all time, may be truly free. 44 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF In 1906 it was said: Who can estimate or even dream of the benefits that have accrued to the working people through the efforts of the trade-union movement as embodied in the American i'ederation of Labor? What has it brought in the way of better homes, better food, a less number of children of our members in the factory, mill, or shop? A wider, better, more en- joyable, and comfortable life. Who will or can measure the work of the trade-union, either in the world of industry, in our social surround- ings, or in moral growth ? To have seen a part of this work and accom- plishments should nerve us to still greater efforts to the future. In 1910 it was declared : Organized labor contends for the improvements of the standard of life, to uproot ignorance and foster education, to instill character and manhood and indeiJendent spirit among our people, to bring about a recognition of the interdependence of the modern life of man and his fellow man. It aims to establish a normal workday, take the children from the factory and the workshop and place them in the school,^ the home, and the playground. In a word, the unions of labor, recognizing the duty of toil, strive to educate their members, to make their homes more cheerful in every way, to contribute an earnest effort toward mak- ing life the better worth living, to avail their members of their rights as citizens, and to bear the duties and responsibilities and perform the obligations they owe to our country and our fellow men. Labor con- tends that in every effort to achieve its praiseworthy ends all honor- able and lawful means are not only commendable but should receive the sympathetic support of every right-thinking, progressive man. But the assertion made by you that "violence can destroy but can not promote civilization" can best be answered by refer- ring to a few of the incidents of violence that have benefited and encouraged civilization. Did not the Crusaders encourage Christianity? Did not the French Revolution advance civiliza- tion by leaps and bounds? Did not the Civil War free the slaves in the United States? This was violence in the extreme. In labor strikes there sometimes is violence. But it is not premeditated nor committed with the consent of the trade- unions. There is always more or less violence between indi- viduals, whether strikes are in progress or there is industrial peace. Did not the Great War decide that men and governments should be free to work out their own destiny in a lawful way? Did not its outcome make for civilization? While we still feel its effects and the people have not been restored to their normal state of civilization, they will be advanced many years at a jump because of it. Man is combative, and yet you must know that there is no factor in all our country so potent to decrease or prevent vio- lence as the much misunderstood and misrepresented organized labor movement of America. A greater crowd will follow a INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 45 prize fighter through the streets than will gather to see a public official or man of gfreat learning. Individual passions will find vent no matter whether there are strikes or industrial peace. Men who have led restrained lives can not realize the effect of red blood in healthy, energetic workingmen. Some men would rather fight than eat. When war comes the pacifists are not found among their numbers. It was to the credit of the United States that in the Great War the young men of our country were fighters. Take the right to fight for what is good away from our people and we will become a nation of pacifists. Look at China, a nation of pacifists. There are no strikes in China. Wages are very low, as they are fixed to suit the employer. The worker has nothing to say about them. Labor men find that in most cases those who oppose the activities of the trade-unions do not appreciate that the worker is just as anxious for a better economic life as any other citizen who may or may not have to work. Only those who have worked in the mines know the hard- ships endured by the miners. I would venture to say that if each Senator of the United States would become a miner for a year he would not only come out strongly in favor of their strikes, but would place the blame for the walkout where it belonged — on the coal operators. WHAT STRIKES HAVE COST THE MINERS' Mr. Andrew Carnegie, who seems hungry for world-wide peace, might well devote a few of his millions to the promotion of industrial peace at home, suggests the Des Moines Register and Leader, calling attention to the published figures showing that in the past eleven years the United Mine Workers of America have paid over $8,000,000 in strike benefits. This "amazing aggregate," vouched for by no less an authority than Mr. Thomas L. Lewis, who recently retired from the presidency of the Mine Workers, "represents only a small portion of the cost of miners' strikes," continues the Des Moines paper; "the loss to industry amounts to vastly more than that, and the loss to the country at large is beyond computation." It was in ad- 1 Literary Digest. 42:295-6. February 18, igii. 46 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF vising his associates against continuing a pending strike, notes the Augusta Chronicle, that President Lewis reminded them of the large cost of former troubles. These are his figures : 1900 $144,462.50 igol 202,202.71 1902 i,834>5o6.S3 1903 301,922.44 1904 if06s.43S.47 1905 753,626.02 1906 8as,S99'92 1907 105.045-57 1908 744,897.19 1909 600,267.39 1910 1,532,020.42 Total $8,089,986. 16 These sums were contributed from their daily wages by miners who were working, to support others who were on strike, The Chronicle reminds us, and it goes on to say a word about the cost and profit of strikes : "The miners have gained concessions, consisting in increased wages and improved conditions, during the past ten years, by striking. It is probable that they have gained more than has any other class of or- fanized labor by that process, but it would be interesting to know just ow the concessions uey have gained check against the cost of the methods used in gaining them. It would probably be found that the strikers paid pretty dearly for what they got. "The outlay in strike benetfis does not include the loss in time and wages, the suffering and hardships, the long periods of idleness, fre- quently in midwinter, endured by the miners, most of whom are very poor. Strikes as a rule are unprofitable. Most of the unions have abandoned them, except as last resorts, and investigation would perhaps demonstrate the fact that the United Mine Workers, noted for their big and lengthy strikes, have obtained more through negotiation than through strikes. "This is true with nearly every body of workmen. They have found strikes to be very expensive affairs, and diplomacy much less expensie and far more effective." THE STRIKE BALANCE SHEET' There can be no authentic statement of the moral and economic profits and losses of the strikers and the public in the present unusual strike epidemic, and more's the pity. Some things might be settled once for all if unions, lawmakers, courts and all concerned could be confronted with the necessity of showing the soundness and utility of their policies, or going into bankruptcy, like insolvents among partnerships and cor- porations. It is practicable, however, to put together the profits and losses of individual strikes and to ask whether they pay. ^ New York Times, April 18, 1920. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 47 Governor Allen says that in thirty-three months there was an average of eleven strikes a month in Kansas. The miners lost wages of $1,800,000 and expended $157,000 in union dues and fines. The credit against this debit was $778.84. Only the details are new. It is an old record that the strike method of righting labor's wrongs is financially expensive, but there is a moral credit on the public's balance sheet, through the es- tablishment of a method of arriving at justice in industrial re- lations which never could have been had if the miners had not put themselves so helplessly in the wrong. The Kansas strikers demanded recognition for themselves, but refused to recognize the industrial court of the state, because, they said, it "was founded to enslave the workingman." The first decision of this court was to order an advance of wages of 7J4 cents an hour against an offer of a 2-cent increase. The current railway strike and the recent coal strike, it is estimated, have added $300,000,000 to the deficit in the earn- ings of the railways for which the government is responsible, which the taxpayers must make good. That is only the be- ginning of a statement of the losses of the public, and the loss in wages by the strikers in this neighborhood alone amounts to scores of millions. If they had gained instead of lost their strike, it would have taken the increase of many months' earn- ings to put the strikers where they were before they struck. But, as in Kansas, the moral losses to the unions are the pub- lic profits against the incoveniences of the strike. These strikes on a national scale are "outlaw" strikes, on the unions' own statements. They are "mob movements," in the words of one union president, and there should be "no compromise with the insurgents." The unionists must see that the enemy has in- flicted a great loss on them. This poison in the union vitals will be fatal unless the antidote of union descipline is ad- ministered forthwith. The danger is recognized, but the remedy is withheld. So far as known, no outlaw has been expelled from union membership. When these labor movements are viewed in the mass in- stead of detail the debits to the public and the strikers are amazing. A cable message to The Times last week declared that there were pending in England demands of increases of wages totaling nearly a half billion dollars at the normal rate of exchange. How can the strikers hope to extract this sum 48 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF from industry from which they have taken 34,000,000 work days, or three times as many as in 1913, and when the out- put per man who worked is demonstrably below easy capacity? The cable brings from France a statement that the boon of the eight-hour day to the workers has resulted in such a re- duction of output, by various percentages from 20 per cent, to so per cent., that it is not possible to employ enough more men to maintain production. The Dominion reports that there was a strike for each working day in 1919, and that the work days lost numbered 3,942,189, against the previous maximum of 2,046,650. There has been the same loss of efficiency among the workers and of decrease in production in this country. How can labor fail to see that the starvation of industry reacts against sluggards and strikers by lessening the amount of goods to be divided, and making it impossible for the distri- bution to the individual to be increased? There is no more dangerous shortage than of coal, and yet the miners made holidays of the first four days of the month. In Pennsylvania in the metal trades alone in 1919 there was a loss of $4,420,434 in wages and of 1,723,561 working days. The loss of output was more serious, but it is not known. In 1919 an incomplete list tabulated losses of wages by strikes of $723,478,300, and of industrial losses, not labor's, of $1,266,357,450. This at a time of the highest wages and most extravagant expenditures by workers ever known. The moral losses to labor are inesti- mable. EXPENSIVE IDLENESS' Strikes and lockouts in 1919 cost the United States 143,- 850,000 days of production. To make up for this loss 4,800,000 men would have to work a month. A plant employing 1,000 workers would be able to offset this loss in about 450 years. The direct loss of wages was close to a billion. Indirectly, through restriction of supply and the consequent higher prices, this idleness is to be charged with an additional indeterminate sum of no mean proportions. The labor disturbances of the past year were in part the re- sult of grievances which had arisen during the war. The first ' Editorial, Cleveland Plain Dealer, July 7, 1920. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 49 six months of the American participation had been marked by an unusual amount of strife. A rigorous government policy and appeals to labor on patriotic grounds kept the year 1918 singu- larly free from serious disputes. But the signing of the armistice and the loss of morale that came with the end of hostilities threw into the year 1919 nine of the most serious labor disputes the country has ever experienced. From this latest compilation of strike statistics there emerges one hopeful sign for the future. Violence in the dis- turbances is diminishing. It is attributed by the bureau of labor to the fact that fewer employers have tried to operate their plants by employing strike breakers. The fact of prohibi- tion has also unquestionably been an important influence. We cannot afford strikes even 4f they are peaceful. The country is now paying in part in the high costs of food, of clothing and of house rent for the strikes and lockouts of last year. Some means must be found for bringing the employers and the employed together before tremendous losses are in- curred by both. The zone of conflict can be greatly reduced if the human side of the problem is not forgotten. Despite the complex machinery for the settlement of dis- putes, the national industrial conference board has found that more strikes are ended through private conferences than in any other way. The president's recent industrial commis- sion made recommendations directed toward the same end. AVHAT THESE STRIKES COST YOU IN MONEY ^ This has been the greatest strike year in the history of the United States. During the twelve months following Armistice there were more than three times as many strikes as in the same period four years earlier. * * * A strike is like a pebble thrown into a pool of water. The loss it causes in wages to the. strikers and in profits to their employers is only the first small circle in the series of larger and larger ones, which spread and widen until they reach the uttermost boundaries of the pool. It is impossible for any strike to take place in modern in- dustry without causing these innumerable and widening circles 1 Roger W. Babson. American Magazine. 89:9. February, 1920. so COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF of loss. In the two months mentioned — August and Septem- ber, igig — I have records of strikes involving ninety different trades. Not only did the strikers lose their wages and the employers lose their profits, but the country did not get the goods which should have been produced. Of course, we the consumers, kept the money we should have paid for these goods if they had been made. But not for long! Because we had to pay more for what we did get because of the scarcity. To give you some idea of what this loss was — and remem- ber this is only the second of those circles of loss — ^here is a table showing the approximate number of employees affect- ed in some of the strikes and the average number of days of idleness resulting (The steel strike is not included, although it began in September.) : Number of Employees Days Industries Affected host Metal trades 49,iSo 1,081,300 Shipbuilding 50,000 1,100,000 Coal mining 10,000 220,000 Textiles 50,250 1,105,50c Lumber 2,000 44,000 Clothing 16,000 352,000 Hats 3.250 71,500 Shoes 3,500 77,000 Railroads 1,750 38,500 Foods 1,550 34,100 Public Service 2,550 56,100 Building Trades 45,000 990,000 Retail coal 500 1 1,000 Water transportation . . 1,200 26,400 Paper 750 16,500 Rubber 4,000 88, 000 Laundries 250 5,Soo Tobacco 4,250 93,500 Publishing 1,200 26,400 Just to show you the effect of this idleness, here are figures showing the loss in production in a few of the above indus- tries during only nine months: Industries Amount of Production Lost Coal mining i, 75 1,740 tons bituminous r, . ., , 1,048,740 tons anthracite Retail coal 616,300 tons undelivered ^^ 88,000 machine-made women's hats ''hoss 1,768,800 pairs men's Garment trade 15,886,500 men's shirts , , 19,183,800 pairs overalls Lumber 8,294,000 board feet This decrease in production directly affects you in two ways : Because of it you actually have less — and you pay more for INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES Si what you do have. But for the strikes there would have been about two million more pairs of men's shoes, for example, an item not to be lightly regarded. But here is another feature of the situation which must be taken into account: There were threatened strikes and partial cessations of work which did not reach the stage of an actual walkout. This is forcibly illustrated by a report of the Secre- tary of Labor for a previous year. During a period when there were 281 actual strikes, he refers to 212 additional controversies. These controversies closely parallel the strikes themselves. And while they do not cause as great a loss in production they do very materially reduce the output. This must not be omit- ted in calculating the direct loss. All of these direct losses, however, form only the smallest of the circles which widen around a strike. Here is another one: If a strike takes place in an industry, it reacts on every other industry that contributes in any way to it. For instance, a strike in the garment trades reacts on the textile mills — the makers of silks, velvets, woolens, cotton fabrics may be forced to quit work.» A strike in the shoe factories reaches back to the leather workers, the tanneries, the makers of chemicals, the shops where shoe machinery is manufactured. A printing strike re- acts on the paper-mill workers and the ink makers. A build- ing strike cuts down the work for countless other employ- ees in a score of trades — metal workers, lumber producers, employees in cement mills, in brick yards, in tool factories. For every day of idleness caused in a plant that is on strike, there is another day of idleness caused by the resulting loss of work to other men and women who would normally be busy making materials to be used in that plant. And their loss is not made up, even though the strikers win. And a strike involves not only the direct producers of these materials, but every person concerned in selling them and in transporting them. The loss is felt at every step. This is the backward reaction of a strike. But it does not complete the story, by any means. There is also what we may call the forward reaction. For example, a strike in the textile mills affects every industry which must have these textiles in order to continue. It slows up the garment trades. It may cause some of these shops to close, throwing their own work- Sa COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF ers out of employment. Not only that, but it increases the cost of all textiles, even those already manufactured, because the supply is reduced. This is immediately reflected in the in- creased price of clothing. The cost of a serious coal strike is almost beyond computa- tion. Practically every industry in the country pays part of the price. If plants are shut down for lack of fuel, every worker in those plants can charge the coal strike with so many days' wages, his wages. It has cost him a new pair of shoes, or a new suit, or a sack of flour, in addition to making his own winter supply of coal scantier and more expensive. You might think that a street-car strike would not have this particular reaction, but just think it over. Take a subway strike in New York City, for instance : Hundreds of thousands of workers are unable to reach their shops, or stores, or oflRces. They may lose only an hour or two, or they may lose a whole day of work. And lost work is lost money ! For work means production. And reduced production inevitably means increased cost of living. For example, here is one of many outside losses caused by the printing strike in New York City: Some of the shops closed had a large business in printing catalogues for com- mercial firms. It is the custom of some of these firms to de- pend almost wholly on these catalogues to sell their goods. The whole manufacturing program of hundreds of these concerns was held up because they could not get out their cata- logues. It is estimated that' these firms employ over 500,000 people, and indirectly give work to 1,000,000 others. Thus, the strike of only a few thousand men in one industry affected 1,500,000 in other lines of production. And remember that back of this 1,500,000 are still more men and women whose work and earnings suffered. It is these indirect losses which make the cost of strikes so tremendous. They go out in endless ramifications, which finally reach into the pockets of practically every one of us. Everybody has some loss to make up because of them. And when everybody starts to make up losses, the level of all costs rises. Take the harbor strike in New York City in October: perishable food, which could not be delivered, and which there- fore spoiled, was a total loss to the shippers, or the consignees, as the case might be. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES S3 Take the harbor strike in New York City in October: Perishable food, which could not be delivered, and which therefore spoiled, was a total loss to the shippers, or the con- signees, as the case might be. In the third week of this strike, the shipping authorities estimated that it was costing $1,500,000 a day! And this was aside from the expense of maintenance and interference with other branches of business. There were 625 vessels tied up in the port of New York. Many of these idle ships, tied up to the docks, were costing their owners from $300 to $1,000 a day for dock rental. This was in addition to money paid out for idle ofKcers and crews, and the other expenses which went right on, without any income to offset them. Here is just one curious instance of the way strikes affect you in ways you do not suspect: Because of the tie-up of shipping, the supply of quinine ran short, and there was great anxiety over this shortage in case the influenza epi- demic broke out again. Many other drugs were scarce for the same reason, and higher prices for them were predicted. Over $3,000,000 worth of essential oils were held up, and many of them became very scarce. Building materials were delayed, with the result that con- tractors lost money, workmen were idle, and the construc- tion of new houses, stores, and offices — the only solution of the high-rent problem — ^was held back. As another illustration of how these circles of loss widen out, let us take the police strike in Boston: The striking police force numbered about 1,200, men. If we suppose that these policemen have families, taking the usual average of five members, there were 6,000 persons directly affected in that one group. But this is only a starter. In the second circle, those indirectly affected, we find the 5,000 state guardsmen who were called out to take the places of the policemen. Most of the guardsmen have dependents of their own. But even suppose that the employers of these men continued to pay them while they were on duty in Boston, thus pre- venting their families from suffering. As a matter of fact, many of the men did lose work or pay, and a fund of around $1,000,000 was raised by public subscription to care for those dependent on them. 54 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF But in any case, their work was lost. Many employers paid men and received nothing in return. The men who had not been employed lost what they might have earned. And the people as a whole were deprived of what these men would have produced. Even this does not complete the cost account. We have still to reckon the merchants and other business concerns affected by the absence of protection during the days of riot- ing. There was actual loss of property; and there was an even greater loss due to the disorganization of the whole population. That one strike has cost the people of Massa- chusetts at least several million dollars. WHERE DO THE PEOPLE COME IN' New York City's "milk strike" is ended. The milk distri- buters have capitulated. The farmers are to get a cent more a quart for their milk for the next six months. Ultimately, of course, the public will pay the extra cent. For that is its chief function and privilege as "ultimate consumer." For several weeks now the people of New York and sur- rounding towns have been sadly inconvenienced by the stop- page of a good share of their usual milk supply. The in- covenience has among the poor — who are wont to get the heaviest blows from any dislocation of industrial and com- mercial processes — risen to the point of actual suffering. It was not a "strike" at all. It was a refusal on the part of an organized group of milk producers to sell their milk ex- cept at an advanced price. This action met head-on the counter refusal of the companies who distribute the milk from door to door to pay the increased price. There are three great milk companies in New York that dominate the distributing business. It does not appear, so far as we are aware, that they acted in combination against the demands of the farmers. But for several weeks they continued to take the same action ; and when one company finally yielded, the others did the same im- mediately. They were in effect allies, even tho there were no articles of agreement between them. The public stood by, helpless, and suffered while two groups in the community fought out their commercial dif- ^ Independent. 88:139. October 33, 1916. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES SS ferences. The situation was precisely similar to that which oc- curs when an industrial strike takes place, with business man and farmer taking the place of employer and workingman. In both cases the method of settling the dispute is intol- erable. The interests of no group in the community are more im- portant than the public interest. The well-being of all should never be permitted to suffer because some special portion of the whole is seeking its own well-being in its own way. The public should never be put in the position of the "innocent by- stander" at a street fight, who often receives the severest in- juries. The welfare of the people is paramount. Of course, farm- ers are people as well as tillers of the soil and herders of cattle. Of course, also — tho it takes a little more temerity to assert it — the managers and stockholders of milk companies are people as well as distributers of a necessity of life. So their welfare cannot be ignored, if we would. But, after all, there are more people who are consumers of milk than people who produce it and distribute it. Itis their welfare that must be the community's first and highest thought. The problem, then, is to find some method of settling dis- putes between producers and distributers of the necessaries of life that does not cause the public inconvenience and suffering. The community, whether it be the city, the state, or the nation, must compel the disputants to settle their differences peace- ably. It must make it its business to see that the producer ob- tains justice while the distributer does not suffer injustice, just as it must see in the industrial field that the workingman obtains justice while the employer does not suffer injustice. BRIEF EXCERPTS The public has no rights which are superior to the toiler's right to live and to his right to defend himself against op- pression. — Satmuel Campers, in a statement, June 6, 1920. In any basic industry, when labor and capital are at strife, it is not a duel but a nation-wide war, in which the public has the predominant interest. — New York Times {editorial) June 20, 1920. It is to me a monstrous thought that capital and labor S6 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF can without let or hindrance starve and freeze and ruin the people in a struggle for supremacy. — Senator Charles E. Townsend. Congressional Record, December 17, 1919- When men strike on a job they devote their minds to doing as little as possible in a day and doing that little as badly as ingenuity will devise. Almost any employer pre- fers an out and out strike with rioting and violence to the insidious crippling of the "strike on the job." — Johti Leitch. Man to Man, p. 17. An incomplete list of direct losses due to strikes in 1919 places the cost to labor in wages at nearly $765,000,000 and to industry at more than one and one-quarter billion dollars, Francis H. Sisson, vice president of the Guaranty Trust Co. of New York, told the Silver jubilee convention of the na- tional association of manufacturers today. — Cleveland Plain Dealer, May 19, 1920. The evil possibilities of the boycott appear most plainly when we consider the boycott sometimes maintained by em- ployers against the employment of workmen who have made themselves obnoxious by activity in strikes or in the organi- ration of new unions. This form of boycotting is usually called blacklisting. — Adams and Sumner. Labor Problems, p. 200. I feel it is my duty in the public interest to declare that any attempt to carry out the purpose of the strike [Bitumin- ous coal strike of 1919] and thus to paralyze the industry of the country, with the consequent suffering and distress of all our people, must be considered a grave moral and legal wrong against the government and the people of the United States. — Statement by President Wilson. October 25, 1919. The essence of the boycott is the intent to injure. This injury may be inflicted for mere revenge, or it may be in- flicted with the ultimate purpose of accomplishing the most laudable and desirable improvement in the conditions of em- ployment. But in either case, say the courts, the primary object is injury, the intent consequently malicious, and the combination in turn illegal, — Adams and Sumner. Labor Prob- lems. (8th edition) p. 198. The cost of this [Switchmen's] strike, short as it has been, has been enormous. It cut deeply into railroad earn- ings and thereby will cost the government millions of del- INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 57 lars. Hundreds of factories and mills were forced to close down for want of materials and thousands of workmen were thereby made idle. The strike has been all loss and no gain. The switchmen have lost what it will take years to regain, public confidence. — Buffalo Evening News. April 19, 1920. The "walking delegate" is the business agent of local unions in the building trades. He goes about from building to building to see that union rules are not being violated by contractors, and has power to call instant strikes on his own initiative. This concentration of power in the hands of the "walking delegate,'' with its opportunities for graft, has earned him much public reproach. — Cyclopedia of American Government, vol. 3, p. 638. Since the war we have had a perfect carnival of strikes in this country, some of them of huge dimensions, nearly all of them attended to a greater or less degree by violence and the destruction of property, and every one of them men- acing, more or less seriously, every American citizen desir- ing to continue to work or to take the place of some of these men. — Senator Charles S. Thomas. Congressional Rec- ord, December 18, 1919. The charge that all but four newspapers in the United States are controlled by the International Typographical Union and that through its local chapters the union maintains a censorship over news unfavorable to labor was placed sud- denly today before the Senate committee investigating the shortage of newsprint paper. The man who made this start- ling accusation was Earl J. McCone, General Manager of the Charles A. Finnigan Company of Buffalo, which controls The Buffalo Commercial and the Hall-Richter Paper Com- pany. — New York Times. May S, 1920. "We are out to stay until we get a readjustment in wages. We have been back at work for ten days and no action has been taken by the Labor board relative to our grievances." So says the local leader of the strikers. "We insist that we must have more money and will not work until the railroads see fit to give it to us." The need of adjustment of railroad wages was in evidence before the first strike. The strikers lost eleven days' pay then. Now they propose to lose more pay rather than continue to work for what they are getting. If they must have more money, how is it that they can af- S8 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF ford thus frequently to suspend work? — Buffalo Times. May i, 1920. The law which we passed in the Kansas Legislature was not a law against union labor, and the strike which was brought on which caused such horrible economic waste was not altogether the fault of union labor; that the coal oper- ators, the men who owned the mines were equally guilty with the miners. I have seen industrial controversy waged in that territory for twenty-five years, and in all the indus- trial controversies I have witnessed I have never yet heard from either side one expression of comradely brotherhood, never. — Gov. Henry .A. Allen. Law and Labor. 2 : 85. April, 1920. Fred G. Biedenkapp, organizer for the One Big Union and secretary-treasurer of the Brotherhood of MetaT Work- ers, said the other day: "The hour draws near for the revolution. Already are 2,000,000 organized into the One Big Union which shall ac- complish the revolution. Daily our numbers grow as un- successful strike follows unsuccessful strike. Therefore we of the vision encourage strikes — that they may fail." Here is a candid confession of rejoicing over the failure of strikes which these intriguers "of the vision" themselves have pro- voked ! — Buffalo Currier. May 15, 1920. The proposed [coal] strike, if carried to its logical con- clusion, will paralyze transportation and industry. It will deprive unnumbered thousands of men who are making no complaint about their employment of their right to earn a livelihood for themselves and their families, will put cities in darkness, and, if continued only for a few days, will bring cold and hunger to millions of our people; if continued for a month, it will leave death and starvation in its wake. It would be a more deadly attack upon the life of the nation than an invading army. — Attorney General Palmer, October 27, 1919. Law and Labor, i ; 10. December, IQ19, News from all directions is to the effect that the latest railroad strike is practically over. What an inexcusable and costly folly it has been. Think of the millions lost in wages, and the far greater losses in the interruption of the indusr tries, productive processes and general business of the coun- try, the harmful inconveniences and industrial distress I INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 59 Then there is another item of loss amounting easily to $50,000,000 in the reduction of the revenues of the railroads — a loss which under the new federal railroad law must be made good by an advance of freight rates to be paid ulti- mately by the consumers, the mass of the people ! — Buffalo Currier. April 19, 1920. But the "neutral" in industrial warfare, like the "neutral" in international warfare, is securing a standing in court. In the recent milk strike in New York — a strike, be it observed, called not by the proletariat, but by capitalists, i. e., farmers, owners of real estate — an attempt by capitalists to fix the price of milk by collective bargaining, upon the ground, in- deed, that the farmer (a capitalist) was not earning a "liv- ing wage" — at the very moment that these capitalists were practising sabotage, overturning and emptying milk cans in the up-state highways, the babe in its mother's arms, depen- dent for its life upon this wasted milk, cried out its neutral protest. — /. H. Cohen in Proceedings of the Academy of Po- litical Science. 7: 116. January, 1917. The total number of labor strikers between the date of our declaration of war and the date of the armistice in this country was 2,386,285. Now, when we consider that the total number of men sent to France was 2,053,347, it follows that the army of strikers during that period exceeded the army of fighters during that period by about 350,000 men; and that was a time, Mr. President, when the energy and the labor of every citizen was sadly and sorely needed, when every impulse of duty and patriotism combined to keep the home fires burning, that the boys across the sea might need noth- ing essential to their supreme and heroic task, notwithstand- ing which these are the appalling figures. — Senator Charles S. Thomas. Congressional Record, December 18, 1919. In the course of the argument by Henry Warrum, at- torney for the defendants, against the continuance of the in- junction and the issuance of an order compelling the with- drawal of the strike order, the Court [Judge Anderson, U. S. District Court, Indiana] said: "The restraining order ought to be made a temporary injunction and a direct order to revoke the strike order ought to be added. Of course, if your clients don't like it that way, I'll make them obey it. 6o COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF "There cannot be an imperium in imperio in this coun- try, as counsel for the government has said. The govern- ment is supreme even over a labor union, and superior to it. "I think this strike is about the most lavirless thing I have seen in this country. If it goes on I think it is rebellion. That is what I think it is."— Law and Labor. 1 : 4- December 1919. This Republic contains something like 110,000,000 men, women, and children. The great city of New York, per- haps now, with its suburbs in New Jersey and on Long Is- land, the largest city in the world, except it may be London, contains something like five or six million people. Prob- ably something more than one-half of that population are women and children, and one-tenth of that population are children, little babies seeking the milk bottle or their moth- er's breast — and under the new order of modern women, under the new civilization, they seek their mother's breasts almost in vain, and must have milk bottles. If a man comes to me and tells me that upon some theory or other he has a right to stop the transportation of milk to those babies in New York, I tell him when he says it that he is a self-con- fessed murderer of children. — Senator John Sharp Williams. Congressional Record, December 18, 1919. Hon. Elihu Root in outlining a Republican policy recently said: If we are to maintain the principles of our government of all the people by all the people, we must apply those prin- ciples now to this situation. If we are a self-governing peo- ple we must govern and not be governed. We should not attempt to make any man work against his will. We should not attempt to take away the right to strike. It is Labor's great protection. But we should by law limit the right to strike at the point where it comes in conflict with the com- munities' higher right of self-protection. No man and no set of men can justly claim the right to undertake the per- formance of a service upon which the health and life of others depend and then to abandon the service afwill. The line between such a performance and an ordinary strike should be drawn by law. — World's Work. 39:531. April, 1920. This [coal] strike is an unconscionable and brutal menace to the happiness, the comfort, yes, the lives, of hundreds of INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 6i thousands of American citizens — men, women, and children — in no way a party to the existing controversy and in no manner responsible,, not even in the slightest degree, for the conditions, actual or imaginary, which brought about this crisis. Thus the strike in this instance is an exhibition of inhuman selfishness which should awaken the indignation and arouse the antagonism of every right-thinking American citizen. Secondly, this strike, under the circumstances which characterized its inception, and those attendant upon its sub- sequent conduct, has involved such an obvious rebellion against the law of the land and against the authority of the United States government that we may well take pause to consider whether or not the seeds of revolution in this coun- try have not only been planted but that the harvesting time is now at hand. — Senator Joseph S. Frelinghuysen. Congres- sional Record, December 8, 1919. As a result of class legislation in favor of wageworkers, there has grown up in this country an inner government. It is inside of the regular or constitutional government. It is not an invisible government. It is very visible. It does not operate under the surface 01 behind the scenes. It is bold and open and very much aboveboard. The inner gov- ernment consists of combined organized labor, and it is a grave question if the inner government to-day is not superior to and more powerful than the constitutional government. The inner government issues edicts and makes demands, and in the past they have largely been honored by the constitu- tional government. If this is to continue constitutional gov- ernment can not survive. In my opinion, it is timely and opportune to determine whether or not this shall continue until it may reach the point of the utter subversion or de- struction of constitutional government. Shall the inner gov- ernment or the constitutional government rule? The time and the opportunity to make the test are now at hand. — Sen- ator Henry L. Myers. Congressional Record, December 8, 1919. With the growth of large labor unions, and with the in- crease in the resources of individual employers and groups of employers, the interest of the public in these industrial conflicts became more vital. It was soon felt that in many strikes the public suffered more acutely than either contest- ant. For instance, during the recent [1902] coal strike both 62 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF operators and miners commanded sufficient resources to en- able them to hold out almost indefinitely, while the public would have suffered irreparable injury and untold hardship, had the strike lasted but two or three months longer. A strike of a month's duration upon all the railroads centering in Chicago would not, perhaps, affect the bonds and stocks of the corporations more seriously than a complete failure of the crops, and the workmen themselves could bear the strain quite easily. Long before the month had elapsed, however, the country would be in the throes of a frightful crisis, and steps would probably be taken by the state or national government to put an end to a contest in which the interest of the public was not only as great as, but in- finitely greater than that of either combatant. — John Mitchell. Organized Labor, p. 337. The serious economic waste involved in marine and ship- yard strikes during the period of reconstruction has recently been investigated by the United States Shipping Board. Since the 1st of January it is estimated that strikes have cost the Shipping Board a total of $37,000,000. There are included marine and harbor strikes, longshore strikes, and shipyard strikes. These have occurred on the Atlantic, Pa- cific, and Gulf coasts, but the results of the coal strike are not included. There are not included losses by foreign or privately op- erated American vessels, nor indirect losses to the public due to interruption of regular movement of 'shipping. Among such indirect losses are those due to congestion in port, and on inland transportation systems, spoilage of perishable car- go, and delays of food supplies needed in this country and abroad. The marine strikes include that on New York Harbor craft, tying up some 600 boats with approximately 16,000 men out for 13 days. A further marine strike occurred in July with a general tie-up of shipping on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. Some 25,000 men were out for about three weeks. A longshore strike in New York during October involved 40,000 to 50,000 men for about 30 days. A further longshore strike occurred at New Orleans in the same month, lasting 31 days. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 63 Among' the 200 strikes in the shipyards one of the largest was that in the Northern Pacific district beginning in Jan- uary, lasting for 50 days and involving some 40,000 men. A further strike occurred in the San Francisco Bay and south- ern district in October, lasted 30 days and involved 3S,ooo men. A strike in the shipyards in the New York district began in October, lasted about 30 days, and involved some 20,000 men. — Statement issued by the United States Shipping Board, December 6, 1919. In cases where strikes fail of their purpose, the American Federation of Labor, with a constitution providing for boy- cotting, has elaborate and powerful boycotting machinery available to each affiliated union in its efforts to enforce the closed shop. The Federation has a total membership [1912] of nearly 2,000,000 members, controlling a purchasing power of 10,000,000 — over a tenth of our entire population. This membership is enjoined to observe all boycotts under pen- alty of fines or expulsion, and is divided and sub-divided into national trade unions, some 30,000 local unions, over 500 city federations, and some 30 state federations. The 500 city fed- erations are local federations of all the unions in a particular city, while the state federations hold the same relation to all the unions in a particular state. Thus the organizers of the American Federation of Labor, of which there are about 1400, and the organizers of the different trade unions, can at any time command the entire organized force of all labor unions in a city or all labor unions in a state, in their efforts to prevent a local dealer handling merchandise produced by an open shop employer. With agents in every trade center of the country and local federations of all trades to act at their commands, with travelling agents going from city to city, and spies to detect open shop shipments and telegraph the information to the unions at the place of consignment, — so we have a phenomenon hitherto unknown in either demo- cratic or despotic states, with its branches like veins through- out Our entire society. When we reflect on the utter im- possibility of escaping from the observation and tyranny of this movement in any remote section of the country where it may choose to pursue, and remember that it is largely de- signed and manipulated to , eliminate the non-union worker from industry, our feelings change to alarm. All other at- 64 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF tempts at secret orders and societies or the conduct of or- ganized feuds pale into insignificance before the ramifica- tions, power and aspirations of this institution. The idea staggers the imagination, for it discloses the irresistible m.a- chinery of an army of well-disciplined men against which the non-conformist is helpless. — League for Industrial Rights. Pamphlet entitled "The Closed Shop" by W. S. Merritt. p. 5. STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS IN THE UNITED STATES ' 1916-1918 Year Strikes LockouU Totel 1916 31678 108 3>78S I»i7 4.233 is6 4,359 1918 3,181 104 3.385 Total 11,093 338 11.430 ^Monthly Labor Review. 8:1858. June, 1919. RESULT OF STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS IN THE UNITED STATES' 1916 1917 1918 1918 1917 1916 In favor of employers 724 366 417 ai 13 5 In favor of employees 733 581 591 16 17 15 Compromised 766 679 659 11 21 17 Employees returned pending arbitration 70 131 , 198 365 Not reported 99 142 212 2 131 Total 2,392 1,899 2.077 S3 58 63 'Monthly Labor Review. 8:1863. June, 1919. STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS SETTLED ' UNITED STATES 1901-1905 STRIKES LOCKOUTS Year a .sii'sa .a a I •2-0 s !5 "ja M 1901 3.924 149 49 88 10 3 1902 3.162 204 58 78 11 I »903 3.494 246 66 154 18 3 1904 2.307 130 23 IJ2 17 2 1905 2,077 74 27 109 10 3 Total 13,964 803 223 541 66 11 Per Cent 100 5.7s 1.6 100 12.2 2.3 'Twenty-first [1906] Annual Report of the U. S. Commissioner of Labor, p. 85. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 6S I have received from L. W. Hatch, chief statistician of the New York state industrial commission, the following table of working time lost in strikes and lockouts in New York State for the ten years 1906-1915 inclusive: WORKING TIME LOST IN STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS IN NEW YORK STATE Year Ended Number of Aggregate days September 30 strikes and lockouts bf working time lost 1906 245 1,668,281 1907 282 1,724,260 igo8 160 396.725 1909 176 1,061,094 19 10 250 5,783.394 Z9ZZ ^JS 2,360,092 Z912 '?S 1,512,234 1913 268 7,741.247 1914 123 1,426,118 1915 104 868,838 This shows a total aggregate number of days of working time lost amounting to 24,542,283. If we assume an average of but $2 a day, this means a loss in this period in the state of New York in wages alone of $49,084,566. Julius H. Cohen. Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science. 7:122. Jan- uary, 1917. LOSSES THROUGH STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS ^ UNITED STATES 1881-1900 Assistance to Wage loss to employees b^ Loss to employees labor organi- employers Total loss zations 1881 $3391.097 $29i>'49 $1,926,443 $5,608,689 1882 10,330,573 782,007 4,381,476 15,494,0(6 1883 7,343.692 563.486 4,993,124 12,900,302 1884 9,088,127 721,898 4,033,920 13.843,945 1885 11,564,421 555.315 4.844.370 16,964,106 1886 19.273.5 1 1 1.671.582 14,307,306 35.252,399 1887 20,794.234 1,277,400 9,518,231 31,589.86s 1888 7,477,806 1,838,599 7,736,316 17/143,631 1889 11,789,408 707,406 3,343.877 15.740.691 1890 14.833,304 987,495 5,621,662 21,442,461 1891 15,685,214 1,182,752 6,793,576 23,661,542 1892 13,628,63s 1,371.558 6,840,771 21,840,964 1893 l6,597i449 927,451 4.440,615 21,965,515 1894 39,168,301 1,091,296 19,964,713 60,224,310 1895 13.836,533 626,866 5.656.437 20,119,836 1896 11,789,152 523,520 5,661,770 17,974,442 1897 18,052,510 768,490 S.166,731 23,987,731 1898 10,917,745 632,326 4.835.86s 16,385,936 1899 16,643,139 1,882,671 7,822,772 25,688,898 1900 34.478,372 1,222,987 14,879,329 51,240,272 . 1^ Total $306,683,223 $19,626,254 $142,659,104 $468,068,581 1 Sixteenth [1901] Annual Report of the TJjSi CommissiSner of Labor, p. 24. ^"^ ^ 66 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF STRIKES IN COAL MIN ESI Year Men on strike Days lost 1906 372,343 19,201,348 1907 32,540 462,392 1908 145,14s 5,449,938 1909 24,763 723,634 1910 218,493 19,250,524 1911 41,413 983,737 1912 311,056 12,527,305 1913 I3S.39S 3,049,412 1914 161,720 11,013,667 19IS 67,190 2,467,431 1916 170,633 3,344,586 1917 158,360 2,311,250 ^Statistical Abstract of the United States 1918, p. 27S' STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS IN THE UNITED STATES > 1881-1905 Average ^ Days ^ ^ „ Duration ^ o-a ^ Sl fel Es?^bW 2 |5 SI >- flh a" ment ^ o-o !5« ls_ SJ i„ « « w 1881 471 6 12.7 32.2 101,070 65s 130,176 1883 454 22 21.9 105.0 120,860 ^ 4,l3t 158,803 1883 478 28 20.6 56.8 122,198 20,512 170,275 1884 443 42 30.4 41-4 117,313 18,121 165,175 188s 64s 50 30.0 28.0 158,584 15,424 258,129 1886 1,432 140 23.3 322 407,152 101,980 610,024 1887 1,436 67 20.9 49.8 272,776 57,534 439,306 1888 906 40 20.3 74-9 103,218 13,787 162,880 1889 1,075 36 26.2 57-5 205,068 10,471 260,290 1890 1,833 64 24.2 73.9 285,9130 19,233 373,499 1891 1,717 69 34.9 37.8 245,042 14,116 329,953 1892 1,298 61 23.4 72.0 163,499 30,050 238,685 1893 1,305 70 20.6 34-7 195.008 13,016 287,756 1894 1,349 55 32.4 39-7 505,049 28,548 690,044 1895 1,215 40 20.5 32.3 285,742 12,754 407,188 1896 1,026 40 22.C 65.1 183,813 3,67s 248,838 1897 1,078 32 27.4 38.6 332,S7<» 7.651 416,154 1898 1.056 42 22.5 48.8 182,067 11,038 263,219 1899 1,797 41 15-2 37-S 308,267 14,698 431,889 1900 1,779 60 23.1 265.1 399,656 46.562 567.719 1901 2,924 88 29.2 27.0 396,280 16,257 563,843 1902 3,162 78 25.4 158.9 553,143 30,304 691,507 1903 3,494 154 29.1 53-5 531,682 112,332 787,834 1904 2,307 112 35. 5 69.4 375,754 44,908 573,815 1905 2,077 109 23.1 41.7 176,337 68,474 302,43 1 Total 36,757 1,546 25.4 84.6 6,728,048 716,231 9,529,434 1 Twenty-first [1906] Annual Report of the U. S. Commissioner of Labor. PART II COMPULSORY ARBITRATION AND COMPULSORY INVESTIGATION OF INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES GENERAL DISCUSSION INDUSTRIAL CONCILIATION AND ANTI- STRIKE LEGISLATION RELATING TO PUBLIC UTILITIES IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES ' The following brief summary of the conciliation and anti- strike provisions of the laws of various countries is compiled from a publication of the British Board of Trade on strikes and lockouts, issued in 1912, and a report of the chief in- spector of factories of Victoria on the antistrike legislation throughout the Australian Stales, published in 1915, verified by an examination of the original texts and supplemented by an examination of the more recent legislation. The sum- mary is reproduced here on account of the numerous in- quiries for information which have recently come to the bu- reau. COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Legal machinery for the adjustment of disputes, — Court of conciliation and arbitration, consisting of a president, who is a member of the Fed- eral Supreme court and judges of the Federal or a State supreme court, appointed by the president as his deputies. Provision is also made for conciliation committees of equal numbers of employers and employees; assessors representing the parties appointed by the court to advise it and local industrial boards, equally representative of workers and em- ployers, presided over by a judge of the supreme court of the Common- wealth or supreme courts of the States. The procedure is varied. The president of the court may summon parties to a dispute and by confer- ence aim to reach an amicable settlement, or there may be an investiga- tion as the basis of an amicable settlement, or temporary reference of a matter to a conciliation committee or local industrial board. All amicable settlements have the force of a formal award. Conditions under which strikes and lockouts are prohibited or are il- legal, — The initiation or continuance of any strike or lockout by any or- ganization or person is prohibited. Penalties for enforcement of antistrike legislation. — Penalty of £1,000 ($4,486.50) against any person or organization responsible for a strike or lockout. NEW SOUTH WALES Legal machinery^ for the adjustment of disputes. — In New South Wales the law is similar to that of the Commonwealth and of Queens- land in that there are both an industrial court (which is a superior court and a court of record) and industrial^ boards for groups of in- dustries or callings, awards by the latter being subject to amendment, variation, or rescission by the court. 1 Monthly Review of the Bureau of Labor Statistic. 4:11-19. January, 1917. 70 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF Conditions under which strikes and lockouts are prohibited or are illegal. — Strikes and lockouts of all kinds are prohibited. An injunction may be issued by the industrial court. Penalties for enforcement of antistrike legislation. — Employer liable to a fine of £i,ooo ($4,866.50); worker liable to a fine of £50 ($243.33), which is a charge on his wages. If striker was member of a union, it may be held liable for not exceeding £20 ($97.33) of the penalty. Pen- alty on union for aiding or instigating strike is £1,000 ($4,866.50). QUEENSLAND Legal machinery for the adjustment of disputes. — ^Industrial court ad- ministered by a judge appointed by the governor in council. Local in- dustrial boards are also created on the application of a prescribed num- ber of employers and employees. The court has jurisdiction over cer- tain classes of cases directly and over others on appeal from industrial boards. Conditions under li^hich strikes and- lockouts are prohibited or are illegal. — In the case of public utilities, strikes and lockouts are illegal unless a conference has been held before an industrial judge and proved abortive and unless 14 days' notice has been given after termination of conference and a secret ballot has been taken. In all other cases 14 days' notice must be given and a secret ballot taken. Penalties for enforcement of antistrike legislation. — A fine of £1,000 ($4,866,50) may be levied on employer or union and £50 ($243.33) on worker. If worker is member of a union, not to exceed £20 ($97.33) of the penalty may be levied against the union. Penalties are made a charge on wages and on funds of associations. SOUTH AUSTRALIA Legal machinery for the adjustment of disputes. — The judge of the industrial court brings parties together when any dispute occurs, and may make an award in trades where there is none in force, or may change an existing award. When sitting to make a final adjudication, two assessors, representing the respective parties to the dispute, assist the judge if he thinks fit. Conditions under which strikes and lockouts are prohibited or are il- legal. — All strikes and lockouts are illegal. . Penalties for enforcement of antistrike legislation, — A fine of £500 ($2,433.25) may be levied against an association and a similar fine of £500 ($2,433.25) against a person, or three months' imprisonment. Fine of £20 ($97.33) or three months' imprisonment for picketing. Fines are made a charge against funds of associations and on wages over and above £3 ($9.73) a week. An employer who refuses to employ or a worker who refuses to accept work where there is an industrial agree- ment or award in operation may be fined. TASMANIA Legal machinery for the adjustment of disputes. — Governor appoints wages boards. Determination of wages boards may be suspended by the governor, and the boards are then required to review their action. Ap- peals may be taken from the wages boards to the supreme court. No provision is made for conciliation. Conditions under which strikes and lockouts are prohibited or arc illegal. — All strikes and lockouts in wages boards trades on account of any matter as to which a determination has been reached. Penalties for enforcement of antistrike legislation. — A fine of £500 ($2,433.25) may be levied against an organization and £20 ($97-33) against an individual. VICTORIA No legislation. WESTERN AUSTRALIA Legal machinery for the adjustment of disputes. — The court of arbi- tration consists of a judge of the supreme court and two representatives from employers and employees, all three being appointed by the governor. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 71 No provision is made for local tribunals^ and matters come directly be- fore the court of arbitration or the presiding judge. Conditions under which strikes and lockouts are prohibited or are illegal. — Strikes and lockouts are illegal. An employer can not discharge a worker nor can a worker cease work ( i) before a reasonable time has elapsed for matter to be dealt with by the court, or (2) during the time the proceedings in court are pending. Penalties for enforcement of antistrike legislation. — A fine of £100 ($486.65) may be levied against industrial union or employer, and of £10 ($48.67) against worker. NEW ZEALAND Legal machinery for the adjustment of disputes. — A court of arbitra- tion, consisting of three members appointed by the governor to serve for three years; one "judge of the court," to have the tenure, status, and emoluments of a judge of the supreme court; and one each nominated by unions of employers and workmen, respectively. Councils of con- ciliations, consisting of a conciliation commissioner appointed by the governor for a term of three years, to have jurisdiction within a desig- nated ^ industrial district, and one to three assessors, appointed by the commissioner for the occasion, on the nomination of the parties apply- ing for a conciliation council, a like number to be appointed on the nom- ination of the respondents. Boards of investigation, appointed by court of arbitration. The procedure is for a council of conciliation, when re- quested, to attempt to adjust the controversy. Failing in this, the matter may be referred to the court of arbitration, which shall make a deter- mination. Disputes involving workers on the Government railways or affecting more than one industrial district may be brought before the court in the first instances by application of a union of railway employees in the one case and of any party to the dispute in the other. Conditions under which strikes and lockouts are prohibited or are illegal. — Under the industrial conciliation and arbitration amendment of 1908, which applies only to cases where an award or an industrial agree- ment is in force, strikes and lockouts are prohibited. Under the labor disputes investigation act of 19 13. which applies only to cases where there is not an existing award or industrial agree- ment, notice must be given to the minister, who must refer matter to an industrial commissioner or committee. If no settlement is effected within 14 days from delivery of notice to the minister the labor de- partment conducts a secret ballot, and then 7 days must elapse before cessation of work. Penalties for enforcement of antistrike legislation. — Employer liable to £500 ($2,433.25) fine and employee to £10 ($48.67). In the case of public utilities the penalty to the worker is £25 ($166.66). For en- couraging or instigating a strike or lockout the scale of fines is: Worker, £10 ($48.67); employer or union, £200 ($973.30). The wages of workers may be attached for fines. Penalty for striking or locking out before notice is given or before expiration of seven days from the secret bal- lot, £10 ($48.67) to a worker and £500 ($2,433.25) to employer. Wages of worker may be attached. Remarks. — At any time during the progress of a strike 5 per cent of the workers concerned may demand a secret ballot on any question re- lating to the strike. AUSTRIA Conditions under which strikes and lockouts are prohibited illegal. — Strikes and lockouts on public utilities areDxahibited,,,.-^ Penalties for enforcement of antistri^M^^J^gi^^Ofton.—^^XjYIwn may be dissolved and funds and property seizedT Remarks. — Before forming a union the organization must notify the Government authorities and send them a copy of the constitution and by-laws. The authorities may then forbid the formation of the union if they consider it will be dangerous to the State. Legal machinery for the adjustment of disputes. — Trade-unions of em- ployees of public utilities are permitted under Government supervision, posts, and telegraph, through official channels. Employees may present grievances or requests to the minister of railways, 72 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF Conditions under which strikes and lockouts are prohibited or are illegal,- — Strikes and lockouts prohibited on railroads and in all forms of the public service (railways, postal, telegraph, and telephone service, all of which are under State control). Penalties for enforcement of antistrike legislation. — Imprisonment or fine. Remarks. — There has been no serious strike on Belgian railroads since their establishment. This is due to the fact that positions on the rail- ways are much sought after, because of stability of employment, pensions, and on account of the prestige of being in the Government service. CANADA Legal machinery for the adjustment of disputes. — The law is admin- istered by the minister of labor^ and is under the immediate direction of the registrar of boards of conciliation and investigation. appointed by the governor in council. Boards of conciliation and investigation are ap- pointed by the minister of labor, one member being nominated by each party to the dispute and the third by those two. If nominations are not made in due time, the minister appoints on his own motion. Jurisdic- tion by the minister is obtained by the request of either party for the appointment of a board of conciliation and investigation. Conditions under which strikes and lockouts are prohibited or are illegal. — Strikes and lockouts are illegal in public utilities and mines un- til after an investigation by a Government board and the publication of Its report. Penalties for enforcement of antistrike legislation. — A fine ranging from $10 to $100 may be levied on each worker, and from $ioo to $i,ooo on each employer, for each day an illegal strike or lockout continues; also any person who encourages any employer to declare or continue a lockout, or any employee to go or continue on strike, illegally may be fined from $50 to $1,000. Penalties are not imposed by the Government but must be enforced by the injured party to the dispute. Remarks. — The object sought in publishing the report of boards of investigation is to enlist the coercive force of public opinion upon the side of the right as found by the board. DENMARK Legal machinery for the adjustment of disputes. — By a law passed in 19 10 provision is made for the appointment of a permanent arbitration court of six members^ selected from organizations of employers and em- ployees, with a president and vice-president, with qualifications of an ordinary judge. It is the duty of this court to make the parties to a dispute respect any agreement between them. A Government conciliator is appointed for two years. Whenever a strike or lockout is impend- ing (public notice being compulsory), it is his duty to intervene and attempt to effect a settlement. Conditions under which strikes and lockouts are prohibited or arc illegal. — Strikes or lockouts are prohibited in cases where court awards or trade agreements are broken. In cases where no trade agreements exist a strike is legal, but public notice must be given before it is started. Penalties for enforcement of antistrike legislation. — Fines. ENGLAND Legal machinery for the adjustment of disputes. — There is no legal machinery, strictly speaking, for the adjustment of wage disputes on me railways, but effective machinery is in existence which is quasi official, consisting of an agreement between the railroads and their employees, which was originally negotiated by a representative of the board of trade in 1907. It was amended as the result of conferences and the report of a royal commission in 1911. These changes were the outcoms of the railway strike in 1911. By this agreement boards are created, with equal representation of railroads and employees, to perform the con- ciliation work not settled by direct negotiation between the parties. If a settlement can not be reached a neutral chairman or umpire, selected INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 73 by the conciliation boards from a panel prepared by the board of trade, is called in, and his decision is final. Conditions under which strikes and lockouts are prohibited or are illegal. — No legislation. Penalties for enforcement of antistrike legislation. — No legislation. Remarks. — The adjustment of disputes on other public utilities and in the^ mining industry is provided for in the conciliation act of 1896. Conciliators or boards of conciliation are appointed by the board of trade. Arbitrators are also appointed on the application of both parties, selected from panels of employers, employees, and ''persons of eminence and impartiality" established by the board of trade. For conciliation proceedings the board of trade acts on its own initiative or by the re- quest of either party; for arbitration, on the application of both parties, FRANCE Conditions under which strikes and lockouts are prohibited or are illegal. — The only qualification as to complete freedom of action in the railway service is that any engineer, fireman, or trainman shall not desert his post during the progress of a journey. Postal employees and em- ployees in shipping service controlled by the Government are prohibited from striking. Penalties for enforcement of antistrike legislation. — Desertion of trains between terminals is punishable with imprisonment ranging from six months to two years. Postal and other civil employees may be dis- missed or suffer losses in pay. The monopoly privilege may be with- drawn from the shipping service on which a strike occurs. Remarks. — In all occupations except those mentioned the right of employers and employees to take concerted action in a peaceful manner with a view to cessation of work has been officially recognized since 1884. On October 2, 19 10, the National Federation of Railway Em- ployees of France and the Federation of Unions of Railway Engineers and Firemen called a general strike on all the railroads of the country. The Government, using its full authority under military laws, called for a mobilization of the strikers, and ordered them to do military duty for three weeks. Their military duties were specified as the keep- ing of the railways under normal working conditions under the_ orders of their superior officers. This measure defeated the strike, which was called off after six days. GERMANY Legal machinery for the adjustment of disputes. — Means for enabling railways workers of all groups to bring their requests and grievances to the notice of the authorities have been instituted by all the State rail- way administrations in Germany under the name of "workmen's com- mittees." Conditions under which strikes and lockouts are prohibited or ^ are illegal. — Strikes and lockouts are practically prohibited on public utilities There are no specific laws forbidding strikes, but rules and practices of railway and other public utilities administration make strikes impossible. About 90 per cent, of the organized railway employees belong to unions, the by-laws of which specifically waive all claim to the right to strike. Penalties for enforcement of antistrike legislation. — No specific pen- alties for engaging in strikes, but workmen are forbidden to belong to unions which assert the right to strike. All union organizations and by-laws are subject to governmental sanction. The coercive force of the law is found in the fact that a railway employee who engaged in a strike would be dismissed or fail of advancement in his work. Every Govern- ment employee looks forward to attaining the status of an "official," and this is practically impossible if he belongs^ to or is known to sympathize with a trade-union which does not meet with Government approval. HOLLAND Legal machinery for the adjustment of disputes. — Delegates are se- lected from different groups of railway employees who are authorized 74 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF to present the wishes and complaints of railway workers before the managers. Arbitration boards have been established for the enforcement of penalties imposed because of infractions of working rules and condi- tions. Conditions under which strikes and lockouts are prohibited or are illegal. — Strikes in railway service are prohibited. Penalties for enforcement of antistrike legislation, — Imprisonment or fine. Remarks. — Legislation prohibiting strikes was the outcome of a gen- eral strike in the Dutch railway service in 1903. ITALY Conditions under which strikes and lockouts are prohibited or are illegal. — Strikes are prohibited in railway and public service. Penalties for enforcement of antistrike legislation. — Fine and loss of employment. Remarks. — Legislation relative to fines and loss of employment would not practically prevent strikes, "because of the impossibility of enforcing the law upon so many individuals. The real restraining influence is the power of the Government to call out the reserves and compel strikers to resume work under military law. OTTOMAN EMPIRE Legal machinery for the adjustment of disputes. —Ixi the case of a dispute relative to wages or woi-king conditions, a conciliation board is organized, composed of six members, three representing employers and three representing employees. The boards are presided over by an of- ficial appointed by the Government. The agreements reached by these boards are enforced by the Government. If the parties to the dispute can not agree, the employees are free to stop work, but nothing must be done by them opposed to freedom of action. Conditions under which strikes and lockouts are prohibited or are illegal. — Strikes in public utilities are unlawful until grounds of dispute are communicated to the Government and attempts at conciliation have failed. Penalties for enforcement of antistrike legislation. — Imprisonment or fine. Remarks. — The organization of trade-unions in establishments carry- ing out any public service is forbidden. PORTUGAL Conditions under which strikes and lockouts are prohibited or are illegal. — Illegal in public utilities until 8 to 12 days' notice has been given, together with a statement as to the causes for a strike. Penalties for enforcement of antistrike legislation. — Loss of employ- ment. Remarks. — In all services, except public utilities, strikes have been expressly permitted since the establishment of the Republic in 1010. ROUMANIA Conditions under which strikes and lockouts are prohibited or are illegal. — Strikes are prohibited irt public utilities. Penalties for enforceme nt of an tistrike legislation . — Imprisonment and loss of employment. Remarks. — No employee of a public utility can join a trade-union without the authorization of the Government, RUSSIA Conditions under which strikes and lockouts are prohibited or are illegal. — Strikes are prohibited among employees of public utilities. Penalties for enforcement of antistrike legislation. — Imprisonment and loss of employment. Authorities may arrest or banish strikers without bringing them before a court. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 'j^ SPAIN Conditions under which strikes and lockout,' are prohibited or are illegal. — Strikes are illegal in public utilities until five to eight days' notice is given, together with a statement as to the causes of the strike. _ Penalties for enforcement of antistrike legislation. — Leaders and of- ficials of labor organizations or concerted movements wha do not make a declaration as to the causes for a strike are liable to imprisonment. Remarks. — In industries other than public utilities strikes are ex- pressly allowed provided they are not accompanied by threats or violence. SWITZERLAND Legal machinery for the adjustment of disputes. — The Canton of Geneva has established a system of conciliation and arbitration. Concili- ataors are elected directly by the two parties to the dispute. If they can not reach a settlement, recourse is had to an arbitration board under Government auspices. There is no law for the settlement of disputes in the Federal railway service. Conditions under which strikes and lockouts are prohibited or are illegal. — Strikes are prohibited in the Federal railway service and in the Canton of Geneva whenever an industrial agreement or award is broken. Penalties for enforcement of antistrike legislation. — In the Federal service strikers are punishable by fines and cautions. There are no pen- alties in the Canton of Geneva. Remarks. — There have been no strikes on the railways of Switzerland since their nationalization in 1897. TRANSVAAL Legal machinery for the adjustment of disputes. — The Transvaal law is administered by a department of labor. Boards of investigation are appointed on the request of either party to a dispute. The board has the power of the supreme court as to securing evidence, etc., but can not make binding orders. Failing the adjustment of a dispute by agreement, the board reports to the minister of labor its recommendations, which are officially published and also given to the newspapers. Conditions under which strikes and lockouts are prohibited or are illegal. — In public utilities, the mining industry, and in any other industry to which the provisions of the act are extcnd,ed by proclamation, strikes are unlawful until after an inquiry by a Government board and until one month after the publication of the board's report. Penalties for enforcement of antistrike legislation. — Any striker is liable to a fine of £10 to £50 ($48.67 to $243-33) a day, and, in de- fault of fine, imprisonment, or imprisonment for 3 months without the option of fine. Any one encouraging another to strike may be fined £50 to £250 ($243.33 to $1,216.63) or 6 months' imprisonment. Any em- ployer declaring a lockout may be fined £100 to £1,000 ($486.65 to $4,866.50) a day, or given 12 months' imprisonment. Remarks. — The Transvaal law is based, as regards prevention and procedure, upon the Canadian Industrial Disputes Investigation Act of 1907. UNITED STATES Legal machinery for the adjustment of disputes. — Law providing for for conciliation and arbitration of disputes on railways which interrupt or threaten to interrupt the business of the employer to the detriment of the public interest^ under the administration of a board of mediation and conciliation appointed by the President. The board attempts media- tion and conciliation, which failing, the board seeks to procure the sub- mission, thrtfugh an agreement of the parties, of the dispute to a board of arbitration. Jurisdiction is obtained at the request of 'either party to a dispute, or the board may proffer its services. Conditions under which strikes and lockouts are prohibited or; are illegal. — No legislation by the Federal Government. Penalties for enforcement of antistrike legislation. — No penalties against strikes. 76 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF THE KANSAS INDUSTRIAL COURT BILL' Governor Henry J. Allen of Kansas called a special ses- sion of the Legislature on January s, 1920, to consider a bill for the establishment of an industrial court for the trial and determination of industrial disputes arising in the food, cloth- ing, fuel, transportation, and public utilities industries. The bill was prepared under the direction of the Governor. Amendments introduced by the Legislature give the court a wider range than as originally provided. The labor lobby made vigorous attempts to make the court a mere instru- ment for voluntary arbitration. The measure became law about January 2Sth. The manufacture of food products, the manufacture of "clothing and all manner of wearing apparel in common use by the people," the mining or production of fuel, "the trans- portation of all food products and articles or substances en- tering into wearing apparel or fuel,"" and all public utilities and common carriers as defined by law under the general statutes of Kansas, are declared to be affected with a public interest and therefore subject to supervision by the State "for the purpose of preserving the public peace, protecting the public health, preventing industrial strife, disorder and waste, and securing regular and orderly conduct of the busi- nesses directly aflecting the living conditions of the people." Any person, firm or corporation engaged in any of these in- dustries affected with the public interest, either as owner, manager or worker, is subject to the provisions of this law. The bill creates a Court of Industrial Relations to be com- posed of three judges appointed by the Governor, by and with the consent of the Senate. One judge shall be appoint- ed each year and each judge will serve for three years. The salary of the judges is fixed at $S,ooo a year. This Court will sit at Topeka, the capital of the State, and shall be a Court of record. The Court determines its own procedure, but the rules of evidence as recognized by the Supreme Court of the> State of Kansas are binding upon it in the talcing of testimony. ^ Law and Labor 2:31-3. February, 1920. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ^^ The power and duties of the Public Service Commission are transferred to the Court and the commission abolished. "In case of a controversy arising between employers and workers, or between groups or crafts of workers, engaged in any of said industries (referred to above) * * * if it shall appear to said Court that said con- troversy may endanger the continuity or efficiency of ser- vice of any of said industries * * * or affect the produc- tion or transportation of the necessaries of life * * * or produce industrial strife, disorder or waste or endanger the orderly operation of such industries * * * full power, au- thority and jurisdiction are hereby granted to said Court of Industrial Relations upon its own initiative, to summon all necessary parties before it and to investigate said contro- versy * * * and to investigate conditions surrounding the workers and to consider the wages paid to labor and the re- turn accruing to capital, and the rights and welfare of the public, and all other matters affecting the conduct of said industries * * * and to settle and adjust all such contro- versies * * *." It is further made the duty of the Court to investigate and determine controversies upon the com- plaint of either party to a controversy, upon the complaint "of any ten citizen taxpayers of the community in which such industries * * * are located, or upon the complaint of the attorney general of the state." Upon the conclusion of the investigation and "as expeditiously as possible" the Court shall serve upon "all interested parties its findings, stating specifically the terms and conditions upon which said industry * * * should be thereafter conducted insofar as the matters determined by said Court are concerned." The Court "shall order such changes, if any, as are neces- sary to be made in and about the conduct of said industry * * * in the matter of working and living conditions, hours of labor, rules and practices, and a reasonable minimum wage or -standard of wages, * * * provided, all such terms, con- ditions and wages shall be just and reasonable and such as to enable such industries * * * to produce or transport their products or continue their operations and thus to pro- mote the general welfare." The terms ordered by the Court "shall continue for such reasonable time as may be fixed 78 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF by said Court, or until changed by agreement of the parties with the approval of the Court"; but a party complying in good faith with the terms of the order for sixty days or more and finding the order "unjust, unreasonable or impracticable" may apply to the Court for a modification. Section 9 provides: "It is hereby declared necessary for the promotion of the general welfare that workers engaged in any of said industries, employments, utilities or common carriers shall receive at all times a fair wage and have health- ful and moral surroundings while engaged in such labor; and that capital invested therein shall receive at all times a fair rate of return to the owners thereof. The right of every person to make his own choice of employment and to make and carry out fair, just and reasonable contracts and agreements of employment, is hereby recognized. * * * The bill gives the Court ample power to compel the at- tendance of witnesses and the production of books. How- ever, in the event that any party to a controversy fails to obey an order of the Court, the Court is "authorized to bring proper proceedings in the supreme court of the State of Kansas to compel compliance" and should either party to a controversy "feel aggrieved" at any order made and entered by the Court, the party is "authorized and empowered with- in ten days after service of such order upon it to bring proper proceedings in the supreme court of the State of Kansas to compel said Court of Industrial Relations to jnake and enter a just, reasonable and lawful order in the premises.'' In such a proceeding in the supreme court, the evidence in the case before the Court of Industrial Relations may be con- sidered by the supreme court but either party may intro- duce such other evidence as the supreme court may deem necessary to enable it to render a just and proper judgment. Such a proceeding will be given precedence over other civil cases. Any action brought to set aside a decision of the Court of Industrial Relations must be brought within thirty days from the time the decision is rendered. Any union or association of workers which may incorpor- ate under the laws of the state, shall be recognized as a legal entity, and the right of such coiporations to bargain col- lectively for their members is recognized. However, the in- INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 79 dividual members of unincorporated associations, desiring to bargain collectively, may appoint in writing an officer or offi- cers to represent them in making collective bargains, and the written appointment of such officers shall be made a perma- nent record of the union. It is made unlawful to discharge or discriminate against any employee because he testifies as a witness before the Court or signs any complaint or does any other thing to bring the attention of the Court to any controversy, or to combine or conspire to boycott, picket, advertise or carry on propaganda against any person, firm or corporation be- cause of any action taken under the direction of the Court or because the jurisdiction of the Court has been invoked. It is made unlawful to cease operations for the purpose of limiting production and transportation, to effect prices or to avoid the provisions of this law, but any concern may apply to the Court for authority to cease operation and if the application "shall be found in good faith and merito- rious," then the application shall be granted by the Court. It is made unlawful, individually or in combination, to do any act with intent "to hinder, delay, limit or suspend the opera- tion of any of the industries * * * or to delay, limit or suspend the production or transportation of the products of such industries * * *." However it is not unlawful for an individual to quit his employment at any time. Violation of the act is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not exceeding $i,ooo or imprisonment not exceeding one year or both. But any officer of any corporation engaged in any of these industries or an official of any labor union employed in these industries who shall wilfully violate any of the provisions of this act shall be deemed guilty of a felony and punishable by a fine not to exceed $S,ooo or im- prisonment in the penitentiary at hard labor for not more than two years or both. In case of the suspension or cessation of operation of any of these industries contrary to the provisions of the law, if in the opinion of the Court it will seriously effect the pub- lic welfare the Court is "directed to take proper proceedings in any Court of competent jurisdiction * * * to take over control, direct, and operate said industry * * * provided, 8o COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF that a fair return shall be paid to the owners of such in- dustry * * * and also a fair wage to the workers engaged therein during the time of such operations * * *." An industrial controversy in any industry not specifically designated by this law may be, by mutual consent in writing of the parties thereto, submitted to the Court, and its de- cision shall have the same effect as decisions in cases in industries specifically covered by the law. The findings of the Court as to minimum or standard of wages "shall be deemed prima facia reasonable and just" and such minimum or standard, shall take effect as of the time when the investigation of the Court leading to that finding began. Either party having a balance due from the other as a result of such finding may sue therefor. The justices of this Court are "authorized and empowered to make or cause to be made within the state or elsewhere such investigations and inquries as to industrial conditions and re- lations as may be profitable or necessary for the purpose of familiarizing themselves with industrial problems." The Court is directed to make an annual report covering all of its ex- pense and proceedings. THE COLORADO. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION' The nearest approach to the Kansas statute is an act of the State of Colorado, enacted in 1915, creating an industrial com- mission, and conferring upon it certain powers as to the ad- justment of industrial disputes. This act is patterned to some extent after the Canadian Industrial Disputes Acts, and makes it unlawful for employers to declare or cause a lock ut, or for employees to go on a strike prior to or during an investiga- tion or arbitration of a dispute. This act received its first test in this regard during the coal strike of November last, a res- training order against the proposed strike of November 21 being issued under it by the District Court of the City and County of Denver. In obedience thereto the district ofiicers of the miner's union recalled their strike order, resulting, it is claimed, in a production of coal more nearly normal than in any other State of that section of the country. However, the union atacked the law on the ground of its claimed unconstitu- ^ Monthly Labor Review. io:8io-i. March, igao. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 8i tionality, and some technical questions as to its enactment. The act limits its application, at least in the case of lockouts, to in- dustries "affected with a public interest." In its later delib- erations the district court, without suggestion from either party, injected the test of public interest into the case in hand, and ruled that underground mines are not affected with a public interest and fall outside the act. The case has been carried to the Supreme Court on a writ of error for a decision on this subject, as well as on the constitutional questions, and it will be of interest to know what conclusion shall be reached by the Court on these points. However, it seems obvious enough that coal mines are affected with a public interest, so that the main concern is with the validity of the act that undertakes to prevent the cessation of industrial operations on grounds of the public concern until suitable time for investigation has elapsed. Though this first legal process for enforcement has thus been opposed, the commission reports results of great value flowing from the operations of the law.^ Since its enactment in 1915, "this state has been comparatively free from labor trouble, and has been absolutely free from any protracted strike; and blood- shed, violence, and the destruction of property have been un- known." The law requires 30 days' notice before a strike or lockout is actually engaged in; and this provision, "against which violent criticism has been directed, has saved the situation in- numerable times." This period permits opportunity for con- ciliatory efforts, which have many times been successful. If this fails, informal conferences often afford a means of arriv- ing at an understanding; while in other cases, formal hear- ings and awards are resorted to. From March, 1917, when the presei'.? commission took office, up to November i, 1918, the commission handled controversies involving 1,430 employers and 28,888 employees. There were 196 cases reported to the commission, of which 145 were reported with the statutory 30 days' notice; 32 resulted in strikes of from i to 65 days' duration, but all were settled, men returning to work. The record is believed to show "ample justification for the enact- ment and continued existence of the law," which all interests ■'are coming to view as a step in the right direction." ' Second Report of the Industrial Commission of Colorado, 1917-18, p. 98-121. 82 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF THE AUSTRALIAN SYSTEM OF DEALING WITH LABOR DISPUTES' The Australian system of dealing with labor disputes and of the regulation of labor conditions has passed through many changes. Different states, each with full power of self-govern- ment, have from time to time altered and amended their laws according to experience. In New Zealand, for instance, the Industry Disputes Act has been amended in some way on an average of once every two years since the year igoo. In New South Wales, existing legislation has on three occasions been practically repealed, and entirely new laws have been passed. But in all the states there is a striking uniformity of essentials. The whole industrial system is based on the principle that the relationship of employer and employe is a matter of grave so- cial concern that justifies interference by some centralized authorities. In other words, freedom of contract is not now unlimited but can only operate within certain areas prescribed by law. The desire of parliaments has always been to make this interference between employer and workman as small as possible, and the result has been that practically all indus- tries work today only above minima which are from time to time prescribed, and during certain hours that are fixed by law. To understand the Australian system it is necessary to real- ize that the country generally has accepted three definite in- dustrial claims as now beyond dispute. We start off in the new era of reconstruction with concessions finally guaranteed that are the subject of controversy in other countries. These three fundamentals, as I might call them, are as follows: 1. The recognition of the fullest right of workmen to organize for their own protection, and the right of each union to make the collective bargain for the industry that it represents. 2. The recognition of the eight-hour day. 3. The recognition of the principle of the living wage in all indus- tries — that is, the drawing of a line below which competition in the labor market is illegal, but above which ordinary economic forces come into play. These three concessions have been the result of our system of industrial arbitration. This system has been arrived at by two different methods which have gradually converged. Two states adopted what is known as the wages board system, all • George Beeby, Minister of Labor for New South Wales, in Surver. 42:399-401. June 7, 1919. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 83 the others, what can more accurately be described as judicial arbitration. The wages board system contained the minimum element of compulsion. Under it the government of the day had power, within certain limits, to appoint a wages board for an indus- try. This board generally consisted of about six workmen and six employers who selected their own chairman, with provi- sion that the government could provide a chairman in the event of failure of mutual selection. These boards were authorized to declare a minimum standard for the industry on hours, mini- mum wages and the conditions attached to juvenile labor. They originally applied only to certain industries in which women and children were largely employed, such as garment making, manufacture of confectionery and similar occupations; but they were gradually extended, and in the states which had adopted this system all manufacturing industries gradually came under regulation. The finding of the board became a common rule for the industry, and any employer working be- low the standard fixed was liable to cash penalties. That sys- tem, however, did not in any way interfere with the rights of the workmen to take part in a strike or in any other legal way to force a better bargain for his trade. One of these states which originally adopted wages boards abandoned the scheme and now works under the system of judicial arbitration. The wages board system today operates only in one state, Victoria, and its awards generally conform to the standards fixed by the arbitration courts. The judicial system was adopted originally in New Zealand and ultimately, with variations, by the states of New South Wales, South Australia, Queensland and Western AustraHa. It leads to the ultimate settlement of all industrial disputes by a court es- pecially appointed, generally consisting of a single judge. In some cases the judge sits with assessors representing the two interests, but in nine cases out of ten the ultimate decision rests with the judge. These judges operating in these states and in the federal area conduct proceedings much on the same lines as those of a civil court. The parties become litigants, they file claims and replies, issues are joined, advocates are engaged, and elaborate inquiries in open court are held, evidence being called in support of cases, in the reply, in rejoinder, in rebuttal; and in every way the paraphernalia of a court is maintained. 84 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF Ultimately the decision is left to the judge whose award, when made, becomes the standard for the industry. Today there is a strong movement for a complete change of this system. It is frankly admitted by both sides that its effect has been to keep workmen and employers apart, that a vast amount of work done by the courts could be done by voluntary conciliation and equally satisfactory results reached. The movement in Australia today is towards investigation of industrial troubles by negotiation rather than by litigation. New Zealand has already altered its law and makes it dif- ficult for the arbitration court to deal with the case. Before it can get to the court it must be dealt with by a special body appointed for a district or appointed for each individual dis- pute. In every way the parties are urged and encouraged to arrive at their own agreements, but in the background the court exists to deal with the cases of violent controversy, particularly in industries of a national character. In New South Wales a recent law provides for the appoint- ment of a board of trade. This board of trade consisting of representatives of employers and workmen in equal numbers, with a judge of the industrial court acting as president, is en- trusted with the following, among its other duties : J. The fixing from year to year of the basic living wage applicable to all adult male and female labor. (This function does not in any way prevent arbitration courts from iixing^ minima for particular in- dustries. It only restricts them from going below the basic living wage.) 2. The appointment of industrial councils for industries. 3. The appointment of shop committees for individual workshops. 4. The general encouragement of a system of industrial organization on the lines of the Whitley scheme. 5. The holding of inquiries on important industrial matters of universal interest, and the recommendation to Parliament from time to time of legislation. 6. The absolute control of the conditions under which juvenile labor can be employed. The idea of this act is gradually to transfer the whole sys- tem of industrial regulation from judges and industrial courts to these industrial councils and shop committees. Power is also given to the government to utilize the indus- trial councils in any future provision which may be made for unemployment insurance. There is strong opposition to main- tenance of any highly centralized fund dealing with insurance against employment and equalization of wage pay. It is thought that great problem will be more effectively dealt with if power is given to the government to subsidize any fund which may INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 8s be raised in any industrial council for the purpose of unem- ployment insurance. It must be remembered that a real effort is being made throughout the commonwealth today to move by stages from the old system of industrial arbitration to a system based somewhat on the Whitley scheme. The legislation is so framed as to give the minister of the day ample power to encourage in every way this program of bringing employers and work- men into close touch; but the idea of maintaining some tribunal which in the end can fix minimum standards for an industry in the event of the failure of negotiations, is maintained. With all its faults, the general opinion among employers is that in these days of perpetual industrial unrest it is essential to have some tribunal before which parties in violent dispute can be called, and to force them to adjust their differences. Work- men today are not favorable to compulsory arbitration. They believe that they could have achieved bigger results by the free use of the strike weapon and claim that restrictions on the right to strike have held them back. There is some basis for this objection from their point of view. Arbitration has largely improved the standards of unskilled labor and of those clas- ses of workmen who in the past have found it difficult to organize. The lower grades of labor clearly have received very definite benefits from the system, but the skilled mechanic, with the perpetual regtriction placed on his right to strike, has not improved his standards in the same proportion. That is to say, the relative difference between skilled and unskilled labor is not as great today as it was before the systems were adopted. These limitations on the power to strike have not in any way saved us from serious dislocations. Workmen strike freely in Australia, in spite of the law, and no law can check them. But constant public investigation of industrial disputes has had a very restrictive effect. It has prevented and has shortened many strikes. All proceedings in the past have been in open court, and the public has become rather intimately acquainted with the nature of industrial relations. Workmen, except those who are revolutionary in tendency, are often engaged in analyz- ing the important question whether an industry can stand some increase which is proposed and, generally, the whole system has been of great educational value. Its main weakness, however, has been that it has prevented negotiation and has kept employ- 86 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF ers and workmen in two definite, hostile camps, always ready to litigate but rarely in the mood for conciliation. It must be remembered that the national parliament. Con- gress as you call it, has some power over industrial matters. The federal constitution provides that parliament can legislate for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes extend- ing beyond the limits of any one state. In pursuance of this power, the federal court of arbitration has been set up, and any dispute which gets beyond the boundary of one state can be, and often is, determined by this federal court. The court, how- ever, is constituted very much on the same lines as those of dif- ferent states and generally adopts the same principles in many awards. The tendency is for unions, if possible, to make their disputes go beyond the state boundary. They prefer the federal tribunal to that of the states. But in this court the learned judge who is today its president has not gone to any material extent above the standards generally recognized by these state tribunals. He has laid down one general guiding principle, and the duty of his court is not to regulate the detailed workings of an industry but merely to provide for the fixing of a reasonable standard of living in the industry, leaving the complete manage- ment of the business in the hands of the employer and his rep- resentatives. There has been much comment by employers from time to time on different awards. There has been considerable opposi- tion to the whole system, but this has gradually disappeared. Very few employers today ask for a complete repeal of our in- dustrial legislation. They welcome public investigation of claims made, and they agree that in a. young country which is building up its manufacturing industries it is better that all em- ployers should be put upon the same footing. No employer .in Australia can now obtain an advantage by the use of cheap labor. It is true also, as the employers state, that the fixing of the minimum wage for the industry has tended to inefficiency, but employers are not without blame in this, when wages fixed have been only minima. Most employers at the outset, directly a wage was fixed, petulantly announced that all their employes in the future would get the same wage and abolished the varia- tions which previously existed. The result of this general ap- plication of the minimum as a standard wage undoubtedly led expert workmen to come down to somewhere near the level of the average man. During recent years, however, many employ- INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 87 ers have accepted the awards of the court only as minima and have higher wages in order to get higher results. There is also a very strong movement today to try to intro- duce systems of payment on piece-work and payment by results, but this is bitterly resisted by unionism. It is thought that the industrial councils will probably be able to bring about some change in this direction. In the shipbuilding industry, recently commenced, the New South Wales government has succeeded in getting mechanics, particularly those engaged in riveting, to work on a piece-work basis, with proper guarantees that in- creased output will not lead to reduction of piece-work rates, and also with the provision that workmen shall not injure them- selves by going beyond the ordinary eight-hour day's work, ex- cept in cases of emergency. The result of this change was that the output of riveters per man was on an average doubled with- in a few weeks, and it is anticipated that even better results can be obtained without injury to workmen. I discussed the whole of this question with the Associated chambers of manufacturers of Australia some weeks ago, and the gathering unanimously agreed to the following propositions : That a minimum standard of comfort prescribed by law was not in- jurious to tliem, so long as the detailed management of the business was left entirely to their own judgment. That the eight-hour law, particularly in all industries in which men worked under cover, or in connection with machinery, should be uni versally established. That the time had arrived for a joint responsibility of the govern- ment, the employer, and the workman, to provide effective means of insurance against unemployment, sickness and accident. That as a last resort it was best, in the interests of the state, to maintain some authoritative system of settlement of industrial dis- putes in all important industries. That standardized conditions for the whole commonwealth, as to the condition of employment of juvenile labor, were advisable. I venture to summarize the situation as follows : Australia will continue to maintain the three fundamentals mentioned in the beginning of this statement. It will continue to maintain some tribunals which will have power as a court of ultimate resort to make an award in settle- ment of industrial disputes which will be binding on the parties. But these tribunals will probably consist more of industrial councils, and access to them will be more difficult. There will also be created industrial councils for industries and shop com- mittees for individual establishments. And all parties will be compelled to negotiate in these councils on all matters affecting industries before they will get access to a compulsory tribunal. 88 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF A definite movement will before long be made in the direc- tion of unemployment insurance, but will, I think, be on the lines already indicated; that is, the industrial council will be- come responsible for the creation and maintenance of the fund for its particular industry — this fund being liberally subsidized from the public purse. Industrial records of individual work- men will be kept, and gradually those who are unworthy will be scheduled and not allowed to participate in any insurance fund. The general control of the whole scheme of industrial reg- ulation will, I think, beyond doubt before very long be cen- tralized in the national government. There is a strong move- ment today which is rapidly reaching a climax to vest this im- portant function in a national authority on the understanding that it uses the state machinery now in existence. Some uni- formity is essential. There is considerable conflict today be- tween different state systems and the federal system, and both employers and workmen are in agreement that it would be better to take the industrial power from the hands of state parliaments and invest it in Congress. PART III COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES AFFIRMATIVE DISCUSSION COMPULSORY ARBITRATION ' Strikes are a serious injury to the public, cause enormous losses to employers and employees, and often accomplish nothing for the strikers beyond blacklisting and the loss of opportunity to earn a living. What is the remedy? Cooperation will abol- ish strikes, because employers, as a separate class antagonistic to labor, will disappear and the workers will become their own employers. But cooperation does not promise any immediate relief ; it is growing very slowly, and cannot be relied on as a present solution. Aside from cooperation, the equitable methods of avoiding strikes are two : voluntary settlement by conciliation or mediation; and compulsory settlement in courts having juris- diction of industrial questions under statutory regulations of labor and capital, or under the general principles of justice and equity. Since voluntary methods do not accomplish the work, and there is no immediate prospect of their doing so, it is clear that at present and probably for this generation the question is sim- ply, strikes or labor courts. Let us examine the leading argu- ments that may be advanced on each side of the question. I. Where mediation and conciliation fail, compulsory arbi- tration is demanded in the interests of peace, — industrial, polit- ical, and social peace. Violence and destruction are frequent accompaniments of strikes. Here are a few of the facts : •^ --Massachusetts railroad strike, 1834 ; riots, militia called out to suppress the disturbance. , Philadelphia weavers, 1842; very disorderly. . Philadelphia brickmakers, 1843; much rioting and destruc- tion of property. , Great railroad strike, 1877 ; rioting and burning, troops over- powered by mobs, twelve men killed at Baltimore and many more at Pittsburg, millions of property destroyed. iBy Frank Parsons. Arena. 17: 663. March, 1897. 92 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF Gould railroad strike, 1886; violence and destruction. 'New York street-car strike, 1889; riotous conduct, one striker shot. Buffalo strike, 1892; riots, troops, bloodshed, entire State militia called out. Homestead strike, 1892, riots, Pinkerton's battle, many lives lost; much property destroyed, forty non-union men poisoned at their meals. Coal Creek Valley miners, strike, Tennessee, 1892; fighting and burning. State troops called out. Silk workers' strike, Paterson, N. J., 1894; rioting and mob violence. Great coal miners' strike in eleven states^, and one territory, 1894; whole counties terrorized, strikers intrenched in open in- surrection, much property destroyed, troops powerless to pre- serve order, shooting, eviction, dynamite assassination, kidnap- ping, torture, pitched battles, many lives lost. Chicago strike, 1894; mobs, riots, troops, loss of life and property. Brooklyn street-car strike, 1895; rioting and destruction. Philadelphia street-car strike, 189S ; some disturbance and destruction. One of the objects of the federal Constitution is to "insure domestic tranquillity." Surely that object cannot be considered accomplished until law is substituted for force in the settlement of labor troubles. Even when rioting does not occur, the dan- ger of violence that is incident to every great industrial dispute is in itself a mighty influence for evil. If the parties will not voluntarily adopt a method of settlement that does not threaten the public peace, they must be compelled to adopt it. The public good is the supreme law. 2. Justice demands that law be substituted for force as a means of deciding labor troubles, not merely for the sake of peace and safety, protection of life and property, and securing the business of the community from interruption or hindrance, but also for the sake of fairer and more reasonable settlements between the parties and the infusion of equity into all the rela- tions of labor and capital. Very often the claims of workmen who strike are wholly just, and few cases can be found in which their claims were not just in part at the least. Almost always there is a real griev- INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 93 ance that ought to be redressed, yet in the majority of cases the strikers are defeated, and fail to obtain relief; not uncommonly indeed they are severely punished for venturing to ask for jus- tice, all w^ho were known to have been active in the strike being discharged and blacklisted, and the rest being less favorably treated than before the strike, to teach them to be quiet in the future, and very likely discharged on the slightest pretext and replaced by non-union men. The Pullman affair is a good illustration of the failure of strikes to secure justice for the workers. The demands of the men were for the most part fair and reasonable; public sym- pathy was with them; their cause was backed by a tremendous sympathetic strike on the railways; yet the struggle brought them no redress, nothing but loss. At the time of the Philadelphia street-car strike in 1895, the men were working twelve to fourteen hours a day for $2, were unprotected from the weather, and were refused recognition as an organization. They struck for a ten-hour day, vestibules, and recognition. Public sympathy was all on their side. Every paper in the city espoused their cause, except one, which was controlled by traction interests. Immense meetings of citizens were held, and committees of prominent men were appointed to intercede with the companies. Yet the strike entirely failed to secure the workers anything but loss, discharge, and blacklisting. The recent strike of conductors and motormen in Boston is another illustration of the ineffectiveness of strikes. The men were being worked over ten hours a day in violation of law, they were subject to arbitrary discharge at the whim of any petty boss, and in case of accident were laid off one, three, sometimes seven or eight days during the investigation of the matter, and were obliged to lose this time whether they proved faultless in respect to the accident or not. The demand of the men for better treatment in these respects was eminently just, and the public approved their cause, but they failed to obtain relief. The strike was not well managed, but, judging by ex- perience in Philadelphia and in other cities, it is very improbable that the men would have secured their rights even if they had conducted the battle with all possible skill. The terrible Coal Creek Valley strike was a revolt against the employment of convict labor in the mines. The strikers were conquered by the troops and gained no recognition of the 94 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF very just demand that the practice of farming out prisoners to corporations should cease. The strike did something however toward bringing the Tennessee system into disrepute. One of the demands of the telegraphers' strike of 1883 was that women should receive the same pay as men for the same work. Another was for the abolition of Sunday work without extra pay; and another for an eight-hour day. The strike failed, and these just demands were not complied with. The record of strikes by no means covers the field of in- justice to labor; in innumerable cases the workers suffer in silence, knowing the costliness and futility of strikes. In many of these cases redress might very likely be obtained if a peace- ful appeal to a court of justice were permitted. Let sixty per cent of the workers affected by any griev- ance have the right to bring the matter into court on show- ing that reasonable effort in the direction of conciliation and voluntary arbitration has been made and has failed to afford redress. If either employers or employed do not desire to leave the decision with the court, let the workers choose one arbitrator, the employees another, and these two a third, subject to the approval of court, (which represents the in- terests of the community); let the award of this board of arbitrators stand on the same footing as a judgment of the court and be enforced in the same way. Do this and make strikes unlawful, and you have gone a great way toward substituting reason for might in deciding the rights of labor and capital. Not only the workers and the general public would be benefited, but there would be a corresponding gain to capital, which is also a heavy loser by strikes, and does at times submit to imposition and grant unjust demands rather than risk the consequence of a rupture. This is especially apt to be so where employees take advantage of the fact that their employers are under contract with third persons to perform a given service in a specified time. In whatever way it is regarded, judgment by court is a better means of arriving at justice and equity than judgment by wager of battle. In respect to justice the decision of an impartial tribunal will have the same superiority over private settlement by conflict in the case of disputes between cor- porations and their employees as in case of disputes between INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 9S man and man, or state and state. Heat and passion, greed and strength, are not the champions of equity. The prize ring does not concern itself with right. The battlefield is not the place to look for justice. The federal Constitution reflects the thought and experi- ence of the civilized world in the statement that the first object of government is "to establish justice.'' Surely gov- ernments instituted to establish justice should endeavor to prevent the continuance of anything so inimical to justice as the strike. And if society takes from labor what is often to-day its sole defense against capitalistic aggression, — if society forbids the strike, as indeed it does already through the injunction of its Federal courts whenever the combat threatens to hinder the mails or interfere with interstate commerce, — then it is surely the duty of society to give to labor another means of defense as good or better than the one that it has taken away; and the only method of doing this at the present stage of social development is to establish industrial arbitration, with the power of the law behind it to enforce whatever decisions may be rendered. 3. Economy demands the arbitrament of law in place of the arbitrament of conflict. In the railway strike of 1877 the loss to property and business inflicted by the mob at Pitts- burg alone is estimated at $5,000,000, and the county of Alle- gheny was compelled to pay $2,787,000 of the loss sustained during the Pittsburg riots. The Chicago strike cost the railways $S,3S8,ooo, and the employees $1,700,000, a total of $7,058,000, not including the loss to the Pullman Company. The National Commission says that "beyond these amounts very great losses, widely distributed, were incidentally suf- fered throughout the country." The California fruit-growers, for example, lost $50,000 a day. The total loss which re- sulted from that one strike, in all probability exceeded $10,000,000. The telegi-aph strike of 1883 cost the companies $909,000, and the men $250,000. The railway strike on the "Gould system" in 1886 cost the strikers $900,000, those thrown out of employment by their action $500,000, and the railroads, $3,180,000. For the strikes that occurred from 1881 to 1886, inclusive, the wage loss by the employees is estimated by the United States Commissioner of Labor at $51,814,000, and the em- 96 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF ployers' losses are estimated by the same authority at $30,701,000. And the trouble is not growing less as the year's go by. From 1741 to 1880, inclusive, there were 1,491 strikes and lockouts, while for the six years ending Decem- ber 31, 1886, the number of strikes alone was 3,902,- — forty a year for the first period, and over six hundred and fifty a year for the second. Making all due allowance for fuller reporting of strikes in the later period, the contrast is still a startling one. Surely it is cheaper as well as more just to settle by court than by strike. At present we pay for the strike first; then we pay for a commission to examine into its causes and re- sults; let us have the inquiry first and save the expense of the strike. 4. Manhood also demands arbitration instead of war. Conflict debases both the victor and the victim. Every time deliberation is substituted for passion and force, a gain for character-development is made. 5. It will modify and limit the despotic powers, of un- scrupulous corporations, and so tend to prevent oppression, ameliorate the condition of labor, and secure a better dif- fusion of wealth. 6. It will tend to secure the stability of our republic and the perpetuity of free institutions, by effecting greater har- mony in the relations of employers and employed, and eliminating some of the injustices, antagonisms, and conflicts that cause the development of dangerous animosities be- tween labor and capital, and feed the growth of anarchy. 7. The argument from history and the trend of civiliza- tion. The tendency of advancing civilization is all in the direction of substituting the compulsion of courts of justice for other private compulsion of individuals or groups of in- dividuals. In primitive times the settlement of disputes of every sort was a private matter. If one man wronged another, or a disagreement arose as to rights, the parties fought out the difficulty alone, or with such help as their friends might grant. Men early found that this method did not insure justice and was inimical to the public peace, so they established courts of justice, with power to compel the arbitration of disputes, in order that their decisions might be INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 97 by cool, impartial intelligence, instead of by heat and pas- sion, strength and cunning. We compel the arbitration of disputes between man and man, between States, between individuals and States, and we are about to establish a court of arbitration for the settle- ment of disputes between nation and nation, but disputes be- tween a corporation and its employees are left to the prim- itive method of barbaric conflict. Under the treaty between the United States and Great Britain, we are trying to do away with war between nation and nation by creating an International Court of Arbitration. When the chief nations of the world come into the move- ment, send their representatives, and stand behind its de- crees, we shall have compulsory arbitration of national dif- ficulties by means of judicial decision in a court of recog- nized authority, instead of compulsory arbitration by war. That is an object worthy the earnest efforts of the highest statesmanship; but is it not equally incumbent upon our statesmen to make an effort to abolish civil war between great corporations and their employees by establishing courts to arbitrate their differences? Common sense demands the application to industrial dis- putes of the same principles that are applied to other dis- putes. If A and B get to fighting in the street they are brought before a court of justice and informed that they have subjected themselves to the penalties of the law; that as long as they remain in civilized society they will not be allowed to settle their difficulties by battle; that courts are established on purpose to do justice between them; and that if they cannot agree they may appeal to the courts, but must not resort to combat. Why should a corporation and its employes be permitted to fight out their quarrels in the streets to the disturbance of the peace, the interference with business, the destruction of life and property, and the annihilation of justice? Every reason that applies in the former case for putting decision by court in the place of de- cision by force, applies in the latter with redoubled force. If A and B cannot be left to fight out their quarrels, nor Massachusetts and Rhode Island, Pennsylvania and New York, Turkey and Armenia, Great Britain and the United States, — if individuals and states and nations must submit 98 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF to compulsory arbitration for the sake of peace and justice and liberty, why should a corporation and its employees be permitted to settle their quarrels by war in the heart of a giant city? The substitution of peaceful, impartial, and intelligent jus- tice for the turmoil, injustice and destructiveness of private conflict is one of the distinguishing marks of a high civiliza- tion. It is time we extended the idea of the impartial admin- istration of justice to the sphere of industrial difficulties. Compulsory arbitration of labor disputes means simply the extension of the control of law and order over a field which, up to the present time, has been left to chaos. 8. Experience in France, Belgium and New Zealand shows that compulsory arbitration of labor difficulties is a marked success in practice, a success that need not be afraid of comparison with the results of administering justice by tribunal in other relations of life usually subjected to judicial regulation in civilized communities. In France and Belgium compulsory arbitration has been for years an assured and successful fact; and in 1894 a strong compulsory arbitration law was adopted in New Zealand, the most progressive, in many respects, of all the British colonies. In England the laws of 1824 and 1837 provided for compulsory arbitration in certain cases, but the laws were not comprehensive enough to be really useful. The most famous examples of tribunals established by law for the compulsory arbitration of labor troubles are the French "Conseils des Prud'hommes." The parties may sub- mit their diflferences to arbitration voluntarily. If they do not, then, after an attempt to reach an agreement has failed, the tribunal compels arbitration, and the award is enforced the same as the judgment of any other court of law. Each council consists of eight members or more, elected for three years — half elected by the workmen in its jurisdic- tion, and half by the employers. Every question is within the compulsory jurisdiction except future rates of wages which are only within the voluntary jurisdiction. As we shall see later, there is no valid reason why the compulsory jurisdiction may not be extended to the wage-rate; but even without it, there is a vast work left for compulsory arbitra- tion to do In France 88 per cent of the cases failing of con- INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 99 ciliation are dealt with on the compulsory side of the court. In this country more than S7 per cent of the strikes involve questions that would be subject to the compulsory jurisdic- tion of a court like the French Council, that is, 57 per cent of our strikes involve other questions than the wage-rate. The French Labor Report for 1893 says that the "con- seils" have an average of 41,000 cases a year. In 1893, 8,982 cases were settled and withdrawn before decision; 16,231 were conciliated; and 11,948 were dealt with under compul- sory jurisdiction. The report also says that these courts are characterized by speedy adjudication and a very in- expensive procedure. The total cost, even in extreme cases, where distraining is necessary cannot exceed $8.72. The fol- lowing extract from the French report just mentioned is specially worthy of note: The people are certainly right in attributing to the councils of ex- perts the relative tranquility which industry in France has enjojred in the present century. They have prevented many strikes by assuring to workpeople a competent adjudication, speedy, and inexpensive. 9. Authority of the highest character favors compulsory > arbitration. For example, Francis A. Walker speaks of \ strikes as "the insurrection of labor." and in his "Political Economy" says: "It is a shame for us as a people that we have not yet made for ourselves a better way out of indus- ' trial disputes." The National Farmers' Congress and the ' New York Society for Political Education favor the move- ment, and labor organizations as a rule heartily endorse it. The London Chamber of Arbitration, a board of mediation, , has recently recommended, as the result of its study and ex- perience, that a compulsory jurisdiction be added to the con- ciliatory jurisdiction. A number of objections more or less serious may be raised against compulsory arbitration. I. In the first place, it may be urged that it is an in- fringement of liberty. This, of course, is not conclusive, for every law on the "A^ statute book is an infringement of somebody's liberty. Com- ■' pulsory education is an infringement of liberty. Legislative ' acts fixing rates to be charged by railways, grain elevators, / water companies, telephone companies, etc., constitute in- fringements of liberty, yet all these things are justified by . reason and experience. The same statement is true of laws 100 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF prescribing the height and the materials of buildings, laws against carrying arms, prohibiting nuisances, all sorts of regulations to secure the public health and safety. The ques- tion is not whether a' measure is an infringement of liberty, but whether it is a justifiable infringement. The liberty of the individual must yield to the public good; liberty to do wrong must be curtailed in order that there may be more liberty to do right. Liberty to buy labor in competitive mar- ket, at a price and on conditions that would njDt be accepted but for the duress of necessity, is. a liberty to buy manhood as a commodity, and is a liberty to which no one in America has a right since the proclamation of emancipation. Such a liberty is inimical to the elevation of labor and the best development of our citizenship; it is a liberty to buy slaves by the day under compulsion of their necessitigs, which is near akin to the liberty to buy slaves for life under compul- sion of other external circumstances, a liberty that was shot to death in the great war. The liberty of the employer to oppress the employee is diminished in order that the liberty of the employee to secure justice and work under fair conditions may be in- creased. The latter liberty cannot be increased without diminishing the former liberty, and the latter liberty is the more worthy. It is a question of the diffusion of liberty. Shall the employer have more than his share, all that his power and advantage can secure? That is a principle which would justify murder and arson, and the abolition of all laws against crime or tortious conduct. Or shall the liberties of the case be equitably distributed, and subject to judicial de- termination, so that each party may have his fair share, and no more? That is the principle on which is based the law and equity of the civilized world, and it is a principle that justifies the compulsory arbitration of labor disputes. Strikes involve a far greater interference with freedom than the proposed substitute. Strikes infringe the liberties of employers, employees, and the public; and the infringe- ment is guided by force and passion instead of reason, wherefore it is much more apt to be an unjust infringement than compulsory arbitration is likely to be. The infringe- ment of liberty by compulsory arbitration is less in quantity than in the case of strikes, and infinitely superior in quality, INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES loi being a curtailment merely of freedom which is bad, and to which no one has a right, — freedom to be unjust, freedom to conquer a weak adversary, freedom to endanger the pub- lic peace and safety. The objection to compulsory arbitration on the ground that it infringes liberty is largely due to the name. If we called the ordinary administration of justice, "compulsory arbitration of contracts, damages, and obligations in gen- eral," it would sound just as antagonistic to liberty. If we belonged to a colony about to establish courts of justice in place of the private settlement of disputes, between man and man, we should be met by the same objection, that it would curtail our liberty, — the liberty of the strong to oppress the weak. If we call this measure for the compulsory arbitra- tion of labor difficulties by its true name, — the admin- istration of justice in labor disputes, — we remove at once the chief foundation of this objection. How completely the objections to compulsory arbitration arise from an indiscriminate dislike of any new measure, that bears its compelling character in its title, may be seen in the fact that no one questions the advantages of arbitration; it is only about compulsion that we differ. If the parties to a dispute will voluntarily submit their difference to arbitration, and live up to the award, everyone agrees that this is the best possible method of dealing with the difficulty. But when the parties refuse to do this, as is usually the case, and insist on settling their disagreements by means of strikes, boycotts, and other sorts of industrial combat, which fre- quently involve enormous cost, obstruction of business, sus- pension of industry, disturbance of the peace, destruction of life and property, serious injustice to workingmen, wide- spread discontent, sullen return to labor under conditions and contracts forced upon them by want, and the antagon- isms and debasements of character that come from conflict, — then the question arises whether it is not best to require the parties to submit their differences to ah impartial tribunal, instead of fighting them out on the street; whether, when conciliation fails, it is not better that the difficulty should be settled according to principles of equity, by compulsion act- ing through a court of justice upon both parties equally, rather than according to principles of greed and passion, and 102 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF by compulsion of one party by the other. Where concilia- tion fails, compulsion of one kind or the other must decide the contest. We have to choose between compulsion of the weaker party by the stronger, and a compulsion found to be in the wrong, after a careful hearing and impartial delibera- tion by" a disinterested tribunal. We believe the latter best for reasons already given. 2. But we are told that it is impracticable to fix wages for the future, and that it would be unjust, because the award can be enforced only against the employer; the em- ployees may leave if the wages do not suit them. Well, even if we leave the wage-rate out of court, there is still a great deal for compulsory arbitration to do, as we have already seen. But in truth there is no need to leave it out. So far is it from impracticable, that the fact is, wages are continually fixed for the future. The bulk of our business is based on such settlem.enls. If a sliding scale is adopted, wages may safely be fixed for considerable periods in advance, and are so fixed to-day. The only question is, whether this shall be done by force or by the judgment of court. Which is the more likely to err? Which is the more likely to be lived up to? The employees are not bound to continue at the wages fixed by ^ strike or by voluntary arbi- tration. In practice, it will probably be found that they will be satisfied with the wage-rate fixed by the court of arbitration. It may not be all they asked for, but it will in most cases be likely to be an improvement on what they could get without arbitration, or, problematically, by a dis- astrous strike. The possible want of mutuality is not a serious matter. There is certainly no more lack of it than in the case of fix- ing hours or charges. The question is at best theoretic rather than practical. There is no difRculty in getting men at the wages offered by the companies, and there will not be any difficulty in getting them at the wages fixed by a court or commission, so that the lack of power to compel men to wofk at the wages fixed does not practically de- tract from the reciprocal character of the award, to say nothing of other considerations. Even were the reciprocal element entirely lacking, it would not exclude the measure. This element is lacking in many contracts sustained by the INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 103 law, those, namely, which constitute a title of contract law called "'unilateral contracts." In any case, if they do not stay, it is clear the wages are too low, and the employer must raise them if he wishes to keep his men. The court merely fixes the limit below which the employer must not go. He may pay more, must pay more if his workmen find they can do better elsewhere. There is no substantial lack of mutuality. The employer is not compelled to continue doing business, and the em- ployee is not compelled to continue working. If the employer cannot make the business pay at the wages demanded, because of low wages in his business else- where, or for other cause beyond his control, he should bring his books and his evidence into court and prove the fact, and the court will be careful not to put the wage-rate where it would destroy the employer's business, recommend- ing, if need be, such general legislation as would .affect the whole trade and lift wages to a proper level without injus- tice to individual employers. In dealing with monopolies, such as gas and electric plants, street railways, and other quasi-public industries, this difficulty will not in most cases be apt to rise. The adjust- ment of wages would not be complicated by questions of competition. No method short of cooperation can deal with the wage question in a fully satisfactory manner. Compulsory arbi- tration is simply the best method attainable until coopera- tion comes. 3. It is said that governmental fixing of rates and wages amounts to confiscation; that conciliation and mediation are better than compulsory arbitration; that a court or commis- sion can be empowered to examine the cause and justice of each industrial dispute at its inception, fix the responsibility, and leave public opinion to compel redress; that, whatever may be thought of the general philosophy of individual lib- erty, and its limitation by law, the right of free contract is a settled principle in our jurisprudence, and an employer has a right to fix the terms on which he will employ labor, with- out dictation from anyone; that compulsory arbitration will entail recognition of trades unions and the right to continued employment; and that it will delay more vital reforms by 104 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF alleviating to some extent the discontent of labor. To these and other objections the curious may find an answer in the American Fabian for March, 1897. On the whole, it appears to the writer, that a strong in- dustrial jurisdiction will be of great advantage in preventing strikes and, in many cases, lockouts also, in bringing em- ployers and employed together in mutual conference and equality instead of in the relation of servitude, in promoting mutual confidence and respect, and in preparing the way for a nobler industrial system than any the world has yet seen. ADDRESS OF WILLIAM ALLEN WHITE TO THE KANSAS LEGISLATURE, JANUARY, 1920 Every age, every century and within these modern times, every decade, sees some business or interest formerly con- sidered private business or private interest taken over in the public interest. Two hundred years ago when a gentleman had a quarrel with another gentleman it was supposed to be a private quarrel which should be settled under a private code called "dueling," but too many interested bystanders were injured and dueling was stopped. What was once a gentleman's right, a very private per- sonal right became a public matter, and dueling was stopped in the interest of the public. Time was when a quarrel be- tween a slave and his master was a private matter and the master had private rights with his slave. That was stopped. Time was when a man's money invested in bank stocks or railroads was considered private money. It was considered private infringement of private rights to interfere with that money, but government affected all money invested in banks and public utilities with public interests and regulated and controlled that money in the interest of the public and took away personal rights for the public good. The pirate's right was once a private right, but that right was removed for the public good, and now when labor and capital engage in a brawl which threatens daily processes of civilization we are taking away the right to that brawl and saying the quarrel must be settled in public interest. Now, the chief interest which the public has in this INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 105 quarrel between labor and capital is the interest of justice to each. Government demands that every man participating in government shall do so intelligently. To do so intelligently he must have time and opportunity in his youth for an edu- cation, leisure in his manhood for information and reflection and steady employment to teach him habits of thrift and give him a stake in the country. The public in establishing wages will be interested, not in labor as a commodity, but in labor as a citizen, and in ten years the labor unions will look back to this step of the Kansas legislature as the day that heralded the emancipation of American labor. The public is interested in capital chiefly, to see that capital gets justice, that it has a fair re- turn and a profit sufficiently large to encourage enterprise, which is our God-given gift, the gift which distinguishes America from all the world, and by trusting to the public, that is to say, trusting to the organized forces of society in government, to adjudicate wages, capital will find a just and equitable bureau, or court, or commission, or what you will, and in ten years capital will regard this day as the beginning of a new era in its organization. We are not trying to throttle capital and labor in Kansas, but to emancipate them from their own strangle hold upon each other, and to establish an equitable and living relation between them. THE CUMMINS' BILL" I have now, with one exception, completed my explana- tion of the bill before the Senate. That exception is the part of the bill which proposes that the government shall adjudicate the disputes which may arise between employees of railway companies and the corporations, and which for- bids a conspiracy or combination for the purpose of prevent- ing the movement of commodities in interstate commerce. I venture to say that no provision in any bill submitted to Congress in recent years has been more generally dis- cussed throughout the country than the one to which I have just referred. There are some very extravagant praises for ^ Speech of Hon. A. B. Cummins in the United States Senate, Decem- ber 4, 1919. io6 " -COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF it; there are some" ve-ry unjust denunciations of it. I look upon it as a vital part not only of this bill but a vital part of our policy in the future so far as the basic industries of America are concerned. The committee has endeavored to find a solution of one of the most complicated and difficult problems ever presented to a legislative body. I am not prepared to affirm fhat the committee has discovered the only solution, and I am sure its members will be very glad to receive from senators any suggestions that may make the arrangement which we have provided for more just or more efficient; but I speak for substantially every member of the committee, a very large majority of the committee, when I say that it is our profound conviction that the civilization of America — I was about to say the civilization of the world — can not continue, can not endure unless organized society can find some plan to preserve industrial peace and order. To me the thought that to accomplish justice for those who may be interested in any dispute it is necessary to either freeze or starve the American people is unthinkable and in- tolerable. I have always, I believe, entertained for men who worked not sympathy — for men who work need no sympathy — ^but I believe that I have always held for them the keenest in- terest in the struggles in which they have been engaged and the most sanguine hope of their ultimate success in obtain- ing the justice to which I believe they are entitled. But that does not settle this controversy. Look at the situation now. I received a telegram this morning from one of the important cities in my state in which it was stated that the schools had all been closed; that the churches had all been closed; that every industrial enterprise had ceased — and it is a city of 23,000 people or more — and that if relief were not given in furnishing fuel before Saturday night there would be hundreds of homes in the community without heat. Our government is a failure if there can be found no way to surmount an obstacle of that kind; our government is worse than a failure if we can not in some way preserve the continuity and the regu- larity with which our basic operations are carried on. The committee were deeply impressed with that feeling and v,e recognized that transportation is the basic industry INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 107 of the nation. It may not be more important from one as- pect than many others, but none of the others can be con- ducted or carried on without transportation. Leave New York without transportation for two weeks and thousands of people v/ill either starve or freeze, according to the sea- son; indeed, they may do both. What I say of New York is true of Philadelphia, of Chicago, and of every great center of population. We can not contemplate that situation with any com- placency at all. If we can not find some way in which to avoid a contingency of that kind, then our boasted and vaunted institutions are mere shadows, and we should es- cape from them as speedily as possible. There must be some way in which a democracy can administer justice to all its citizen.s, which will render them so far content that they will be willing to carry on their vocations with reason- able regularity and continuity. Mr. President, I was the author of a somewhat famous statement or declaration in what is known as the Clayton auti-trust law that the labor of a human being is neither a commodity nor an article of commerce. I believed in the truth of that statement profoundly then, and I believe in it now with even deeper conviction. The labor of a human being is not a commodity; it ought not to be dealt with as a commodity; it ought not to be judged as a commodity; for it is a part of human energy that may solicit and ought to recive the same high consideration from the world, from every legislative body, as all other energies of the mind or the body. But I am just as much opposed to Mr. Foster dealing with human labor as a commodity as I am opposed to Mr. Gary dealing with it as a commodity. It is just as fatal to the welfare of the United States to allow the American Federation of Labor to deal with labor as a commodity or as an article of commerce as it is to allow the National Association of Manufacturers to deal with it as an article of commerce or as a commodity. This dec- laration, for which I make no apology and of which I am as proud as I am of any other act of my life, means that labor is to be lifted above the rules which apply to mere in- animate things; it means that the laborer is a man and en- titled to the rights of a man, and that he should no more io8 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF sell himself to a labor union than he should sell himself to a manufacturer. It applies to both and all with equal force and strength. I do not want to be understood that I am opposed to labor unions. On the contrary, I think they are an essential ,*an of our industrial organization. I do not believe that we could long survive in peace and in order without labor unions. I think the gathering together of men in every oc- cupation is not only defensible but I think it is highly bene- ficial and helpful in the maintenance of law and order. The laboring men in any particular enterprise or in any particu- lar calling have just as much right to come together and work to promote their own interests and lift themselves up, if they can, in the great scale of human society as have the men of capital or the men of the professions, the men who labor, as it is said, with their minds instead of with their hands. I do not want it to be understood that there is in this bill or that there is in my mind any antipathy, any hos- tility, anything but admiration for labor unions. I believe also in collective bargaining. There is no es- cape from collective bargaining. It is the decree of this age from which we ought not to attempt to escape. This bill is founded upon the necessity for labor unions, so far as the provisions to which I now have reference are concerned. It could not operate without the presence of labor unions. This bill recognizes collective bargaining; it can not be ad- ministered efficiently without collective bargaining. I have said so much because there has been an indus- trious effort to misrepresent the bill. I have been amazed when I have read some of the lying reports which have been circulated throughout the country with respect to the objects which this bill seeks to attain, and I am saying what I have said to do what little I can do to overtake these gross and malicious misrepresentations. It is said — it has been said to our committee — that this provision of the bill contravenes the natural rights of man, and is therefore unconstitutional. It is a very common thing to hear it said that this manacles the workingman, puts shackles upon his limbs, and reduces him to involuntary servitude. Nothing could be more wicked than an assertion INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 109 of that character. This bill does not interfere with the right of any employee of a railroad company or any ofificial of any railroad company, because this bill applies equally to every person who serves a common carrier, if the common carrier is subject to the act to regulate commerce. The bill does not prevent, interfere with, or embarrass any man who desires to leave his employment. He can quit, or a hundred of them or a thousand of them can quit whenever they de- sire so to do. But I am not willing to allow the statement to go unchallenged that it is a fundamental and a constitu- tional right that every man can enjoy to quit his employ- ment whenever he pleases. That is not true. This bill does not interfere with his right at all; but a soldier can not quit whenever he desires. He can not cease his employment. An engineer upon a railway train can not quit whenever he may desire to quit. He can not leave his engine and his train so that human life would be imperiled, or so that property, even, might be injured. A physician or surgeon can not quit his employment whenever he may de- sire to quit, either morally or legally. He can not leave a dangerous operation half performed because it is his plea- sure no longer to continue the work of his profession. I am mentioning these things simply to show that it is not true, broadly and fundamentally, that every man in the world can quit what he is doing at any moment he chooses to quit. The human right — and I am now speaking of the individual right rather than the group right — is subject to higher con- siderations than his pleasure. Mr. THOMAS. I hope the Senator will not omit, in the category of obligations that he is now giving, to include men who are working under time contracts, whether collectively or individually. Mr. CUMMINS. Quite true. That would not have oc- curred to me, but the observation is a very just one. I am mentioning these things not because they are material to the bill, for we do not attempt in the bill to interfere with the right of any employee of any railway company or any man- ager of any railway company to cease his employment when- ever he individually may desire to do it, but I grow tired sometimes of hearing these broad generalizations which are no COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF so cheerfully made by those who want to relieve the human being of all responsibility to society. We owe something to our fellow men, and, as the President of the United State? has just said, that is the dominant duty that falls upon every conscious, responsible human being. It is well worth while to read what the President has just said upon this subject. I am not altogether sure that I un- derstand his reference, but I think I do, and if anybody here differs from me in that respect I hope he will make it known at this time. The President, in the message which was delivered day before yesterday to the Congress of the United States, said, among other things: Labor not only is entitled to an adequate wage, but capital should receive a reasonable return upon its investment and is entitled to pro- tection at the hands of the Government in every emergency. No govern- ment worthy of the name can "play" these elements ' against each other, for there is a mutuality of interest between them which the Govern- ment must seek to express and to safeguard at all cost. Truer words were never penned, a more timely warning to our industrial society was never given than in the lan- guage I have just read. But I proceed: The right of individuals to strike to inviolate and ought not to be interfered with by any process of government; but there is a predomi- nant right, and that is the right of the Government to protect ^1 of its people and to assert its power and majesty against the challenge of any class. The Government, when it asserts that right, seeks not to antagonize a class but simply to defend the right of the whole people as ^against the irreparable harm and injury that might be done by the at- tempt of any class to usurp a power that only Government itself has a right to exercise as a protection to all. If I understand correctly the passage I have just read, it states views which every good citizen of the United States ought to entertain, and it expresses my own convictions with absolute accuracy. * * * ♦ * * I think, though, that the program suggested two or three years ago was not complete. I may not remember it accu- rately, but it seems to me that the proposition then was that the strike should be prohibited for a time, pending an in- vestigation with regard to the merits of the dispute, and that after the investigation was had, no matter what the outcome of the investigation might be, then the right to strike was INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ill resumed and might be exercised at any time. That has been tried in our sister republic at the north. Canada has tried that plan, and I am bound to say that my examination of the history of the legislation and of its administration has not been reassuring. This bill proposes to take away the right to strike at any time. Mr. MYERS. Mr. President, if a right is inviolate, how can there be any predominant right? -. Mr. CUMMINS. Mr. President, I am not going to an- alyze the exact phraseology of the message fi-om which I have read and subject it to any such critical analysis. I be- lieve that the President meant, when he penned those words and sent the message to us, that the right to strike must be subordinate to the welfare of the great body of the people, and that when the strike involved the interests of all the people, it must give way to some other plan for the adjust- ment of a dispute. __ * * * "" This bill punishes only a combination or agreement be- tween railway employees, and when I use the word "em- ployees" I mean all the employees of the corporation, what- ever their rank may be. Even if I were to grant that the individual right to cease employment or quit is perfect and complete, I could not grant that the right to enter into a combination or conspiracy to accomplish a purpose inimical to the welfare of society is a natural or constitutional right. This bill does not control the individual, but it controls the combination, the agreement, and it declares that if two or more persons, being employees of a carrier subject to the act to regulate commerce, shall enter into an agreement or a combination to suspend or prevent the movement in inter- state commerce of commodities on which we are all depend- ent for life and for health for the purpose of enforcing some demand or claim against their employer, that such persons shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished ac- cordingly. What right have I, who may believe I have a just claim against you, to enter into a conspiracy or combination or agreement with some other man or with some other men to 112 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF deprive you of the necessaries of life until you yield to the demand which I have made upon you? It is monstrous. It can not be defended in any court of morals. A course of that kind can not be defended in any court of civilization and progress. Mark you, I do not believe that the right of strike should be taken away from the employees without substituting some- thing better in its stead. So long as it is a mere conflict between the employees and the employer, I would permit, of course, as this bill permits, a strike. The loss that might be imposed upon the employer does not greatly concern so- ciety, and there is no disposition on the part of the com- mittee, I am sure, to interfere with a conflict of that char- acter. It is only when the conflict, this endeavor to impose loss upon the employer, becomes destructive of society, of the welfare of the great body of the people, that this bill proposes to intervene and make it impossible. I do not intend, Mr. President, to read the provisions, but I want to emphasize two things: First, the bill provides what it believes to be impartial tribunals for the adjudication of all disputes between the carriers and their employees. These tribunals, the details of which I shall not discuss at this moment, have jurisdiction of all the disputes which may come up from time to time between the railway corpora- tions and their employees. Bear in mind that we have at- tempted to establish a tribunal with jurisdiction and with capacity to determine all the disputes which ever gave rise to a strike. In the second place, I hope you will bear in mind the character of the penal provision, which is that — It shall be unlawful for two or more persons, being officers, directors, managers, agents, attorneys, or employees of any carrier or carriers subject to the act^to regulate commerce, as amended for the purpose of maintaining, adjusting or settling any dispute, demand, or controversy which, under the provisions of this_ act, can be submitted for decision to the committee of wages and working conditions or to a regional board of adjustment, to enter into any combination or agreement with the intent substantially to^ hinder, restrain, or prevent the operation of trains or other facilities of transportation for the movement of com- modities or persons in interstate commerce, or in pursuance of any such combination or agreement and with like purpose substantially to hinder, restrain, or prevent the operation of trains or other facilities of trans- portation for the movement of commodities or persons in interstate commerce. This is the description of the offense; and remember that the offense can only be committed when the dispute is one INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 113 of which the government has taken jurisdiction, and which it has assumed the duty of adjudicating according to its very- merits. There is another provision which is necessary as a sup- plement to the one I have just read, as follows: Whoever knowingly and with like intent shall aid, abet, counsel, command, induce, or procure the commission or performance of any act made unlawful in the last preceding section hereof shall be held guilty of a misdemeanor — And SO forth. You will all recognize that this h simply a reproduction of our present statute with regard to accessories and those who aid and abet in the commission of a crime. Mr. President, remembering that we have provided a tribunal which we believe to be a just, fair, and impartial tri- bunal for the adjudication of all controversies of the char- acter I have described, I hope that this thought will be in every mind, that we are substituting the justice of the gov- ernment of the United States for the justice which wage workers have hoped to secure through the strike. We are simply exchanging one instrumentality for another. We are offering an opportunity to secure justice which does not in- volve this awful sacrifice, which does not involve the wreck and ruin of industry, of homes, and of character. We are offering to do in controversies out of which railway strikes may arise just what our courts of justice have done for cen- turies with respect to controversies between man and man. Hitherto we have not regarded it as necessary that our gov- ernment should undertake the adjudication which is here provided for, and I, Mr. President, have been very slow and very reluctant to go forward to that duty. But I perceive, and I have long perceived, that it is necessary, if we are to have regularity and continuity of employment. Therefore I am willing, on the part of my government, to undertake to do full and complete justice, so far as wages and working conditions are concerned, to those who enter into employ- ment of this character. I believe, and believe from the bot- tom of my heart, that the laboring men of America will be more apt to secure ju-stice or approach perfect justice through the intervention of these tribunals for the settlement of their disputes than they have ever been able to secure 114 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF through the medium of the strike, when you remember the losses that are entailed not only upon the general public, not only upon their immediate employer, but upon them- selves. When will the striking miners be able to recoup the enormous losses which they have suffered during the last month? It is said they would, if necessary, imperil lives of their fellow men in order to accomplish their purposes; but if we provide for them a tribunal in which they have confidence and for which they have respect and to which they can ap- peal, there could be no justification, no defense whatever, for the danger through which they are now leading the people of the United States. Think of this provision merely as a substitution of justice, so far as human government can ad- minister justice, for the ends sought to be obtained by the strike. I am not conscious of any change in my heart toward those who labor with their hands. I know through the ex- perience of earlier years some of the hardships, some of the privations, some of the sufferings which attend the lives of men of meager compensation, but I can have no ■sympathy whatever with an effort to overturn the institutions of Amer- ica through the disorders which must inevitably accompany these constantly repeated efforts to determine what is right and what is just by mere conflict and through the powers of endurance. Possibly some Senator can suggest a better plan through which we may rise to a higher ground for the adjustment of these great disputes and for the calming of these intense passions. If any Senator can do so, I am sure the com- mittee will be glad to accept any suggestion which may be made. We only know — and upon this I speak, I am sure, with absolute certainty — that in some way there must be found, in some way we must discover, the path from the tangle of conflict and of passion into which we are constant- ly led. I would have no faith in the intelligence of my fel- low men, I would have no confidence in the patriotism of the people, if I did not believe that there is a solution for this mighty problem that will bring peace, order, prosperity, happiness, and content to all the people of the country. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ii5 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION IN RAILROAD LABOR DISPUTES ' Since the dawn of civilization, no more difficult problem has faced humanity than the problems involved in labor and its employers. Naturally, there always has been a conten- tion between the employer of labor and the employee. Up to the present time, at least in modern times, the contest between labor and capital, so called, has been settled by force. For many years, in the ages that have passed, labor was not strong enough to exercise its power effectively, and the force of capital dominated it, forced unreasonable and unjust terms on it, and it has only been through the gradual evolution of the rights of labor that it has come to a point where it can fight for itself. Through the last half century labor has been fighting for itself, until to-day organized labor constitutes the effective force in human endeavor, the dominant force between labor and capital. It may be said that that is not an unjust posi- tion for it to occupy, because it has fought its way to that position. It would not be if the only matter in dispute were a fight between labor and capital. If that were all that were involved in the issue, I would not be in favor of the provisions of this part of the bill. But the issue here goes far beyond the question of labor and capital. As a matter of fact, so far as railroad labor is concerned, it has no issue with invested capital. Theoret- ically it may have, but as a practical proposition the wages of labor engaged in railroad industry have long ceased to come out of invested capital. They come out of freight rates and passenger rates as prescribed by the government, either through a director general or through the supervision of an Interstate Commerce Commission. The amount of la- bor involved and the value of labor's wage in this industry is so great that if it rested for one year upon invested capital it would destroy invested capital. Of necessity it must come out of the earnings of these roads, and the earnings of the roads must come out of the public. 1 Speech of Hon. Oscar W. Underwood in the United States Senate, December i8, 1919. ii6 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF If that is the case, is it fairly stating the proposition to say that labor must still carry its weapon of offense against capital, that the value of its wage must be determined on the battle ground between labor and capital, and then, after the battle is fought and won, the result of the victory must be assessed against the public, which has had no interest or no hand in the dispute? But it does not even stop there. The public are not only required to pay the bill, but they must bear the burden of the fight. The reservation to labor of the right to strike is either an actual fact, a weapon that is poised on its way to the blow, or it is a mere theory and is of no value. If it is of no value, if it is not going to be used, if there is no danger of a strike, if it is not an effective weapon for labor, why should we hesitate to adopt clauses in this bill that pro- vide that two or more men shall not conspire to interfere with interstate commerce? There is nothing to be obtained for labor, if this is a mere theory, a weapon that will never be put into force. On the other hand, if it is an actual weapon that some day may be used, who will pay the penalty? Of course there can be nothing else now but a universal railroad strike in this country. The day of a local strike is past. There may be a bubbling over here or there on the map. Labor leaders do not want local strikes. Railroad companies do not want them. It is only when the organization loses its control that a local strike takes place. The real effort is the effort to bring about a universal railroad strike in Amer- ica. That was threatened in 1916. We were told that it was imminent at that time unless remedial legislation wa.'i passed to avert it. Legislation was passed, and the strike was avert- ed; and now we are told by some that there was no danger of that strike, that the men did not intend to strike, or that the representatives of the railroad companies would have surrendered. We are told by some that when labor came to Congress and asked that the Adamson bill be passed in order to avoid strike conditions the men who came here did not represent their organizations, and that they are in no way committed to the precedent set in that case. Neverthe- less, a great strike was imminent, it was threatening the com- INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 117 mercial life of the nation, and was only avoided by legis- lative enactment. Who would have paid the price if the railroads had stopped operating for 30 days by reason of a great strike? Capital would have been affected to some extent, because the earnings on capital might have been affected. Labor would have suffered to a great extent, because labor's wages would have been wiped out for the period of the strike. But the sufferings neither of vested capital nor of labor would have been commensurate with the distress that would have come to every home of this land. Stop the railroads from operating into the great cities for 30 days, and the population is starving. Stop the railroads from operating into an industrial center for 30 days, and commerce has ceased, and labor involved in commerce is out of employment. Stop the railroads from operating for 30 days, and the whole business life of the nation has ceased to function. That is the price that the people of the United States must pay for the privilege given to organized labor to declare a universal strike for any cause and to make it effective. I am not going to contend as to whether the cause of labor is just or not. Men are human, whether we class them ] in the aggregate or as individuals, and human nature is prone to err on either side of the equation. I think it is safe to say that sometimes a strike is most just, for a most just cause, and at other times a strike is without reason or jus- tice behind it. But that is not the question involved here. The public, the hundred millions of people in the United States, are not those who determine whether the strike is just or unjust. They merely stand by to pay the penalty, and they will have to pay it some day, beyond peradventure of a doubt, if the Congress of the United States is unwilling to meet the sit-, uation and put remedial legislation on the statute books that will work justly to all men and avoid the dangers tol the American public. Some men speak of the so-called right to strike as if it were a human right, a right that belonged to men, like the right to live, the right to breathe, the right to work in an individual capacity. Organized labor itself repudiates the ii8 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF foremost right of man, the right to work, when it stands for a closed shop. The by-laws of many of these organizations proclaim that no man can work in certain shops or at certain em- ployment unless he belongs to a particular organization, and works within the rules and according to the dictates of that organization. If labor has the privilege and the right to deny to other labor the unrestricted right to toil and earn its daily wage, does it lie in their mouths to say that the Congress of the United States is taking away from them an inherent right that belongs to them when the Congress says, "You can work only under certain limitations," the Congress speaking for the whole people of the United States? To strike! What does it mean? Men now talk of the right to strike as if it were the right to quit work. The right to strike and the right of the individual to quit his em- ployment are two very different things. One is the exercise of individual liberty, the other is the exercise of aggregate force to accomplish a purpose, to carry out the desire of the men engaged in the strike, or of the organization that has ordered the strike. One is a negative force, that hurts no man; the other is an active force, that injures many. This bill in its terms provides that nothing written in these pages shall be construed as preventing any man engaged in the railroad business from quitting his em- ployment, and yet they speak of it as if this bill intended to coerce men to work when they did not desire to do so. A strike is what it implies in its own terms. It is a blow, a blow directed with an object behind it, and it is the only way that it makes it effective. Is the Congress to stand here and allow any organization whatever to deliver a blow against the American public that may endanger the very life of the nation, or is it our duty to see that substantial justice is done to all concerned without the delivery of the destruc- tive blow? When the bill and these provisions were before the Com- mittee on Interstate Commerce, Mr. Gompers appeared as a witness in opposition to the bill. I asked him some ques- tions regarding the matter. I think his answers to the ques- tions I asked thoroughly defined the position of labor in INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 119 regard to the bill and where their position leads to. I am therefore going to take the time of the Senate to read three or four pages from the hearings, so that that position may be made clear in the record. I said this to Mr. Gompers: I think some of the gentlemen who have come before us have mis- understood the purpose or the reason for the initiation of this legisla- tion; but I am sure you have not becauae I think you recognize the fact that in recent years you and those you represent have been reasonably and fairly treated by Congress. Of course, this legislation comes with a sentiment behind it or it would not be here; but there is a sentiment among the people that is responsive to it, because Congress seldom acts without the sentiment of the people in framing legislation. Of course, you recognize that that sentiment comes from a fear that a general universal strike throughout this country would bring a debacle that would make the mass of the people who are not engaged in the strike suffer more than even the horrors of war. Now, that is the real thing that brings this legislation to the table. Now, I want to ask you if you op- pose it or if you think it is ill advised to meet this situation by profit sharing or any other reward to labor except the just wage that is due it; how are we to avoid the danger to the public of an issue that comes, that may come at some time? Fortunately it has never come yet in that stressed form, the danger that may come to the public of a universal strike in this country that might last for months. Is there any other way to avoid it except by law? Mr. Gompers answered the question as follows: You can not avoid it by law. That is not the way to avoid it. Then I asked: What other way is there to avoid it? Of course, I do not so agree that it can not be avoided by law. You may be right; I may be wrong. I think th law goes a long ways sometimes Mr. Gompers. Sometimes. Then I asked the question. But I would like to have your view, I think it as a serious problem that confronts the country. I am sure that you realize the seriousness of the problem, and I would like to have your view on that subject. Mr. Gompers. No one views that thought, much less than act, more seriously than I do ; but I do know this : There has been no general strike of railroad men in the United States, and the attempt that was made in 1894 with the A. R. U. strike was, after a few days, practically abortive. The railroad brotherhoods stood as strongly against that gen- eral strike as any body of men cojild. They had more influence in de- termining that it should not pass those limits or reach those limits than anybody could have, the Congress included. The American Federation of Labor was a party to a conference in 1S94 at Chicago where an urgent appeal was made to us to order or to declare for a general strike of all the workers of the country. The men of the American Federation of Labor were in conference with the chiefs of the railroad brotherhoods, and that was negatived. We were willing to do anything we could to bring about better conditions for the workers at Pullman, 111., but we would not sanction, but gave our disapproval of, anything like a general railroad strike or a general strike among the workers. Then I said: Well, I am not talking about the past. I luppose the nearest we came to it was in 19 16. But it does mean that that is what the public viBualizes, and that is the sentiment that stands behind this bill. 120 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF Ms. GoMFEKs. The question is whether such a strike could be pre* vented if this measure were enacted into the law. That is the question. Then I asked the question: Well, that question, of course, I recognize, I recognize, as a rule, if this became a law that it would prevent a universal strike; but I may be in error. You may be right; but the question I would be glad to have you answer to go into the record, not only for you and me but for the country to understand is: Is tnere any other way that a uni- versal railroad strike or the danger of it can be avoided if the Govern- ment itself does not act? May I read that question again, because I want to im- press it upon the record? Is there any other way that a universal railroad strike or the danger of it can be avoided if the Government itself does not act? Mr. Gompers answered: I can not underwrite any measure or proposition that will absolutely prevent a general railroad strike. No one can. But this I do know: That fair treatment of the workers and with the workers* organizations is the best insurance against such a movement, such _ a strike. You will find the four railroad brotherhoods, with their executive officers, are men of experience, men of intelligence, and men with a fair sense of the responsibility that rests upon them. I do not mean only the chiefs of these brotherhoods; I have also in mind their associates on the executive boards and in the various divisions throughout the country. There is no greater safeguard against such strikes than a reasonable course pursued by the companies and by the employers to treat with the workers and give these men a fair chance that they may have the op portunity of educating their fellows. If that chance is denied them, il every move they make is antagonized, their influence will be destroyed and the element that now would turn this country topsy-turvy would have the ear and the attention of the discontented in the organizations and the unorganized. Then I said: Well, I am interested in what you say, but that does not answer the question. I assume that you mean by your answer to the question that you do not think it is possible in any other way except by law, by this law, to eliminate the possibility, the future possibility, of a universal railroad strike. Mr. Gompers. I say with the full understanding of the words 1 employ, that the surest way of creating dissension, greater unrest, pos- sibly leading to such a strike, is the provision in that bill. No other agency could provoke it more than that bill. Yesterday I took occasion in some little detail to discuss the ex- perience of the countries in which compulsory^ arbitration has been tried. Although it is not called a compulsory arbitration law, it still is, in other wordSj a law to determine wages, hours, conditions of employ- ment; and if there be no majority of the two parties or four, then there is an appeal to another board whose findings and award are final in matters on wages, hours, and conditions of employment. It is final. There is no appeal anywhere. The men must obey. They must work, whether they will it or not. They can not quit work, they can not strike, if you please. You will never take away from the working people by law or by any other process the right of the workers to quit their employment. Then I said: Well, I would not do that if I had the power. Mr. Gompers, That is done in that bill. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES i2i I said: I do not think it is in that bill. Mr. Gompers said: It is in the bill, section 29. I then said: But the difference is, or I think it is, under the bill, that there is no limitation on the power of the workers, in singles or in pairs, to quit the railroad employment unless they do it for the purpose of inter- fering with commerce, the movement of commerce. Of course that is a different question from the mere question of their right to work. In the interest of the public we pass many laws restricting the rights of the individual. Of course, to keep the flow of commerce that keeps the people of America going, I have no doubt, and I do not think you would disagree with me, that we have a right to pass reasonable laws and regulations in ^e protection of the public. That is the way I view this part of the section. The real question involved in this bill is the question of the Government fixing the wage instead of the corporation fixing the wage. Although this is called arbitration, I think you will agree with me that this is not compulsory arbitration, but, in the last analysis, it is the fixing of the wage by the Government. The Govern- ment board has the last say and it fixes the wage. Mr. Gompers. Yes; and the men are compelled to work under that governmental award. Then I said: Well, just as the clerks in a department in Washington, with their fixed wages, are obliged if they want to work at all. Mr. Gompers. But they can not quit. They must work. I said: I do not understand it that way. I think you are wrong. Omitting a few sentences there that are not pertinent to the issue, I said: If it was intended to stop the movement of trains, yes; but not be- cause a man was not satisfied with his job and wanted higher wages. Mr. Gompers. The man who wants to quit his job can quit. It is not a question of a man quitting his job, but two men in concert quitting their jobs in order to persaude or influence the employer to grant better conditions; and the idea of simply quitting is not the only thing. No man can quit his job without inconveniencing the employer or others. The stenographers in the Senate, if they informed the clerk, or the man who has them in charge, who gives them employment, that they are no longer willing to work for the rate of compensation, and they quit work, it would inconvenience the Senate very materially; and that is the purpose, to inconvenience the Senate sufficiently' that the Senate will yield a fair consideration to these men. I will not take up the time of the Senate in reading fur- ther from this statement, but I have read from it for the purpose of bringing out two facts: one is that Mr. Gom- pers, the supreme head of organized labor in the United States, declares that there is no other way to avoid a uni- versal strike except by this bill; and he denies that this bill will do it, but he says there is no other way. Then he says 122 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF that a strike is an offensive weapon. In the last sentence that I read to you he admits the bill does not prevent the individual from exercising his personal liberty and quitting work when he desires to do so, but that it does prevent two or more from exercising the right to quit collectively so as to inconvenience their employer and by that course compel ■: employer to agree to their terms of employment. That is the issue presented to the country. It is not dis- puted by the supreme head of organized labor. The ques- tion that confronts this body is whether or not, under those circumstances, the Senate of the United States intends to sur- render the initiative — to recognize that there is no way to avoid the calamity of a universal strike, except by law, and then refuse to pass the law. About the terms of the law I am not so much con- cerned. Write in this bill a provision that the mass of the American people shall no longer be in danger of a universal strike and I am willing for you to write the terms under which labor shall surrender that so-called right. I fully recognize the fact that the force of the blow un- der the right to strike is the weapon by which labor must battle upward, and under ordinary circumstances and con- ditions it is entitled to use that force in its own behalf, if it does not endanger the public. I also recognize the fact that if that right is taken away from organized labor or unorganized labor, in justice and right they must be given some remedy in its place. Labor should not be disarmed and capital left armed cap-a-pie to ride them down; there would be no justice in that, but in every other walk of life we have established the courts of the land to avoid the blow. Back in the generations that have passed man held his property by force of arms; to-day he holds his property by force of law. So long as the strike did not threaten the body politic, the government ignored the power of the strike, but now that the people, as a whole, are endangered, only the government can protect them. Is it injustice to any man to prepare a fair and just tribu-~ nal in which the great issue of wages and working condi- tions may be worked out and solved, first, in the interest of labor, and, second, in the interest of the American public? INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 123 Mr. Gompers, in his testimony — and I take his testimony because he is the leader; the testimony of the chiefs of the brotherhoods who appeared before the committee was along similar lines — Mr. Gompers, in his testimony, says that the way to avoid strikes is through the moderation and concilia- tion of the railroad chiefs and their subordinates; the reach- ing of a common understanding on controverted matters; working out abstract justice through mediation. Have they any less opportunity to work out abstract justice through the mediation of a government board such as is proposed by the bill than they have in a board of directors of a railroad com- pany? I think not. I think the position of labor, if it is only battling for what is justly its rights, is vastly more im- proved under the terms and conditions of this bill than if it were relegated back to the present warring conditions pre- vailing between labor and invested capital. I think that the fundamental provision in this bill which is going to work out a result is the one that if arbitration fails, if conciliation fails, a board of men appointed by the President of the United States, representing the American people, assumed to be free from bias and prejudice on either side, shall sit in final judgment and determine what is a fair wage, not between labor and capital but a fair wage between labor and the public that pays the bill. I do not know of anything that would be a greater backward step for the Congress of the United States to take to-day than to aban- don the efforts made during the Great War by the govern- ment and its government boards to see that labor was justly and fairly compensated and avoid the debacle of strike con- ditions and strike out the labor provisions of this bill. That is what it means. How many strikes were adjusted during the Great War because there were in existence boards similar to those set up in this bill? Can anyone say that labor was unjustly treated, that the government wronged the labor of the United States in the trial of these matters? I think not. I say the man who predicts that a board representing the government of the United States can not do justice to labor doubts the very fundamental principle on which our government is es- tablished, doubts the ability of our government to do justice 124 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF between man and man, and preserve the liberties of the American people. ******* If it is a good thing to prevent a strike temporarily — and it is — why is it not a good thing to prevent it entirely? If this can be worked out justly as a temporary matter by a government board and boards of arbitration, why can it not be worked out as the final conclusion? That is the question. If it can, why should we limit the process? It is either right or it is wrong in principle. It is either right or it is wrong in justice to the men who are earning their daily wage on these railroads. It is either right or it is wrong so far as the American public is concerned; and if it is right in part for temporary pur- poses, then it seems to me that the conclusion is irresistible that it is right in whole and should be adopted for the final conclusion. There is nothing in this bill that prevents any man from quitting work if he does not enjoy it. If he thinks he can get a better wage or more satisfactory employment some- where else, there is nothing in the folds of this bill that stands in his way. The only thing in this bill, if you bring it down to its last analysis, and eliminate all the preliminary procedure of arbitration and leading up to the question of final conclusion, is that a government board, appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate of the United States, representing the hundred mil- lion people of this country, entirely free from bias on the side either of capital or labor, shall determine what is a fair and just wage to the men who carry the commerce of this country, and then reflect that determination back into the freight and passenger rates, and make it a charge against the shipping, public of America, and I might say the con- suming public of America. That is all there is in this bill. But, like any other law that is in the interest of the peo- ple, the bill says that if you do not comply with the law, the government makes you comply with the law. What does that mean? That means that any man in railroad em- ploy in the future, if the terms of this bill are adopted, who is not satisfied with his wage or his working conditions, can carry his complaint to the government tribunal without let or hindrance from anybody. He does not have to be the INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 125 tool of a labor organization or of a railroad company. He can exercise his own individual rights, and have the govern- ment determine what is a fair and just wage. I say that there is no danger of the governtnent doing injustice to this great body of citizens of America. This is a republican gov- ernment, a free government. The men whose wage scale will be tried in this government court cast 2,000,000 votes in the American Republic. Is it at all probable, under those conditions, that the finding of that board is going to be unr just and inequitable in their behalf? I think not. If there is any bias to be expected on either side, it will fall on the side of the employee, naturally, but in the end it will be a check against any inordinate increase of wages that must be reflected into the freight rates that must be paid by the American people. My friend the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Stanley] was contending with me on the floor a day or two ago that pos- sibly an increase in the freight rates of America might mean an increased charge to the American public of five times the amount of that increased rate. I am going to apply his own argument to himself, that where we charge $1 more for freight the consuming American public must pay $5 before its food and its clothes come to its homes. There is no theory about the proposition which I am now going to state. Since 1916 and largely during the period of the Great War the wage of the railroad workers of America has increased a billion dollars. That is no theory; that is a fact. A billion dollars! If those who contend that in- creasing freight rates $1 reflects $S into the cost of the prod- uct when it reaches the ultimate consumer are correct, then we are to believe that the increase of $1,000,000,000 in the labor wage of the American railroad employees was instantly reflected into the freight rates because it could not be paid anywhere else. The Director General of Railroads increased the freight rates 25 per cent and the passenger rates 50 per cent through- out America. He made a greater increase than that, because he changed classifications in many particulars that amounted to an increase in freight rates. So that the extent that the wage scale went up was reflected into the pockets of the men who ship the freight. 126 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF That being the case, is it contended that that billion dol- lars increase in wages reflects $5,000,000,000 in the pockets of the American people? If it does, we have some idea of where, at least in part, the increased cost to the American people comes from. The question of wage scale is not settled. I am not going to pass on the contention as to whether it is right or wrong. I am not informed. It is not my place to pass on it. But we know that the men engaged in the railroad world to-day are insisting now that there shall be a further increase in wages. They may be right or they may be wrong. If that wage increase is anything in proportion to the last one, then it would mean another billion dollars, and if the argu- ment about freight rates as made by some here is correct, it would mean reflecting into the pockets of the consuming masses of American people another $S,ooo,ooo,ooo. Now, can the Congress of the United States, because it wants to be just to labor, because it wants to be fair to la- bor, ignore labor itself, ignore the clerk in the counting- house, the ditch digger in the street, the man on the scaf- fold building the great buildings of America, the laborer on the farm, and say that an organization in the United States composed of not over 2,000,000 men can reflect their will and through the power of the threatened strike force billions of dollars into the cost of living of the American people? That is the issue at which I am looking. I do not stand here holding a brief against labor. I know that when labor ceases to battle upward the nation is dead; but when one class of labor, one clan in the great body politic of labor, desires to reserve to itself the right to stand independent of the government, to exercise its right or the so-called privi- lege to strike in order that it may enforce additional bur- dens on the masses of the American people, then, I say, the time and place have come when it is the duty of the gov- ernment of the United States to function in the matter. Do not tear down class or clan. I am not in favor of de- stroying union labor. I think union organization has done great things for labor, and sometimes it has done great in- jury to labor. I am not with union labor when it seeks to make the closed shop and deny to other men the right to INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 127 work. I am not with union labor when it says by force of arms, the force of the power to strike, that "we can invade the party politic and make the American public pay the price, right or wrong." I am not with union labor then, but I am with union labor when it says, "We are entitled to social justice." That is the high ideal of all labor, the uplifting of the home, the education of children, the upbuilding of society — all that is theirs, justly theirs; but it is not in keeping with the exercise of the brutal power of the savage to strike down other men with a blow in order that they may take home what they have regardless of the right or the justice in the case. When you say that labor has the right to exercise or bring about a universal railroad strike in the country, to starve the American people into submission in order that it may dictate to them its will and put its penalties on the backs of the American people, then I draw the line and I will not go with you. If that is the case, if that is the justice of the cause, I say, give them a government board to decide what is a just wage, and I will go with you as far as you can go to see that that board is just and fair and equitable. Then I say that the decision of that board is written into the law of the land, and I am prepared to send to jail the man who defies its con- clusions, like I am prepared to send to jail the man who de- fies the law of the land. The great sustaining policy of the American Republic is its just laws, and they can only be just to all by all uphold- ing them. How are we to uphold them? We can not up- hold the law by appealing merely to the conscience of men to obey the law. Most men obey the law because they re- spect it, but some men are highwaymen and obey no law except by the force of the strong arm of the government. If you have worked out abstract justice through courts of arbitration and the final court of the government to solve the question in the interest of labor and have pro- tected the American public against unjust demands, and at the same time have left labor free to exercise its individual liberty and quit employment when it elects, so long as it does not' defy the law, then I say that you have, as this bill 128 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF does, responded to all the demands of abstract justice, and the man who defies it stands in defiance of the law and, like other lawbreakers, should be punished. LIBERTY AND LAW IN KANSAS' Wow the Industrial Court Protects the Public, Insures Justice to Labor, and Increases Production The Kansas law creating a Court of Industrial Relations followed the coal strike of last winter. It is not the result of an effort to legislate against either employing capital or labor. It came out of the public realization of the suffering which was brought by industrial warfare upon an unpro- tected people who had no part in bringing on the general coal strike but who were the defenseless victims of it. When the coal strike occurred, this section of the country was almost entirely without fuel. Within two weeks there was suffering. The state took over the mines under an or- der of the Supreme Court appointing a receivership. Vol- unteers were called to operate the mines for the purpose of saving the public from the disaster of the coal famine. More than 11,000 Kansans volunteered their services within twenty- four hours after the first call. From this magnificent offering we selected a sufficient number of men to man the strip mines, taking the personnel very largely from those who had been in the army service. In ten days these splendid young men, who volunteered un- der a sense of patriotic duty, produced enough coal to re- lieve the emergencies in two hundred Kansas communities. The thermometer was below zero much of the time, and the obstacles were almost insuperable, but the men worked from daylight to dark and very few of them ever inquired as to what the salary for their labor would be. They were paid $570 per day, which was the average wage of the miners, but they worked without relation to hours. Purposes of the Kansas Law While the state operation was still in progress, a special session of the legislature was called to enact a law creating ' By Henry J. Allen, Governor of Kansas, in Review of Reviews June, 1920. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 129 an industrial court for the purpose of placing upon the state the responsibility of regulating industrial strife. The law — which creates a strong, dignified tribunal vested with power, authority, and jurisdiction to hear and determine all contro- versies which may arise and which threaten to hinder, de- lay, or suspend the operation of essential industries — was passed with only seven votes against it in the lower house and two votes against it in the Senate. The new tribunal is known as the Court of Industrial Relations, composed of three judges appointed by the governor with the advice and consent of the Senate. The terms are for three years each and are arranged so that they overlap. This would safe- guard the court against an entire change of personnel under any one governor. It is not a court of arbitration, but a court of justice. The purpose of the court is — (a) To make strikes, lockouts, boycotts, and blacklists un- necessary and impossible, by giving labor as well as capital an able and just tribunal in which to litigate all controver- sies. (b) To insure to the people of this state, at all times, an adequate supply of those products which are absolutely nec- essary to sustain the life of civilized peoples. (c) To stabilize production of these necessaries, so that we will also, to a great extent, stabilize the price to the pro- ducer as well as the consumer. (d) To insure to labor steadier employment, at a fairer wage, under better working conditions. (e) To prevent the colossal economic waste which always attends industrial disturbances. The basis of the law is in the inherent right of the state to protect itself and its members against anything that is prejudicial to the common welfare. This principle has been recognized for more than twenty centuries. It was inscribed upon one of the Twelve Tables of the Roman Law: Salus populi suprema lex. Effect of the Law Upon Production Last year, for the first three months of the period, there were something over forty strikes in the various mines of the Kansas district. This year there have been no strikes. During a few days while the court was dealing with the 130 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF refusal of Alexander Howat and some members of his staf! to testify in a case which was brought by some of his own union miners, there was a temporary shut-down of the mines; but the actual effect of the law upon production shows that in slightly less than three months more coal has been pro- duced in the Kansas district than during any other five and a half months in the history of that district, with practically the same number of miners. One of the strong effects of the law is in the power of the court to require the continuous operation of industries, which are forbidden to shut down for any purpose to effect wage controversies or the price of the commodity to the public. In the past years, particularly in the coal-mining dis- trict, the mines have produced very indifferent results dur- ing the summer. It is stated that an average of one day per week would cover the operation of the mines. Under the new law, the operators will be obliged to operate with rea- sonable continuity, with the result that we will begin next winter with a coal reserve instead of a coal famine. This principle, applied to all of the essential industries under the supervision of the Kansas court, will have a very splendid result in stabilizing the market as well as providing the pub- lic with the normal output of production under favorable conditions. Adjusting Miners' Grievances Soon after the court was created four hundred miners quit work as a protest against the law. The Attorney-Gen- eral brought before him the officers of this group, who, when they understood all the provisions of the law, ordered their miners back to work. The suspension lasted only one day. On that occasion, a group of miners having some general grievances brought these grievances voluntarily into the court. This was significant by reason of the fact that the method prescribed by the by-laws of the miners' union ob- ligated these miners to bring their grievances through their local and district officers. But instead of going through pre- scribed channels, these miners came voluntarily into the court, asking for the adjudication of their grievances. Alexander Howat, president of the district, called a meet- ing of his war council and passed a resolution declaring that INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 131 any miner thereafter who should bring his grievance before the industrial court would be fined $50, If any local union or officer of any union appealed to the court for an adjudi- cation of a grievance, that officer or union should be fined $5000. In spite of this a number of unions — including the shot-firers, who affect every mine in the district — brought their grievances into the couit. During the hearings of the court, which were held at Pitts- burgh in the center of the mining district, the most sympa- thetic and cooperative testimony was given by the miners. A number of very revealing conditions were brought out, which formed the basis for several decisions and orders. For example, it was discovered that it had been the cus- tom in the district for a good many years for the operators to charge the miners a heavy discount if their wages were paid in advance of the regular pay day, which was once every two weeks. Miners who needed the wages they had earned in the interim would collect the wages already earned, but in advance of pay day, and the operators would charge them 10 per cent, for the prepayment. No eflort had ever been made to correct the abuse. The court corrected it at once, establishing the order that a miner might collect wages due him, paying only a minimum fee for the bookkeeping charge made necessary in the advance, payment. The operators did not contest the order of the industrial court, and the new system is now working. Another abuse corrected as the result of the miners' tes- timony was in relation to the charge for explosives. Ever since the decision of the National Commission, the opera- tors, who were commanded to sell explosives at cost, did not state the price; and the miners were obliged to do their work under uncertainty as to what would be charged for powder and dynamite. Several efforts had been made by miners and operators to secure a conference on this subject with the miners' officials, but these efforts had failed. The court established a fixed price for explosives, conditioned up- on the cost. This decision is of great importance, since it involves directly the wages of miners who mine their coal at a stated price per ton and pay out of this the cost of the explosives which they require for their work. The testimony of the shot-firers, who brought their case 132 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF to the court in defiance of Alexander Howat's threat to fine them $5000, exhibited the fact that for three years they had sought in vain for proper consideration of their grievances. Another fact produced by the testimony of several min- ers, who had been upon a strike called by the president of the district in the mines of the Central Coal and Coke Com- pany, was that while they had asked repeatedly for a state- ment of the grievance upon which the strike was called, they had never been told by their union president why they were striking. They had been idle for more than three months, living upon meager strike benefits without any intel- ligent appreciation as to why they were idle. They had lost in wages over $800,000. The real issue upon which the strike was called involved less than $2000, and its essence was a personal grievance on the part of the president of the dis- trict against the operators of the mine. Settling a Railroad Strike Another important decision of the court related to the employees of the Joplin and Pittsburgh Interurban Railway Company. In 1914, there was a strike of eighty days' dura- tion, costing the men who were out of employment several hundred thousand dollars. The road connects two of the most important mining districts in the Middle West in the zinc and coal fields. The strike deprived the residents of this district of their most important mode of transportation, af- fecting not only the mining and commercial interests, but the agricultural interests. In 1918, while the country was in the throes of war, there was a strike of thirty-six days, caus- ing not only great loss to both the wage-earners and the company, but shortage of production and general disaster. In March of the present year another strike was threatened, but the employees of the road brought their grievance into the Court of Industrial Relations. The case was brought on February 24, and in less than three weeks a hearing was had and an order made which was satisfactory to both the em- ployees and the company. In this case a singular evidence was given of the confi- dence of both sides in the justice of the court. Only a few of the complainants appeared in the court, although several hundred employees were involved. The order was INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES I33 made effective, and the adjudication occurred without the loss of a moment of time. Even the witnesses who appeared in court lost less than a day, and there was continuous ser- vice on the line during the proceedings. Our Typical Cases There are in the court to-day three cases in which strikes were threatened and would doubtless have occurred had it not been for the law. One of these is in the shop and roundhouse laborers of the railroad craft. A general strike had been called, but the national executive committee of the craft, by an almost unanimous vote, decided that in Kansas the action should be determined in the Court of Industrial Relations. The case of the maintenance-of-way men, upon which a national strike is also threatened, has been brought into the Kansas court for settlement so far as that state is con- cerned; and there will be no srtike in this craft in Kansas. There are two interurban railway cases, in which strikes were threatened, but both grievances have been brought into the Kansas industrial court for adjudication and the roads are running without loss of service to the public or wages to the carmen. An inter-esting sidelight upon the situation occurred in Kansas City some weeks ago, when the bakers of Kansas City, Kan., and Kansas City, Mo., met for the purpose of ordering a strike. The Kansas bakers refused to go out be- cause of the law forbidding shut-downs in this industry, and the Missouri bakers declined to go out alone; so the matter was satisfactorily adjudicated without their going out in either city. The first order of the court, soon after its establishment, was in relation to a wage controversy brought by electrical linemen in the Edison Company at Topeka. It was for an increase in wages. The testimony clearly revealed the fact that the operatives of this department of public service were paid less than the trend of wages for expert service in the district. The whole subject of cost of living and comparison of wages was gone into. The court granted an increase of wages to the men that was entirely satisfactory to them and the corporation — which not only obeyed the order of the 134 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF court promptly, but made the increase of wages retroactive to cover the period since the request for an increase was made. No time was lost by the employees during the ad- judication of this controversy, and the public received the benefit of continuous operation of service. In the order of the court a hint as to the spirit of this tribunal may be had from the following quotation: The court is very desirious to do nothing in this case which will unduly burden the respondent. However, it must be admitted that wages to labor must be considered before dividends to the investor, and that business which is unable to pay a fair rate of wage to its em- ployees will eventually have to liquidate. The Kansas law imposes upon the court the obligation, so far as it has power to do so, to assure to labor a fair wage and to capital a fair return. The Kansas court differentiated between a living wage and a fair wage, and it declared a fair wage to be that which will enable the workmen to procure for themselves and their families all the necessaries and a reasonable share of the comforts of life. They are entitled to a wage which will enable them by industry and economy not only to supply themselves with opportunities for intellectual advancement and reasonable recreation, but also to enable the parents working together to furnish to the children ample opportunities for in- tellectual and moral advancement, for education, and for an equal op- portunity in _ the race of life. A fair wage will also allow the frugal man to provide reasonably for sickness and old age. These are typical cases which have received adjudication, and in all of them the benefits arising from the fact that the court not only had power to make an impartial survey of the case, but also the power to render final decision, was generally recognized by the public. The "Outlaw'' Railroad -^Strike Fails We suffered less in Kansas during the "outlaw" railroad strike than elsewhere. A few men in Rosedale and Argen- tine went out, and the attorney-general went to the field for the purpose of taking charge of the situation. After a few arrests were made, practically all of the men returned to work. These cases have not been heard as yet by the court. In all the other railroad centers of the state there were no strikes, the leaders being opposed to placing themselves in violation of the law. The attitude of the court toward the interurban lines and the lines operating within the state has brought a new sense of security both to the operators and operatives. They real- INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES i3S ize that the strike is no longer necessary; that all their griev- ances are justiciable in this court. In one decision, that of an interurban company, both wages and traffic rates were increased, and all three parties to the triangle — operators, employees, and the public — have recognized the justice of the decision. No grievances have beeng filed touching the packing, mill- ing, or clothing industries. A shut-down was threatened some weeks ago in the packing district and an investigation was started by the court, but the difficulty passed away* with- out the necessity of court action. One of the direct results we have observed in the opera- tion of the court is that it reduces the poignancy of the in- dustrial quarrel. The mere presence of an impartial court seems to have encouraged both operators and operatives to approach each T3ther in a new spirit of conciliation. Protection of the Public It is believed that the law is going to prove even more effective to wage-earners than to employers. Naturally the court is there to protect the weak and to guarantee justice. For fifteen or twenty years we have gone through a re- luctant process of regulating employing capital. Many wrongs have been corrected through legislation. Indeed, practically all of the progress which has been made in the regulation of working conditions, fair wages, and hours of labor have come as the result of laws looking toward justice. In Kansas a few years ago the operators maintained that the most emphatic of all evils was the company store, in which miners made purchases with company script. This system was wiped out by State legislation. All of the safety appliances, working conditions in mines, modern bath houses for miners, and rescue stations were established by legislation. The rescue stations are operated at the state expense, Kansas being one of three states in the Union to adopt this system. The entire progress of legislation has been along lines favorable to the workers, and the Kansas Court of Industrial Relations, while holding this to be a paramount consideration, has had to look to the necessity of protecting the public as well as capital. The difference between the Kansas effort and the efforts of 136 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF compulsory arbitration in Australia and other countries is that in laws such as Australia created the main feature is the protec- tion of arbitration agreements. In Kansas the main feature is the protection of the public. We are going upon the broad principle that society has the same right to take jurisdiction over offenses committed in the name of industrial warfare that she has had, through all the evolution of government, to take juris- diction over other wrongs. The quarrels between capital and labor are to-day the only ones against which government does not protect the public. We have done away with every form of private conflict from duel- ing to fist fighting, save alone the conflict between capital and labor. Eugene V. Debs, in his testimony in the Phelan case, said, "A strike is war, not necessarily war of blood and bullets, but a war in the sense that it is a conflict between two contend- ing interests or classes of interests." Kansas, which once sympathized altogether with labor, as did the general public, out of a realization in that early day that the employers were unduly oppressive, now realizes that if capital has been selfish and ruthless, labor has shovm itself to be the same; and the general demand is that hereafter the public shall be considered and protected against industrial war. The real purpose of the Kansas law is to protect men in their right to work, rather than to deny them the right to quit. Our union labor friends forget that government has power to protect the good order of society and that in the exercise of this power it has taken jurisdiction over the most sacred re- lations of life. The relation of the husband and wife, of the parent and the child, come under the jurisdiction of our courts. Government says to 9Z3 23 Z9Z4 4fi 1915 4 1916 7 Z9Z7 8 zgz8 i 6 Total 169 • Jlwearch Report No. 33, National Industrial Conference Board, p. 31. r// PART IV COMPULSORY INVESTIGATION OF INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES AFFIRMATIVE DISCUSSION COMPULSORY INVESTIGATION' "Compulsory investigation," but "not to the extent of compulsory arbitration," is the pertinent suggestion of the Senate committee that investigated the steel strike in a re- port that appears to be broad and judicial, and calculated to carry conviction. It is apparent that the lack of some agency before which disputes between capital and labor can be brought for in- vestigation has been a serious handicap in securing industrial adjustments. Not only should this medium be available to both parties to the dispute, but these investigations should be compulsory. The strike or lockout may follow, but the facts would first be published by an impartial agency, and the public could then take sides according to its inclination. Under present conditions a great upheaval occurs in in- dustry. The public becomes a party to the controversy with- out having an intelligent understanding of the case. Claims diametrically opposed are put forth by the steel company and by its men, while the public knows little of the merits of the case. Public opinion has been inclined against the strikes in some cases not because the strikers have no griev- ance, but because they have not presented it in the right way. Similar conditions exist in regard to the coal strike. Charges and counter-charges have been made, but no one who is disinterested seems to know the facts. Few doubt the men have a grievance, a very serious grievance, but the injection of revolutionary talk has aroused prejudices that have obscured the real issue. What the Senate committee found after the strike had been declared should have been discovered before the strike was called. And had the facts been known, had they been ^Editorial in the Public. 22:1108. November 29, 1919. 210 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF set forth by some tribunal or other body commanding pub- lic confidence, informed public opinion would have compelled redress. Compulsory arbitration is so repugnant to labor that its use would be inadvisable even if such a law could be enacted. But compulsory investigation should be wel- comed by all honest parties to a controversy. With free discussion of labor troubles and impartial reports of the facts, public opinion will compel a settlement. PRESIDENT WILSON RECOMMENDS COMPULSORY INVESTIGATION' I have come to you to seek your assistance in dealing with a very grave situation which has arisen out of the de- mand of the employees of the railroads engaged in freight train service that they be granted an eight-hour working day, safeguarded by payment for an hour and a half of serv- ice for every hour of work beyond the eight. The matter has been agitated for more than a year. The public has been made familiar with the demands of the men and the arguments urged in favor of them, and even more familiar with the objections of the railroads and their coun- ter demand that certain privileges now enjoyed by their men and certain bases of payment worked out through many years of contest be reconsidered, especially in their relation to the adoption of an eight hour day. The matter came some three weeks ago to a final issue and resulted in a com- plete deadlock between the parties. The means provided by law for the mediation of the controversy failed and the means of arbitration for which the law provides were rejected. The representatives of the railway executives proposed that the demands of the men be submitted in their entirety to arbi- tration, along with certain questions of readjustment as to pay and conditions of employment which seemed to them to be either closely associated with the demands or to call for reconsideration on their own merits; the men absolutely declined arbitration, especially if any of their established ^ Extract from the special address of ^ President Wilson in Congress on the threatened railroad strike and the eight-hour law. August ag, zgiti. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 211 privileges were by that means to be drawn again in ques- tion. The law in the matter put no compulsion upon them. The four hundred thousand men from whom the demands proceeded had voted to strike if their demands were re- fused; the strike was imminent; it has since been set for the fourth of September next. It affects the men who man the freight trains on practically every railway in the country. The freight service throughout the United States must stand still until their places are filled, if, indeed, it should prove possible to fill them at all. Cities will be cut off from their food supplies, the whole commerce of the nation will be paralyzed, men of every sort and occupation will be thrown out of employment, countless thousands will in all likeli- hood be brought, it may be, to the very point of starvation, and a tragical national calamity brought on, to be added to the other distresses of the time, because no basis of accom- modation or settlement has been found. * * * I yield to no man in firm adherence, alike of conviction and of purpose, to the principle of arbitration in industrial disputes; but matters have come to a sudden crisis in this particular dispute and the country has been caught unpro- vided with any practical means of enforcing that convic- tion in practice (by whose fault we will not now stop to inquire). A situation had to be met whose elements and fixed conditions were indisputable. The practical and patriotic course to pursue, as it seemed to me, was to secure imme- diate peace by conceding the one thing in the demands of the men which society itself and any arbitrators who repre- sented public sentiment were most likely to approve, and immediately lay the foundations for securing arbitration with regard to everything else involved. The event has confirmed that judgment. I was seeking to compose the present in order to safe- guard the future; for I wished an atmosphere of peace and friendly cooperation in which to take counsel with the rep- resentatives of the nation with regard to the best means for providing, so far as it might prove possible to provide, against the recurrence of such unhappy situations in the fu- ture — the best and most practicable means of securing calm 212 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF and fair arbitration of all industrial disputes in the days to come. This is assuredly the best way of vindicating a prin- ciple, namely, having failed to make certain of its observance in the present, to make certain of its observance in the future. But I could only propose. I could not govern the will of others who took an entirely different view of the circum- stances of the case, who even refused to admit the circum- stances to be what they have turned out to be. Having failed to bring the parties to this critical contro- versy to an accommodation, therefore, I turn to you, deem- ing it clearly our duty as public servants to leave nothing undone that we can do to safeguard the life and interests of the nation. In the spirit of such a purpose, I earnestly recommend the following legislation: * * ♦ Fifth, an amendment of the existing federal statute which provides for the mediation, conciliation, and arbitration of such controversies as the present by adding to it a provision that in case the methods of accommodation now provided for should fail, a full public investigation of the merits of every such dispute shall be instituted and completed before a strike or lockout may lawfully be attempted. * * * There is one other thing we should do if we are true champions of arbitration. We should make all arbitral awards judgments by record of a court of law in order that their interpretation and enforcement may lie, not with one of the parties to the arbitration, but with an impartial and authoritative tribunal. These things I urge upon you, not in haste or merely as a means of meeting a present emergency, but as perma- nent and necessary additions to the law of the land, sug- gested, indeed, by circumstances we had hoped never to see, but imperative as well as just, if such emergencies are to be prevented in the future. I feel that no extended argu- ment is needed to commend them to your favorable consid- eration. They demonstrate themselves. The time and the occasion only give emphasis to their importance. We need them now and we shall continue to need them. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 213 PRESIDENT WILSON "EARNESTLY RENEWS" HIS RECOMMENDATIONS' I realize the limitations of time under which you will neces- sarily act at this session and shall make my suggestions as few as possible; but there were some things left undone at the last session, which there will now be time to complete and which it seems necessary in the interest of the public to do at once. In the first place, it seems to me imperatively necessary that the earliest possible consideration and action should be accorded the remaining measures of the programme of set- tlement and regulation which I had occasion to recommend to you at the close of your last session in view of the public dangers disclosed by the unaccommodated difficulties which then existed, and which still unhappily continue to exist, be- tween the railroads of the country and their locomotive en- gineers, conductors, and trainmen. I then recommended: * * * Fifth, an amendment of the existing federal statute which provides for the mediation, conciliation, and arbitration of such controversies as the present by adding to it a pro- vision that, in case the methods of accommodation now pro- vided for should fail, a full public investigation of the mer- its of every such dispute shall be instituted and completed before a strike or lockout may lawfully be attempted. * * * The other suggestions, — the provision for full public in- vestigation and assessment of industrial disputes, — I now very earnestly renew. * * * The country can not and should not consent to remain any longer exposed to profound industrial disturbances for lack ef additional means of arbitration and conciliation which the Congress can easily and promptly supply. * * * This is a program of regulation, prevention, and sdminis- ' Extract from the fourth annual address of President Wilaos to Congress, December s, igi6. 214 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF trative efficiency which argues its own case in the mere statement of it. * * * I would hesitate to recommend, and I dare say the Con- gress would hesitate to act upon the suggestion should I make it, that any man in any occupation should be obliged by law to continue in an employment which he desired to leave. To pass a law which forbade or prevented the indi- vidual workman to leave his work before receiving the ap- proval of society in doing so would be to adopt a new prin- ciple into our jurisprudence which I take it for granted we are not prepared to introduce. But the proposal that the operation of the railways of the country shall not be stopped or interrupted by the concerted action of organized bodies of men until a public investigation shall have been instituted which shall make the whole question at issue plain for the judgment of the opinion of the nation is not to propose any such principle. It is based upon the very different principle that the concerted action of powerful bodies of men shall not be permitted to stop the industrial processes of the na- tion, at any rate before the nation shall have had an oppor- tunity to acquaint itself with the merits of the case as be- tween employee and employer, time to form its opinion up- on an impartial statement of the merits, and opportunity to consider all practicable means of conciliation or arbitration. I can see nothing in that proposition but the justifiable safe- guarding by society of the necessary processes of its very life. There is nothing arbitrary or unjust in it unless it be arbitrarily and unjustly done. It can and should be done with a full and scrupulous regard for the interests and lib- erties of all concerned as well as for the permanent interests of society itself. GOVERNMENT PREVENTION OF RAILROAD STRIKES' The American people awakened recently to find them- selves threatened with an interruption of transportation throughout the country. This imminent danger aroused for * By Samuel O. Dunn, Editor Railway Age Gazette, in Scribner's Magazine, 6i:307-i4' Uarch, 1917. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 215 the first time in a majority a realization of the extent to which the public welfare has come to depend on the contin- uous maintenance of railway service. To ward oS the blow Congress hastily passed the Adamson "basic eight-hour day" act. The railways promptly took this measure into court to test its constitutionality. Threats of a strike were then heard again. President Wilson recommended last August the passage, along with the Adamson bill, of a measure to prohibit strikes or lockouts in train service until after public investigation of the matters in controversy. He renewed this recommenda- tion on the reassembling of Congress in December. The need for additional legislation dealing with labor controver- sies on railways has been made so manifest recently that before this article appears the President's recommendation may have been acted on. The problem which gives rise to these controversies is not, however, one which legislation passed to meet a single emergency is likely to solve. It is a very difficult problem — a problem at once important, com- plex, and unique. It is a problem which has arisen inevit- ably, first, from the economic developments of our time, and, second, from the nature of the railway industry. The changes in economic conditions which have taken place within recent years have made strikes and lockouts in many lines of business matters of serious consequence to the public. When the largest concern represented a capital of only a few hundred thousands of dollars, and employed only a few hundred workmen, when employers dealt only with their own employees, and employees only with their own employers, a lockout or strike might work great hard- ship or ruin to those directly involved; but the public hardly felt it. There was then little occasion for government in- terference except to prevent and punish violence and other ordinary infractions of the criminal law. Within our time, however, there have been great in- creases in the size of business concerns. Single corporations now represent hundreds of millions of capital, and employ many thousands of men. Confronted by these huge aggre- gations of capital, employees have organized on a grand scale to pit against the large bargaining power of the great corporations the collective bargaining power of thousands of workers. From local bodies, labor unions have developed 2i6 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF into national and international organizations. Individual corporations, even though very large, have found themselves at a disadvantage when dealing single-handed vyith labor unions national or international in their -scope. Therefore, in many industries labor unions national in their scope are now confronted with employers' associations national in their extent. Thus have combinations of capital and of labor acted and reacted on each other until there has de- veloped a situation the significance of which, in relation to the public welfare, can hardly be exaggerated. In no other field, however, is organized capital con- fronted with organizations of labor at once so powerful, so militant, and possessed of so many strategic advantages as in the railway field. The principal of these are the four brotherhoods of employees in train service — the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, the Order of Railway Conductors, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, and the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen. For many years each of these organizations acted alone; and it was the policy of each to deal with only one or a few railways at a time. In not a few cases failure to secure satisfactory settlements resulted in strikes of the members of single brotherhoods on single roads. Perhaps the most famous and bitterly fought of these was that of the locomotive engineers on the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy in 1888. The great- est strike in the history of American railways, that carried on by the American Railway Union in 1894, grew out of a boycott this union had declared against Pullman cars be- cause the employees of the Pullman Company were on strike. But the American Railway Union soon went out of exis- tence; and the course of the leading brotherhoods continued to be the same as before. About ten years ago, however, radical changes began to be introduced in their policy. The individual brotherhoods commenced to make identical demands upon, and to insist upon canying on negotiations with, the representatives of groups of railways operating throughout the three great sec- tions of the country — East, South, and West. Then the other trainmen began to join with the conductors, and the firemen with the engineers, in making demands upon the railways of entire sections. Finally, in 1916, the engineers, INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 217 firemen, conductors, and other trainmen of the whole coun- try united in making demands upon all the railways. This, it may develop, was not the climax of the railway labor movement. It is reported that the employees in train service have been trying to get all the other organized railway em- ployees, especially the mechanics and other shopmen, to join with them in their struggles. Every step taken by the employees has been countered by the managements. Committees representing groups of railways succeeded representatives of the individual manage- ments in labor negotiations. Finally, in 1916, for the first time in history, a committee representing the managements of all the railways confronted committees representing men employed on all. This was followed by another event with- out a precedent — a meeting in Washington, D. C, of the heads of all the leading transportation systems to decide what should be the final stand of all in a labor controversy. There will be no dissent from the proposition that revo- lutionary changes in economic and industrial conditions which powerfully affect the interests of the public may de- mand correspondingly radical alterations in public policy. Likewise, it will hardly be controverted that the growth of great combinations of capital and of huge organizations of labor largely to carry on gigantic struggles with each other has worked an economic and industrial revolution. Finally, to most persons it must be plain that the part of this revo- lution which has occurred in the railway industry is of pe- culiar importance. A nation-wide lockout or strike in any of our large industries would soon become a serious matter for the public. The complete closing down of the steel mills would speedily affect all connected with branches of industry which sell them raw materials or buy their finished products, and would soon threaten the general prosperity. Much more speedy, serious, and universal would be the con- sequences of a general closing down of the plants used to produce some essential of industrial activity, which is also a necessity of life, such as coal. But the most immediately and universally disastrous of all industrial catastrophes would be a nation-wide strike in rjiilway-train service. Such a strike would at once throw all railway employees out of work. By stopping the movement of coal and raw mate- 2i8 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF rials, it would swiftly shut down every mine and factory. The crops of the farmers would soon be rotting upon the ground. Depriving merchants of the means of renewing their stocks, it would soon close every wholesale house and re- tail store. The people of our great cities are dependent from day to day for their food upon the supplies which the railways bring to them from all parts of the land; and they would all find themselves threatened with starvation. As a nation-wide strike in railway-train service would bring all industry and commerce to a stop, it would soon have the effects of a general strike of all workers such as is advo- cated by the syndicalists. Until recently, it was replied to such statements that the circumstance that the movements carried on by railway em- ployees were growing more and more extensive did not give ground for fears of general tie-ups of the railways, or justify coercive action by the government to prevent them. The ablest report on a labor controversy ever made in this country was that rendered by the board which arbitrated the wage dis- pute between the eastern railways and their locomotive en- gineers in 1912. This board, of which President C. R. Van Hise, of the University of Wisconsin, was chairman was pro- foundly impressed by the danger of extensive railway strikes. It, therefore, advocated the creation of state and federal wage commissions to determine the wages and conditions of work of railway employees. The representative of labor on the board (P. H. Morrissey, formerly president of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen) vigorously dissented. "The developing power of the (labor) organizations through concerted methods carries with it increasing responsibilities which the organiza- tions and their leaders recognize," said he. "They well know the value of public approval of their activities and are equally conscious of its disapproval. To intimate that the transporta- tion of the country can be brought to a standstill at the whir/i or caprice of a small group of men is not a fair statement of the manner by which the powers of these organizations are ex- ercised." There was a strike of the employees of all the rail- ways of France in 1910, and the majority of the arbitration board described this as an example of what might occur in the United States. Mr. Morrissey denied the analogy. "The im- mediate cause of the French strike," said he, "was the refusal INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 219 of the railway officials to confer with the representatives of their employees in order that there might not even be a dis- cussion of the employees' demands. There is no such condition in America." Every argument made by Mr. Morrissey was speedily re- futed by the irresistible logic of events. In 1914 the engineers and firemen of the railways west of the Mississippi River made demands upon the companies, and the companies made counter- demands. The railways offered to arbitrate the demands of both sides. The employees consented to arbitration of their own demands, but refused to arbitrate those of the railways. The order was issued for a strike. The war in Europe had just begun. It was a time of industrial and financial crisis. President Wilson intervened, finally appealing to the managers of the railways on patriotic grounds to withdraw their de- mands, and arbitrate only those of the employees. Only the compliance of the managers averted the disaster. Still more impressive and conclusive was the lesson taught last year. In this instance not only did all the locomotive en- gineers, conductors, firemen, and other trainmen for the first time join in making demands on all the railways, but they re- fused to submit to arbitration in any form any of the points in controversy, whether raised by themselves or by the roads. President Wilson asked the railways to accede to the demand for a "basic eight-hour day" and leave other matters in issue to subsequent determination. When the labor leaders heard that the railways had decided to reject the President's plan, they immediately issued an order for a nation-wide strike; and it was averted only by the hurried passage of the Adamson act. The order for a strike was withdrawn only thirty-six hours before the strike was to have begun. It was clear that labor leaders who would issue an order for a nation-wide rail- way strike in this manner and under these conditions would put such an order into effect. It was clear that railway man- agers who would meet the issue unflinchingly, as the railway managers did in this instance, would let a strike come. It was evident, therefore, that the time had arrived for a change in our methods of dealing with labor disputes on railways. There has been frequent government intervention in labor disputes on railways in this country for some years. The laws under which it has occurred have applied only to disputes be- 220 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF tween the carriers and their employees in train service. The Erdman act, passed by Congress in 1898, provided for media- tion by the Commissioner of Labor and the Chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission, and, if this failed, for ar- bitration by a board composed of one representative of the rail- ways, one representative of labor, and one member chosen by these two or by the mediators. The Newlands act, passed sub- sequently at the joint request of the railways and the labor brotherhoods, created a permanent mediation and conciliation board of three members, and provided for arbitration, if media- tion failed, by a board of six members — two representing the railways, two the employees, and two supposedly impartial. The Newlands act, like the Erdman act, left it optional with the parties whether they should accept mediation or arbitra- tion. So long as the parties were disposed to make settle- ments through mediation, or to arbitrate, this system was use- ful as a preventive of strikes. When, however, in 1916 the em- ployees announced that they would not arbitrate, and stuck to it, the system of voluntary arbitration broke down. Government ownership is urged by some as a specific for all the ills which develop under private ownership; and recently it often has been suggested as the only sure preventive of strikes. But strikes have not been unknown on state railways. The locomotive engineers and firemen of the state railways of Victoria struck in 1903. A serious strike occurred on the state railways of Hungary in 1904. The employees of the state rail- ways of Italy, by threatening to strike, succeeded in 1905 in getting rid of an objectionable general manager. The em- ployees of the two state railways of France went on strike with the employees of all the private railways in 1910. There even has been a strike already on the railway which the govern- ment of the United States is building in Alaska; and it was successful, the strikers getting practically all they demanded. Under either government or private ownership differences are sure to arise from time to time between the management of the railways and the employees. In case the differences become serious, and strikes are permitted, the employees, especially if they are organized, are likely to strike. The Prussian govern- ment, true to its character in other respects, makes strikes on the railways it owns and operates practically impossible by pro- hibiting the employees from belonging to unions or from hold- INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 221 ing meetings except such as are attended and presided over by their officers. The employees of the French railways, state and private, on the very day the general strike was declared in 1910, were mobilized tmder the military laws and ordered to the colors for three weeks' training. The duty to which they were assigned was that of maintaining and operating the rail- ways in the usual manner. It will be noted that this strike was on both state and private railways, and that precisely the same measure was used on both to break it. Similar methods were employed in breaking the strike on the Hungarian state rail- ways in 1904. It would be neither practicable nor desirable for the govern- ment of the United States to interfere, after the Prussian man- ner, with the organization of railway employees. Nor would it be possible in this country, at least in time of peace, to break a strike by mobilizing railway employees, as was done in France and Hungary. At the same time, our recent experience demonstrated that we could not reasonably hope much longer to avoid nation-wide railway strikes unless some form of coercion was adopted by the federal government to prevent them. Legislation has been passed in many countries for the pre- vention of strikes and lockouts, not only on railways and other public utilities, but in industries of almost every kind. Until a comparatively few years ago proposals for the arbitration of labor disputes usually originated with labor and were often rejected by capital. Consequently, at that time labor leaders, seconded by most social reformers, advocated legislation mak- ing arbitration compulsory. Within the last quarter-century this system has been tried in several countries, especially New Zealand and Australia. The original compulsory arbitration act of New Zealand was passed in 1894. District boards of con- ciliation, consisting of both employers and employees, and a court of arbitration, consisting of a president, one representa- tive of the unions of employers and one representative of the unions of workers, were created. Reports as to the operation of this system are practically unanimous. From 1894 to 1900 New Zealand was prosperous; the awards of the arbitration court usually resulted in substantial advances in wages; and during this time compulsory arbitration was in high favor with labor, and there were no strikes. During the next six years the country was less prosperous, the awards began to result in small 222 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF increases in wages or none, and, as one author says, "labor be- came less satisfied, and capital less distrustful," but there were still no strikes. Between 1906 and 1912, when labor was "in open revolt and capital endeavored to uphold the act," there were sixty-three strikes. The first of these was declared by the employees of the street railways of Auckland in November, 1906, showing that the law was no more effective as applied to public utilities and their employees than as applied to other employers and their employees. There was provided a maximum fine of two thousand five hundred dollars for any employer and one of fifty dollars for any employee who should violate the arbitra- tion law; and in this case both the company and the striking employees were fined. But from that time strikes continued to occur in various lines of industry in spite of the fact that fines continued to be imposed. In 1909 the law was amended. Three permanent commissioners of conciliation are now ap- pointed by the government. In case of a labor dispute one of them goes to the scene and tries to settle it. If unsuccessful he organizes a council of conciliation which includes two or more representatives of both parties. Every dispute must now be referred to such a council before it can be carried to the ar- bitration court. This system is said to work better than the earlier one; but the record shows that while compulsory ar- bitration in New Zealand has prevented lockouts, it has not prevented strikes. It has been found possible under it always to enforce awards against employers, but not always against employees. In other words, the system is effectively compul- sory only in its application to employers. The experience of Australia has been similar. The Aus- tralian commonwealth has a compulsory arbitration act which has been in effect for twelve years, and the different states have tried various similar schemes. They, also, have prevented lock- outs, but not strikes. Norway formerly had a compulsory ar- bitration law, but opposition to it by both capital and labor caused its repeal. After a general strike in 1916, which itself followed a strike of four months in the mining and iron and steel industries, another compulsory arbitration law was enac- ted to remain in effect during the continuance of the present war in Europe. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 223 A measure similar in purpose to those mentioned, but nar- rower in its scope, and differing widely from them in the means it provides for accomplishing its ends, is the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act of Canada. This law was passed in 1907 as a result of a serious and protracted coal-mine strike in one of the Western provinces. It applies to railroads and other public util- ities, to mines of all kinds, and, by a recent amendment, to all industries engaged in productive operations of any kind for military purposes. It prohibits, under heavy penalties, a lockout or a strike until the matters in dispute shall have been referred to a conciliation and investigation board. The party about to lockout or strike must give notice to the Dominion government, together with a statement regarding the matters in controversy. The Minister of Labor calls on each party to name a member of the board. These two are given opportunity to name a third, who becomes chairman. If they fail to do so, he is appointed by the Minister of Labor. The primary function of this board is that of mediation. If it fails to effect a settlement, it takes testimony and prepares a report, which is made public, sum- marizing the evidence and giving its conclusions as to the bases on which a settlement should be made. This measure differs from those establishing compulsory ar- bitration in not requiring obedience to the awards made under it. Like them, it has not succeeded entirely in preventing strikes. But almost always in cases of industrial disputes its provisions have been obeyed, with resulting peaceful settle- ments in a large majority of cases. Of eighty-five disputes on railways which have been investigated under its provisions, all but seven have been settled without strikes or lockouts ; and, as already indicated, the Canadian law applies to disputes affecting any class of railway employees, not merely those in train ser- vice. Our experience in the United States has shown that a sys- tem which leaves mediation and arbitration of labor disputes on railways entirely optional with the parties cannot be relied on to safeguard the interests of the public. At the same time the ex- perience of other countries with compulsory arbitration shows that while it is attractive in theory it often proves unworkable in practice. If employees are determined not to carry out the terms of an award, there appears to be, at least in democratic 224 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF countries, no practical way of compelling them to do so. Fines have proved ineffectual, and provisions for imprisonment prob- ably could not be enforced. For the present it seems best to take in the United States a middle course between the poUcy of entirely voluntary arbitra- tion and that of compulsory arbitration. In other words, we should apply to labor controversies threatening to interrupt rail- way service a system modelled after that of Canada. The most important feature of that system is that it does not make lock- outs and strikes illegal and arbitration and acceptance of the awards compulsory, but that it merely makes strikes and lock- outs illegal if declared before there has been a public investiga- tion of and report on the matters in controversy. Most of the leaders of organized labor formerly advocated compulsory arbitration. At present, most of the labor leaders of this country oppose the placing of any restriction on the right of railway employees to strike. They declare that merely to prohibit strikes until there can be public investigation is to subject railway employees to "involuntary servitude." But such a system does not involve any abridgment of the freedom of the individual. It merely imposes a limitation on the action of em- ployees collectively; and no principle of economics or juris- prudence is more fundamental than that it may be the right and duty of society to impose restrictions on the collective action of large numbers of men which it would be wrong to impose on the action of individuals. "Involuntary servitude" is merely a euphemism for slavery. It is obvious that legislation prohibiting strikes until after public investigation does not establish slavery. Therefore, we must look beyond this argument for the true reason why labor lead- ers are so strongly opposed to any restriction of the right of railway employees to strike. The true reason probably is that they fear such restriction will result in weakening the bargain- ing power of the labor brotherhoods. As already stated, the labor situation on railways and other public utilities is unique, and this point calls attention to one of the most important con- ditions which make it unique. In every other class of industry employers have the same legal power and moral right to seize upon favorable opportunities to force through reductions in wages and changes in conditions of employment by resort to INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 225 the lockout that the employees have to seize upon favorable op- portunities to force through increases in wages and changes in conditions of employment by resort to the strike. Therefore, in any other industry in which both employers and employees are strongly organized there may be a substantial parity in their collective bargaining power. In the case of railways and other public utilities, on the other hand, the employer may not legally suspend operation. This means, as to most classes of em- ployees, that he cannot use the lockout. In consequence, if the employees of railways and other public utilities are permitted to strike whenever they please, this gives them in collective bar- gaining an important advantage. The employees in railway- train service in this country have used this advantage often and skilfully. It is mainly owing to this that they have got their wages on a basis higher than those of any other workingmen in the world. A law absolutely prohibiting strikes in train ser- vice, if enforced, would largely destroy the advantage in bar- gaining possessed by these employees. A law merely prohibit- ing strikes until after public investigation will greatly impair it. While the investigation is going on the most opportune time for putting a strike into effect is likely to pass, and the ardor of the men for it is likely to cool. This will be partly because of the delay involved. It will also be partly because of the fact that the public will be informed as to the matters in con- troversy; that it will have before it the recommendations of an impartial board as to a settlement; and that it probably will strongly oppose and condemn any move to bring about a strike in disregard of these recommendations. From the standpoint of the leaders of organized labor these are strong arguments against imposing limitations on the right to strike. From the standpoint of the public they are just as strong arguments in favor of imposing such limitations. It is not to the interest of the public that the employees of railways and other public utilities shall possess a disproportionate power in bargaining with their employers. The profits of public util- ities, unlike those of other concerns, are controlled by public authorities to prevent them from becoming excessive. Since such concerns are required to do business on a comparatively narrow margin of profit, every considerable change in the wages they pay must affect the rates they charge the public or the ser- 226 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF vice they render to it. It is hardly necessary to add that it is to the pubhc interest to interpose all reasonable obstacles in the way of strikes. However, before a system of compulsory investigation of in- dustrial disputes can be made to accomplish the greatest good, it will have to be given some features which have not yet been introduced into it. Its most important object should be to pre- vent strikes ; but it should also aim to secure settlements of dis- putes which will be just to all, including the public. But what is just cannot well be determined by such temporary boards as have been organized under the Industrial Disputes Act in Can- ada and under the Erdraan and Newlands acts in this country. The determination of the conditions of employment and the wages that should prevail on railways is as technical, and al- most as important, a matter as the determination of railway rates. Therefore the investigation of labor disputes on railways, like the regulation of rates, should be delegated to some body which, from the training and experience of its members, will be skilful in getting at the true facts and conditions, and in making sound and fair recommendations as to settlements. The body to which this function logically should be delegated is that which already regulates railway rates and operation, viz., the Interstate Commerce Commission. In any event, the connection between the body that investigates labor disputes and the body that regulates rates and operation should be close. Probably the best alternative to turning the entire matter over to the Interstate Commerce Commission would be to pro- vide that each investigating board should be composed of the following: (i) A permanent chairman, who preferably should be an army officer, and who, because of the permanency of his tenure, would in time become an expert on labor controversies; (2) a member of the Interstate Commerce Commission, to be designated for the occasion, by that Commission, who would bring into the deliberations a broad knowledge of the railway situation ; (3) a member of the Federal Trade Commission, to be designated for the occasion by the Trade Commission, who would bring into the deliberations a broad knowledge of the general business situation; (4) a representative of the railways, who would bring expert knowledge of railway matters and ex- press the railway point of view; (5) a representative of the em- INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 227 ployees, who would bring expert knowledge of the labor situa- tion and express the labor point of view. The Erdman and Newlands acts provided for arbitration boards composed of equal numbers of representatives of the railways, of the employees, and of the public. It has been justly complained of these boards that the minority of their members representing the public were impartial but not expert, while the majority, representing the employers and employees, were ex- pert but not impartial. Either the Interstate Commerce Com- mission or boards organized according to the alternative plan suggested above would largely obviate these objections. As important as it is that the public should have railway labor controversies elucidated for it by an expert and impartial board, the service which such a board could render in influenc- ing the attitudes of the immediate parties themselves might be more important. In order that this service might be rendered in the most efficient manner, the law should provide that no strike vote might be taken until the investigating board had made its report, and that with every strike ballot sent out there should be enclosed a brief statement, prepared by the board it- self, setting forth its conclusions and recommendations and the reasons for them. It might be well to provide also that strike votes must be by ballot, so that no employee may be prevented from expressing his true sentiments. The question whether the railway transportation of the United States shall be interrupted is a more important one than most of those voted on at political elections, and therefore no pains should be spared to insure that it will be voted on intelligently and without duress. The insuperable obstacle that has been encountered in the administration of compulsory arbitration laws has been that of getting employees to carry out awards. Will equal difficulty be met in the administration of a well-devised scheme of compul- sory investigation? Both consideration of the conditions and the experience of Canada indicate that it will not be. The only prohibitions of such a system are those applying to strikes and lockouts previous to investigation. There is no reason why the penalties applicable, on the one hand, to the railway companies and their officers, and, on the other hand to the officers of the unions, to their individual members, and to the union, them- selves and their properties and funds, cannot be made heavy 228 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF enough, if enforced, to secure obedience to the law; and it should be much easier to secure enforcement of penalties for violations of such prohibitions than to secure the enforcement of penalties against men who have struck rather than carry out an award already made and which they regard as unjust. There is no "involuntary servitude" in the former proceeding. The latter savors strongly of it. It is not probable that a plan such as that outlined would secure entirely equitable settlements of railway labor contro- versies; but it would secure much fairer settlements than any plan tried heretofore. It is not probable that it would entirely prevent strikes in railway-train service, but it would almost cer- tainly prevent nation-wide tie-ups while strictly limiting the number aflfecting smaller areas. Should a well-devised scheme of compulsory investigation of railway labor disputes fail, public sentiment might be educated by its operation and irritated by its failure to a point where it would cause the enactment and en- forcement of a law entirely prohibiting railway strikes. THE CANADIAN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT' Twenty-two years ago traffic upon some of our largest western railways was interrupted or suspended by a wide- spread and protracted strike. Business was seriously af- fected, millions of dollars were lost by the disputants and the general public, and mob violence for a time threatened the very foundations of government. Finally order was re- stored and necessary intercourse was resumed under the pro- tection of federal troops. A United States strike commis- sion was appointed to investigate this disturbance and to ad- vise measures for preventing a similar calamity in the future. This commission recommended that lockouts and strikes upon railways engaged in interstate commerce be prohibited by law until the grievances at issue had been officially in- vestigated, and the public had been informed why its own rights and interests were to be so seriously violated. The present year a strike that promised to be even more extended * Victor S. Clark. Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science, 7:10-18. January, 1917. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 229 and disastrous than the one in 1894 impended. Congress had not yet provided an adequate remedy for such a crisis, and the lessons of the previous episode had been forgotten. Therefore again, twenty-two years after the strike commis- sion of 1894 reported, the President of the United States was called upon to protect vital national interests from in- dustrial warfare; and he repeated in his appeal for aid to Congress the recommendation made by President Cleveland almost a generation ago, that lockouts and strikes upon rail- ways engaged in interstate commerce be made illegal, unless preceded by a public investigation. Meantime Canada, whose industrial conditions are almost identical with our own, had grappled resolutely with this problem. Ten years ago a bitter and prolonged coal strike in Alberta deprived the western provinces of fuel; so that as winter approached, prairie settlers could not heat their homes, public schools were closed, and industries using steam power curtailed or suspended operations. What the anthracite coal strike of 1902 was to our eastern -states, the strike of 1906 was to the people of the Canadian northwest. This private disagreement of a small group of employers and workmen so threatened the welfare of that entire region that the Dominion government was fotced to intervene; and partly by moral suasion and partly by the power of public opinion it finally compelled a settlement of the dispute and a resumption of coal production. Unlike the United States after the great railway strike of 1894 and the anthracite strike of 1902, Canada at once took positive steps to prevent or control similar crises in the future. In recommending a law for this purpose, Mr Mac- kenzie King, then deputy minister of labor of the Dominion, thus stated the guiding principle of such legislation: "In any civilized community private rights should cease when they become public wrongs.'' I should like to make that state- ment the text of my remarks; for it defines the only ground upon which the public is entitled to interfere in a mandatory way with the negotiations between workers and employers. The measure Canada adopted went beyond voluntary con- ciliation and arbitration law^, which were already on the statute books. Such laws had been enacted also in the United States, and in both countries they had been of ser- 230 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF vice; but when most needed they had failed in Canada as completely and as conspicuously as they failed in our own great railway dispute last summer. On the other hand, the government was not ready to adopt compulsory arbitration, such as is in force in New Zealand and Australia. Let me repeat that the Canadian industrial disputes act is not a compulsory arbitration law, because that erroneous opinion seems to prevail widely in this country. Canada's purpose was not to compel the parties to a dispute to accept a government decision, nor to regu- late by official mandate the working conditions of any class of labor; its purpose was limited to forbidding lockouts and strikes that directly affect the public welfare until their causes have been authoritatively investigated, and have been made known to the people who will suffer through them. In connection with this investigation, the law provides ma- chinery not essentially different from that established by earlier conciliation acts in both Canada and the United States, to assist the disputing parties in a voluntary and friendly settlement of their difficulties. The conciliation fea- tures of the act of 1907 were not novel, but were mainly a re- enactment of previous statutes; while the compulsory in- vestigation features were at that time practically new in American labor legislation. The jurisdiction of the law extends only to industries that serve immediately the general public. These embrace rail- ways and transportation lines, yard and wharf labor, tele- graphs and telephones, power, light and traction companies, and mines. Workers and employers in any industries not directly included within the act may by mutual agreement apply to have their difficulties investigated and adjusted under the same law; but this is merely using its machinery for purposes called for by any conciliation statute. Recently as a war measure the jurisdiction of the act has been ex- tended to munition workers and others employed in war industries; but this is a temporary expedient in an extra- ordinary emergency, to be justified on the same grounds as the original law. In a word, the operation of the act is con- fined to industries where a cessation of labor would cause more damage to the general public than any prospective ad- vantage to either party in the dispute would compensate. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 231 The law attempts to apply the principle of the greatest good to the greatest number. No change in the labor conditions of these industries can be made without thirty days notice. If either employers or workers object to a proposed change they may apply to the federal Minister of Labor for a board of investigation and conciliation, showing that a lockout or strike will occur un- less the points at issue are settled. Thereupon the minister, after assuring himself of these facts, appoints a board for that particular dispute. This board consists of three mem- bers, one of whom is nominated by the workers and another by the employers. These two select the third member, or if they fail to agree the Minister of Labor appoints him. The third member is chairman of the board. Please note that the board is not a judicial body or a non-partisan umpire, but an investigating and conciliating agency containing representatives of both sides of the controversy. However, no person having a direct money interest in the business affected by the dispute is eligible to membership. Wide latitude is given the boards in their method of con- ducting an investigation and bringing the opposing parties to an agreement. They have the powers of a court to sum- mon witnesses, to require the production of books and pa- pers, and to take testimony under oath. They may person- ally inspect works and factories concerned in a dispute and interrogate employees. Most cases referred to boards have been settled without a disagreement. But if the parties can- not come to terms the board reports its findings, which need not be unanimous, but may consist of a majority and a minority report, or conceivably of three individual reports. These contain a statement of the grounds of the dispute, an opinion as to the justice of the respective claims presented, and recommendations for a settlement of the points in con- troversy. Pending the investigation a lockout or strike is prohibited under penalties ranging $100 to $1000 a day for lockouts, $10 to $50 a day for striking, and $50 to $icoo for inciting or aiding an unlawful lockout or strike. But after a board has reported, employers may lock out their employees, or workers may strike, if they wish to do so. The only excep- tion to this rule is when both parties have previously signed 232 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF a formal agreement to abide by the decision of the board. In that case they can not break their contract. This summary review of the main provisions of the act necessarily omits many details that are important in its prac- tical working, but that can not be discussed in a short paper without obscuring the law's leading principles. The two fea- tures that chiefly distinguish the industrial disputes act of Canada from the Erdman law and the Newlands law in our own country, are the compulsory investigation of certain la- bor controversies and the prohibition of lockouts and strikes pending that investigation. More than nine years have elapsed since Canada placed these provisions on the statute books. Up to the i8th of last month 212 disputes had been referred for adjustment under the law, and 21 strikes had occurred; so that about nine out of ten disputes were settled without stopping work. Of these 212 disputes, 167 were reported on by board or settled through their mediation, and the others were terminated be- fore boards were organized or while the disputes were still under investigation. If we classify these references by industries, during the first nine years of the act seventy-five boards were appointed in rail- way disputes, and in all but six of these strikes were ended or averted. City traction lines were involved in twenty-one refer- ences, only two of which terminated in a strike. Only one out of nine cases of labor difficulty upon municipal works caused a stoppage of labor. Eleven shipping disputes, two upon tele- graph lines, two upon telephone lines, and three affecting light and power companies, were settled without a single interrup- tion of employment. On the other hand, out of forty-three dis- putes in coal mines, six resulted in strikes; while in metal min- ing only eight out of thirteen controversies referred to boards were amicably adjusted by them. The act has not been so suc- cessful in mining as in transportation and other public service industries, partly because popular sentiment is less intelligently informed and less actively interested in mining controversies than in those more immediately affecting the general welfare. Moreover the figures quoted, which are taken from official re- ports, must be qualified^ by the fact that labor difficulties not here recorded have occasionally ensued where the application of the act has been doubtful, or after a board has reported and its findings have been accepted by one or both of the parties. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 233 Furthermore, a mere enumeration of disputes, without re- gard to the relative importance of individual controversies, gives little information as to the real service of the act. One big dispute ending in a strike may outweigh many little diffi- culties settled amicably. Statistics can not measure the respec- tive importance of averted and actual strikes, because the dura- tion and extent of a potential strike are matters of conjecture. As a rule, however, the larger the threatened disturbance, the harder it is to handle; and it is in the field of big strikes that legislation of this character usually makes the poorest showing. Probably the number of employees involved in strikes that have occurred in Canada either in violation of the industrial disputes act, or legally under that act because work- ers refused to accept the findings of a board, averages larger in each difficulty than the number involved in disputes that were successfully adjusted. Nevertheless, no great strike affecting immediately the public welfare has paralyzed the industries of Canada since this law went into operation. Illegal strikes are of two kinds, those started in ignorance of the law or in doubt as to its application, and those in clear defiance of government intervention. The few strikes that have occurred in open contempt of the act were not in disputes where the outside public had much interest at stake, and usually were to be explained by some local condition that prompted irre- sponsible men to impulsive action. Some years ago the United Mine Workers in western Canada struck in violation of the law, but later they themselves applied for a board, which was granted and settled the difficulty. Similar strikes have more re- cently occurred among coal miners in Nova Scotia, where there is a long standing jurisdictional fight between a union that favors the act and one that opposes it. In case of such viola- tions the government may prosecute the offenders; but in prac- tice it generally leaves the enforcement of the penal features of the law to the aggrieved parties in the dispute. As might be an- ticipated, neither employers nor workingmen often care to as- sume the trouble and expense of court proceedings. One em- ployer has been fined for an illegal lockout ; a few union offi- cials have been fined for inciting strikes ; and an agent of the United Mine Workers has been convicted both in the lower courts and on appeal for paying strike relief to members of the union who had violated the law. However, no effort has been made in the past to punish a large body of men for striking. 234 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF This raises the question of the value of the penal provisions of the law. It is argued that if the act does not put strikers in jail and subject offending employers to heavy fines, these pro- visions are useless. But even though violations are seldom prosecuted, neither strikers nor employers dare to defy the law of the land in disputes prominently before the public and affect- ing the prosperity and comfort of a large body of citizens. By doing so they would put a powerful weapon in the hands of their opponents, and they would fatally prejudice their case in the high court of public opinion. The original statute was amended in 1910, and a bill revising and extending its provisions has been prepared and will prob- ably be brought before Parliament at the close of the war. Both the amendments already made and the proposed revision are designed chiefly to simplify and expedite procedure and to hasten decisions. Another projected change would permit municipalities to apply for boards in disputes that threaten the welfare of their citizens, though the municipal government is not a party to the controversy. It is also proposed that the government, where requested by both parties, shall register col- lective bargains or industrial agreements entered into by work- ers and employers, whether made through a board of investiga- tion and conciliation or without government mediation, and that when so recorded these agreements shall be enforceable by law. The new bill also provides that boards may be reconvened for the purpose of interpreting their awards. Recently when a seri- ous strike seemed imminent on the Canadian Pacific railway an- other defect in the present law appeared. This dispute was in- vestigated and reported upon by a board of investigation and conciliation in 1914, just as the war broke out. The employees refused to accept the board's recommendation, but deferred striking on account of the war. The present autumn, two years after the findings of the board of 1914 were published, they claimed the right still to strike on account of their rejection of the previous report. Happily this controversy was settled with- out an interruption of traffic; but the law ought to limit the period after a board reports during which a lockout or strike may be entered into without a second investigation. Some years ago, while this legislation was still new, I was twice commissioned to investigate its operation for our govern- ment. Since these two visits, which extended through nearly INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 23s all the provinces of the Dominion, I have had little opportunity to interview workingmen and employers directly affected by the act. At that time it was commended by the general public, by employers, and by the mass of working people; but it evoked criticism from some labor leaders. However, these objections were to details of the law rather than to its fundamental princi- ples. When the amendments of 1910 were before Parliament, the Minister of Labor read letters from the legislative repre- sentatives or other high Canadian officers of the brotherhoods of locomotive engineers, of locomotive firemen and enginemen, of railway trainmen, of maintenance of way employees, and of the order of railway telegraphers, all commending the existing law and the proposed amendments. The president of the broth- erhood of maintenance of way employees characterized the act as "one of the best pieces of legislation that has been passed to my knowledge in the interest of industrial peace." Sir George Askwith, who investigated the working of this law for the British government late in 1912, stated in his conclusions: I was struck by the remarkable difference of attitude displayed by railway union officials generally, as compared with some of the trade- union leaders in other trades. The former appeared to recognize that the holding up of a railway system by a strike was a procedure only justifiable as a last resort, and that it was due to the public that every possible step be taken to arrive at a settlement before recourse was had to a strike as a measure of adjusting differences. The result of this attitude has been that the Canadian railway unions . . . have frankly accepted the spirit of the . . . acts, and apply as a natural course for boards of investigation and conciliation when difficulties that threaten to become serious arise. ... At the meeting of the trade-union congress that I attended at Guelph, it was the officials of the railway unions who spoke most strongly in ■ defense of the act. . . The ac- ceptance of the theory that the public have a right to be informed im- partially of the merits of the questions which gravely threaten their well- being, and of the spirit of the acts, has been so far adopted by those concerned with the Canadian railway system as to place the country in almost as safe a position against serious stoppage as it is possible to reach. Recently the trade-union congress of Canada passed a reso- lution asking that the law be repealed. During the Senate hear- ings upon the eight-hour law for train operatives, passed by Congress last September, Mr. Garretson, president of the Order "of Railway Conductors, and Mr. Gompers, president of the American Federation of Labor, strongly opposed similar legis- lation in the United States. The influence of organized labor this side of the border is said to account for some of the op- position to the act in Canada. International unions have their headquarters in this country, and their officers do not like to give up the right to call a strike in Canada, if necessary in order 236 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF to enforce demands upon employers in the United States. Moreover union leaders want the power to call sudden strikes, and claim that the Canadian act gives employers time to strengthen themselves against labor outbreaks. But no great strike, especially upon railways or in other industries of na- tional importance, can now occur without preliminary negotia- tions that sufficiently warn employers in advance of impending trouble. Any union that called a strike affecting widely the general welfare without first attempting a friendly settlement of its difficulties would be defeated by public opinion. My own experience with workingmen has been that opposition to gov- ernment mediation is stronger among union leaders than among their followers. Strikes are like wars; they open opportunities for prominence and distinction to the officers who lead them, but only hardship and suffering to the rank and file who fight them. Still, the distrust with which workingmen regard laws to control their relations with employers is very deep. It is founded on an inherited memory of ancient abuses of authority, and upon an instinctive conviction that the workers themselves are the only sincere defenders of workers' rights. A law upon Canadian lines would need to be very liberally drawn, very tact- fully administered, and very leniently enforced to win the con- fidence and support of American labor. Nevertheless legislation in this direction is demanded in the United States by the inter- est of all the people. The general right of workers to better their condition by any means not detrimental to society as a whole is sacred. But the private right of any group of citizens, whether employers or employees, to impose its demands by un- regulated force should cease as soon as it becomes a public wrong. STATEMENT BY HON. G. D. ROBERTSON, LL. D. MINISTER OF LABOR OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA' The Industrial Disputes Act is not a compulsory arbitration law. The only element of compulsion it contains is this, that in the case of disputes affecting mines, agencies of transportation * Written especially for the Debaters' Handbook. April 20, igao. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 237 and communication and other public utilities to which the statute applies it makes unlawful the declaration of either a strike or lockout until a real effort has been made to secure a settlement, and, if the parties concerned have been unable to reach a settlement between themselves, it invokes the assistance of a Board of Conciliation and Investigation to promote an adjustment and bring out the facts. During the fourteen years which have elapsed since its enact- ment its provisions have been applied to 44s disputes, in con- nection with which the parties concerned had failed to agree on terms of settlement, and concerning which a sworn declaration had been furnished in each case setting forth that "failing an adjustment or reference of the dispute to a Board of Concilia- tion and Investigation under the act a lockout or strike will be declared and that the necessary authority to declare such lock- out or strike had been obtained." It is significant of the success of the act that in all but twenty-seven of these cases the threat- ened strikes or lockouts, as the case may be, were averted or ended. Moreover, in most of the instances in which interrup- tion of work actually occurred (for the findings of a Board of Conciliation 'and Investigation under the act are not made bind- ing on the pairties concerned), the ultimate settlement was on the basis of the Board's report. During this fourteen year period there was only one serious interruption of railway train service. Unfortunately, the law has not been as well observed in disputes affecting the mining industry, but in these fields also its practical value has been fully proven. Through its opera- tion there has been an almost complete avoidance of strikes on street railways. The telegraph and telephone service of the country have also been saved from interruptions which would otherwise have occurred. Undoubtedly, the public has benefited greatly by the uninterrupted operation of agencies of trans- portation and communication, whilst experience has shown that the rights of employers and employees have been safe-guarded and upheld. The Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, like all other good things in this world, has not escaped criticism; nor would it be possible for any law bearing on a subject fraught with so many difficulties to meet with universal favour. During the earlier stage of its operation resolutions were passed by some of the labour bodies calling for its repeal. It is significant of the pres- 238 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF ent attitude of the Trades and Labour Congress, the most rep- resentative body of organized labour in Canada, that at its last annual meeting a resolution was adopted asking the government to amend the law so as to bring civic employees under its opera- tion. On the other hand, a proposal has been received recently from the representative body of employers engaged in the build- ing and construction industry throughout Canada favourable to the extension of the act to disputes affecting this important in- dustry. Apart from its application in the case of disputes affecting mines and public utilities, the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act has also had a limited application, by joint consent of in- dividual employers and groups of employees to disputes affect- ing other departments of industry, such as building and con- struction, meat and fish packing, manufacturing, etc., and in nearly all of these last named cases satisfactory settlements were reached through the Board's efforts. The operation of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act is reviewed in the report of the Deputy Minister of Labour for the year ending March 31, igip. TRIAL BY JURY* Several years ago, when we had to adjust a wage contro- versy with the engineers on our eastern roads, a very distin- guished board of arbitrators, in settling our differences, pointed out the dangers inherent in attempting to settle railroad indus- trial disputes by resort to the strike. This board said : "From the point of view of the public it is an intolerable situation when any group of men, whether em- ployees or employers, whether large or small, have the power to decide that a great section of the country shall undergo a great loss of life, unspeakable suffering and loss of property beyond the power of description through the stoppage of necessary pub- lic service. This, however, is the situation that confronts us as a nation." It was the opinion of this board that "the public utilities of the nation are of such fundamental importance to the whole ' Elisha Lee, Assistant General Manager of the Pennsylvania Rail- road. Independent. 89:143-4. January 33, 1917. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 239 people that their operation must not be interrupted, and means must be worked out which will guarantee this result." That situation, so vividly portrayed, still confronts us as a nation. It confronted us in that crucial week in August when the president told the country "This situation must never be al- lowed to arise again.'' The remedy proposed by the president is that "a full public investigation of the merits of every dispute shall be instituted and completed before a strike or lockout may lawfully be at- tempted." This, in essence, is compulsory investigation rather than compulsory arbitration — restricting the right to strike or lock- out pending an investigation, but in no way restricting the right of the parties in the controversy to fight it out afterward should they refuse to accept the recommendations of the board. It seems clear to me that a differentiation between private in- dustrial warfare and public industrial warfare such as a rail- road strike is essential to any intelligent understanding of the question at issue. Private industrial warfare, in other words, need not here be considered at all. The situation is different. The premises are different. The conclusions must be different. This fact is reflected, of course, in the very law proposed by the president in that it is concerned only with interstate com- merce. When we were in Washington, we heard the chief spokes- men for several million organized workers warn congress that any law restricting the right to strike would be fought by the workers he represented. Mr. Gompers, in speaking before the senate committee, placed in the record, as the view of organ- ized labor, the dissenting opinion of the late Justice Harlan in an admiralty case, in which the principles of human liberty as guaranteed by the constitution were most clearly and forcibly laid down. "The supreme law of the land," said the Justice, "now declares that involuntary servitude, except as a punish- ment for a crime, shall not exist anywhere in the land." But Justice Harlan, in the same opinion, pointed out that "in- voluntary service rendered for the public, pursuant as well to the requirements of a statute as to a previous voluntary en- gagement, is not in any legal sense, either slavery or involuntary servitude." He was referring particularly to service in the army and navy. But is not service rendered in interstate commerce likewise a public service? Has not the nation the right to say 240 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF to the railroad workers, as suggested by the President, "You must not interrupt the national life without consulting us?" The threat of a nation-wide stoppage of railroad traffic, that would strike at the very heart of our national existence, found the country unprepared to defend itself, and it brought home to everybody the necessity of finding a means of safeguarding the economic life of the whole country against the possibility of internal industrial warfare. This is a problem that must be solved, and in its solution we must keep clearly in mind the rights and duties of all the parties at interest. The problem, it seems to me, is but another phase of the centuries-old conflict between private rights and public duties. Railroad regulation has been an evolution. Our railroads grew up in an age when enterprise, initiative and energetic busi- ness ability had unrestricted opportunity for development. Un- like the railroads of Europe they preceded population and took the risks of pioneers in developing the country and settling it. In the early days we were too busy building the railroads to think much about regulation. But when the whole country be- came gridironed with steel rails and steam transportation be- came an integral part of the life of the nation, there developed our modern conception of tthe public character of these arteries of commerce and of the need of constructive regulation in the public interest. The mandate of the people, through acts of Congress and decisions of the courts, is that the railroads must be continu- ously operated in the public interest — the public interest is greater than that of the individuals who own these properties, or of the individuals who earn their livelihood in the operation of them. And when the private rights of the railroads have come into conflict with their pviblic duties, the public, through the courts, has declared that public duties are greater than private rights. To the railroads the public says: "You must op- erate continuously, under such regulation as we provide, and under such tariffs as we approve." Yet, to the two million of - our citizens who are actually engaged in this public service — and without whom it could not be conducted — ^the public has neglected to issue any instructions. It has failed, in other words, to mark the difference between the private rights and the pubUc duties of the employees. The unfortunate controversy of last August brought vividly INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 241 before the country the weakness of a system of public regula- tion of railroads, which fails to provide insurance against a paralysis of the internal commerce of the nation. The crisis came. The President felt compelled to intervene in the public interest. And when he attempted to intervene he found that the existing machinery of voluntary arbitration was inadequate to avert the threatened trouble. It may, indeed, fairly be asked. Is not this unrestricted right of the railroad employees to quit work in a body a menace to the public welfare? Does not the individual who chooses to earn his livelihood in the public service of transportation as- sume a duty to help keep open these vital arteries of commerce — a duty greater than the private right to strike? A member of the Interstate Commerce Commission, Judge Clements, recently expressed the opinion that railroad employees are affected with a public interest that they can no more ignore than can the carriers, and he suggested that there should be a legally established obligation upon these employees not to inter- rupt the service by strike until the justice of their demands has been determined by some public tribunal. Such a definition by law of the public duties of railroad employees must have been in the mind of the President when he told a gathering of busi- ness men recently that "the business of government is to see that no other organization is as strong as itself; to see that no body or group of men, no matter what their individual interest is, may come into competition with the authority of society it- self." "America is never going to say to any individual," the Pres- ident declared, " 'You must work whether you want to or not,' but it is privileged to say to an organization of persons 'You must not interrupt the national life without consulting us.' " If the all-embracing commerce power under the Constitu- tion covers railroad wages as well as railroad rates, then the way is open for Congress to turn the whole problem of railroad wages over to the Interstate Commerce Commission, or, as has been proposed by eminent publicists, to an Interstate Wage Commission, working in cooperation with the Commerce Com- mission. It may be that something such as this will be the ultimate solution of the railroad wage problem — regulation of wages by the same government commission, or an ancillary one, that regulates railroad rates. 242 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF When it is considered that nearly two-thirds of the cost of railroad operation is the wage bill, it is seen how closely related are the considerations of railroad rates and the amount of the wages which the company must pay to its employees. No matter what remedy is finally adopted by Congress for safeguarding the nation against the sudden interruption of in- terstate commerce, there are many strong advocates of a plan for continuous oversight of railroad labor conditions by a permanent body of expert commissioners — men of the same high attainments and integrity as the men who make up the Interstate Commerce Commission. We are at the parting of the ways. One road before us is a continuation of the system of unrestricted private wage bar- gaining that eventually leads to settlement by force. The other road is a restriction and regulation of private wage bargaining in order to give fuller protection to the rights of the public — trial by jury instead of trial by brute force. This is a problem in which all of us, as American citizens, have a vital interest. I have endeavored to state the facts with- out prejudice. I am not an advocate of any particular plan, but I am an advocate of industrial peace — not peace at any price, but peace that will insure the best possible wages and working conditions for our employees together with the highest efficiency in the operation of our transportation systems. There must be, as President Wilson has so well said, " a full and scrupulous regard for the interest and liberties of all con- cerned." I am in favor of an investigation, rather than an inquest. I believe there should be an inquiry by some properly constituted tribunal into the facts of a wage dispute before there is any re- sort to force, rather than an inquest after the trouble has been made and the damage done, to learn the causes of the disaster. I am not prepared to say that all wage problems on the rail- roads should be placed unreservedly in the control of a public commission, but I do believe that when a controversy between the managements and the men reaches a stage where the inter- ests of the public are imperiled, that then there should be a peaceful settlement and a judicial settlement, that will conserve the public interest as well as the rights of the parties to the controversy, and if it is finally determined that any body of men be required in the public interest to subordinate their private INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 243 rights to their public duties, it should be with the full under- standing that their private rights must be in every way safe- guarded by the public. AN INDUSTRIAL PEACE PLAN^ The fact that the United States has given to the world a peace plan — embodied in thirty treaties with governments repre- senting three-quarters of the population of the world and in the covenant of the league of nations (described by the president as "the heart of the covenant") — makes it worth while to con- sider whether the plan may not be employed for the settlement of industrial disputes. I venture to add, if I may be pardoned, that I advocated the plan as a means of settling industrial dis- putes some fifteen years ago, before I thought of applying it to international controversies. In all disputes there are three factors that enter into the selection of a remedy: First, the disposition of the parties; second, the recognition of the need for a remedy; and third, the machinery through which the desire for a remedy can find effective expression. We may assume the existence of a desire, practically uni- versal, for the peaceful settlement of all disputes between labor and capital. Even in international affairs there is no doubt that a large majority of the people of all civilized nations oppose war except as a last resort. They prefer peaceful means to the arbitrament of war, but it is difficult for the popular will to find expression. Secret diplomacy has concealed the earlier stages of interna- tional controversies so that the people relied upon to do the fighting have been kept in ignorance until a sudden call to arms paralyzed the peace sentiment and subjected those who protested to the charge of treason. Then, too, long-standing race prej- udices, prejudices between nations, and sometimes, religious prejudices, have made it easy for militarists to inflame the pas- sions that develoi>ed local clashes into armed conflicts. Manu- facturers who make fortunes out of war contracts are quick to take advantage of the ignorance of the people and of popular passions, and their profits are so large that they can, when they ' William J. Bryan. The Commoner. 20:3. January, 1920. 244 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF find it necessary, control such newspapers as are purchasable. To these disadvantages under which the masses labor may be added the undemocratic character of many governments and the political influence of the military parties. ♦ ♦ ♦ The hope of universal peace rests upon the progress now being made along all the lines above mentioned. Secret diplom- acy, or at least the secret treaty, is abolished by the league of nations; prejudice will decrease as general intelligence increases and as a reduction of armaments lessens the force of the ap- peals made by militarists and manufacturers of munitions, while the growth of democracy constantly increases the relative influ- ence of the average man in his government. And possibly the greatest change of all is the appearance of woman in the arena of politics, with her attachment for the home to inspire her to combat war, the enemy of her home. The league of nations is launched upon the world at a most auspicious time. The late war, surpassing all previous conflicts in its cost, whether measured by blood, by expenditure of money, or by the mortgage that it lays upon the toil of future generations, has convinced the world that something must be done. The people everywhere are calling for machinery through which the desire for peace may find expression. « t * The league of nations furnishes the machinery, and, fortu- nately, the leading nations had been prepared ror the plan by their recent agreements with the United States providing for investigation of all disputes of every kind and character before a resort to war. Whatever differences may exist as to the de- tails of the covenant, a league of nations, established for the purpose of settling all international disputes by peaceful means, is one of the certainties of the future. Likewise, in the matter of industrial disputes at home, we may assume, I repeat, that the sentiment is practically unani- mous in favor of a peaceful settlement of such controversies. The strike and the lockout are, in the field of industry what war is between nations. Each is an attempt at compulsion; one seeks to force the employer to terms by shutting off the labor supply and the other attempts to force employes to terms by withdrawing the opportunity of earning a livelihood. Neither can be regarded as desirable, even by the side that INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 245 employs it; it is in the nature of a last resort and is only em- ployed when argument fails. And, even if the strike and the lockout were desired by either party to the dispute, or by both parties, what of the third party — the public? No strike can DIRECTLY affect any large percentage of the people, but the indirect effect may reach every one. ♦ * ♦ Take three strikes as illustrations. The coal strike, which threatened to paralyze a great basic industry and shut off the supply of fuel at the beginning of winter, directly concerned a few thousand mine owners and something like a half million mine workers, but it indirectly reached the firesides of a hun- dred millions of people and the furnaces that furnish power for all our factories. The steel strike, with a comparatively few stockholders and few hundred thousand employes, has partially paralyzed many branches of industry and indirectly laid tribute upon a multitude of homes. At one time a railway strike seemed possible; that would have immediately touched the pocket nerve of capitalists who control twenty billions of railway stocks (partly water) and railroad bonds, and would have suspended the earning capacity of nearly two million persons, but it would have greatly incon- venienced nearly fifty times as many who patronize the rail- roads. The public, like the innocent bystander, gets hurt, even though the actual combatants are few in number in proportion to the entire population. A whole nation desires peace in in- dustry, and the recent strikes and rumors of strikes have directed public attention to a great need, made apparent by so- ciety's helplessness. Now is the opportune time to consider an industrial peace plan. The harvest is ripe, the reapers are waiting; machinery is the need of the hour. The peace plan, that has made remote the possibility of war between us and the contracting nations and now promises to hasten the coming of universal and per- petual peace throughout the world, would seem to offer the easiest means of settling labor disputes before they reach the strike or lockout stage. The plan is simple; it provides for a public investigation before resort to any attempt at compulsion on the part of either capital or labor. Compulsory arbitration does not meet our industrial needs any more than it does our international needs. Before we 246 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF adopted the plan providing for investigating all international disputes we relied for security on our arbitration treaties, twenty-six in number, which provided for the arbitration of minor questions; but these treaties specifically excluded from arbitration questions of honor and independence, vital interests and the interests of third parties — the very questions out of which wars grow. The peace plan upon which we now rely closes the gap and leaves no dispute out of which a war can grow until after a period of investigation sufficient in length to permit passions to subside and questions of fact to be separated from questions of honor. * « « So, in industrial controversies, we cannot compel employers to pay wages that will be destructive of their business, neither can we compel wage earners to work for insufficient pay — the one would be confiscation and the other slavery. And, in the arbitration of industrial disputes, it is really a gamble upon the bias of the one man who decides the controversy. Arbitration boards are usually made up of representatives of the two sides about equally divided, with one man, supposed to be impartial, but — as no one is or can be absolutely impartial in such matters, everything depends on which side secures the umpire. I am aware that there are some who will contend that every man OUGHT to be impartial but that which SHOULD BE is sometimes imaginary rather than real. We have to use the ma- terial we have; we cannot expect to find perfect men when we are in search of arbitrators. If we had any perfect men in this country they would be in such demand for permanent public duties that they could not be spared for the occasional work of preventing strikes. But, while compulsory ARBITRATION is as impossible as it is undesirable, compulsory INVESTIGATION is not only de- fensible, but unobjectionable. Public opinion is the final arbiter in all matters in a government like ours — that is, public opinion intelligently formed upon all the facts involved; and how can the public form an intelligent opinion until it is in possession of the facts? The time has passed when either side to a great industrial controversy can demand judgment on a one-sided statement of the differences. However convinced it may be of the justness of its cause, neither side can foreclose discussion and demand INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 247 an immediate verdict in its favor. While every one has a gen- eral bias on one side or the other, the great majority of parti- sans are open to conviction and desire to hear both sides before the jury is polled. The peace plan proposed meets all the objections that can be raised to compulsory arbitration, provides for the fullest in- vestigation, and assures representation to both sides. The com- mission contemplated by the plan should be a permanent board of, say, three members ; two should represent the two classes, employers and employes, and the remaining member should be so disconnected from the two classes as to reduce his bias to a minimum. He should be free from business or social obliga- tions to either side, so that he can represent the public rather than the parties to the dispute. * * * The commission should be empowered to investigate upon the request of either party, and should have authority to act on its own initiative in case the feeling on both sides should re- strain the parties from making a request, and it should have ample power to call witnesses and compel the submission of papers, books, etc., bearing on the case. In each case inves- tigated two members should be added to the board, one chosen by each side, to serve during the investigation, with authority equal to the permanent members and with equal prorata com- pensation. This would insure a minority report if the investigation re- sulted in a disagreement, and each party to the dispute would have its side fully presented. As the report would not be le- gally binding upon either side, but rest upon its merits, the members of the commission would be even more apt to strive for equal and exact justice than they would if, by their findings, they could settle the question on the side to which they lean. With such a tribunal always ready to act, the parties to thft controversy could be restrained from strike or lockout for a reasonable time, while the commission is investigating just as under the peace plan the contracting nations agree not to resort to war until after investigation. Public opinion would support the majority report and thus compel a settlement in accordance therewith, unless the reasons given by the minority members appealed more strongly to the judgment of the public. The creation of such a tribunal would 248 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF not only furnish the machinery necessary and prevent strikes and lockouts in nearly every case, but the very existence of such a tribunal would tend to restore harmony between the two classes, just as an anticipated strike or lockout tends to create discord. Such a tribunal, based upon fair principles and giving equal consideration to the claims of both sides, would also tend to cultivate confidence in the government and a respect for law, while it would, on the other hand, silence those who seek a pre- text for declaiming against organized government. I submit the plan (it can be used by states and by com- munities as well as by the nation) in the belief that it will con- tribute towards the end which all good citizens have in view, namely, the proper use of a people's government for the pro- tection of the rights of each citizen and the promotion of the welfare of all. BRIEF EXCERPTS We can not and should not, as a people, tolerate the pos- sibility of a repetition of the Chicago railway strike of 1894, or the anthracite coal strike of 1902. — Adams and Sumner. Labor Problems, p 326. The state and federal governments should provide the ma- chinery for what may be called the Compulsory Investigation of controversies when they arise. — Report of the Anthracite Coal Strike Commission of 1902. It would not be slavery to limit the right of even an in- dividual to stop work on a public utility any more than it is slavery to make it illegal for a sailor to desert his vessel in the midst of a voyage. — Outlook 114:783. December 13, 1916. Under [voluntary] arbitration in Canada about three per cent of the cases were settled by peaceful processes without the cessation of work. Under the new law [Industrial Disputes In- vestigation Act] ninety-seven per cent have been settled peace- fully without cessation of work. — Outlook. 94 : 648. March 26, 1910. Policemen and others, whose duties relate to the administra- tion of justice and the preservation of life and property, should not join, or retain active membership in, or be affiliated with INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 249 organizations tliat resort to the strike. This conclusion is based upon the principle that they should be above any suspicion in the public mind of partiality in the discharge of their officii duties. — Report of the [second\ Industrial Conference called by the President, March 6, 1920. p. 43. I favor compulsory investigation, believing that the public, when properly informed, would settle all of these great ques- tions between capital and labor. I repeat that when the facts have been disclosed as to the controversy that exists between capital and labor, between own- ers and railroad employees, I think the strike will proceed no further because the party at fault would necessarily have to surrender to force of public opinion. — Senator Charles E. Townsend. Congressional Record. December 17, 1919. The public's right to uninterrupted street car service is para- mount to every other consideration involved. Regardless of the justice or injustice of the employes' present demands, they should not be privileged to tie up local transportation in order to enforce them. A street car or railroad strike represents the effort of a small group to club the public into supporting their demands — an example of intolerable minority rule. Regardless of what the law may say, employes engaged in such an occupa- tion as the operation of railways ' have no moral right to prostrate the transportation of a nation or a community, pro- vided that machinery has been established to give them ample hearing. — Cleveland Plain Dealer. April 30, 1920. The Industrial Disputes Investigation Act seems to be gain- ing support in Canada with longer experience, and has very few opponents outside of labor ranks. The labor opposition is strongest where socialism is strongest. There seems to be less unqualified opposition to the law among the members of the unions than among the officials, but this is stated as a con- jecture rather than as an assured fact. The act has afforded machinery for settling most of the disputes that have occurred in the industries to which it applies; but in some cases it has postponed rather than prevented strikes, and in other cases strikers have defied law with impunity. — Victor S. Clark. Bul- letin. U. S. Bureau of Labor. 20 : 29. January, 1910. No effort has been in the past to punish a large body of men for striking. This raises the question of the value of the penal provisions of the law. It is argued that if the act does 250 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF not put strikers in jail and subject oflfending employers to heavy fines, these provisions are useless. But even though violations are seldom prosecuted, neither strikers nor employers dare defy the law of the land in disputes prominently before the public and affecting the prosperity and comfort of a large body of citizens. By doing so they would put a powerful weapon in the hands of their opponents, and they would fatally prejudice their case in the high court of public opinion. — Victor S. Clark. Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science. 7: 15-16. January, 1917. The employes' right to strike and the employer's right to lock out his' employes are both secondary to the public's right to service. Since the public interest is paramount, it follows that public opinion is, and should be, a potent influence for the settlement of labor disputes. Therefore, machinery should be set up to develop and crystallize this opinion according to estab- lished facts, and until these facts have been established neither party should' resort to strike or lockout. In essential industries, government services and public utilities prompt settlement of disputes should be effected by the efforts of both parties. The public's right to uninterrupted service during the period of set- tlement is a primary consideration. — From Declaration of the Cleveland Chamber of Commerce. Survey. 43 : 749. March 13. 1920. So far as the strike in general industry is concerned there is general concession that it is a legitimate and, within bounds of moderation, even an essential instrument of self-defense and advancement under the competitive system of private industry. But in another field the strike takes on a darker coloring. In public service and in industries the continuous operation of which is essential to public safety, the strike becomes a form of action with which the public must concern itself for self-preser- vation. Democracy cannot survive if it is to be constantly at the mercy of a small minority. It ceases to be a democracy un- der such conditions and falls prey to a new form of autocracy or oligarchy. Our political liberty becomes as nothing if it can- not protect society from this. — Chicago Tribune, March 21, 1920. It will be necessary sometime to put the railway services in a position where the concerted strike will be impossible. Rail- roads are of just as essential a public character as are forces of INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 251 policemen and firemen, or the postal clerks and carriers. The strike is not a proper weapon to be used by men in such employ- ments. A concerted railroad strike would necessitate the opera- tion of railroads by military power, in order to supply the people of cities with food and other necessities. Since, however, the strike is not morally permissible under these circumstances, there is the more reason why the public should see that railway servants have exceptionally good treatment as regards wages and all conditions of employment and service. On reasonable terms, and at proper intervals, they should have opportunity to secure arbitration of all well-formulated claims and demands. — Review of Reviews. 48 : 146. August, 1913. PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES INVESTI- GATION ACT OF CANADA 1 Number of Number boards Strikes not Calendar ; year applications granted averted or ended 1907- -(9 months) 25 22 I igoS 27 25 I 1909 32 21 4 1910 28 23 4 1911 21 16 4 1913 16 16 3 1913 18 IS 1914 18 18 191S IS 12 1916 29 16 1917 53 37 1918 93 S9 2 1919- -(3 months) 9 7 374 287 24 I Twelfth [19 19] Report of the Registrar of Boards of Conciliation and Investigation, p. 76. 252 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES INVESTI- GATION ACT OF CANADA, MARCH 22, 1907 TO MARCH 31, 1919^ No. of disputes No. of strtkes referred under not averted Industries affected Act or ended I.— DISPUTES AFFECTING MINES, TRANS- PORTATION, PUBLIC UTILITIES AND WAR WORK:— (i) MiHss: — (a) Coal 49 6 (b) Metal 17 s (c) Asbestos i o Total Mines 67 11 (2) TRANSrOKTATIOK AMD COMMUNICATIOK: (a) Railways 126 7 (b) Street railways 55 3 (c) Express 7 (d) Skipping 16 o (e) Telegraphs 9 i (f ) Telephones 4 o Total Transportation and Communi ■ cation 217 xx (3) Public Utilities: — (a) Light and Power ■ 8 o (b) Elevators x o Total Public Utilities 9 o (4) Was Wosk 30 i Total Mines, Transportation, Public Utilities and War Work 323 23 II.— DISPUTES NOT FALLING CLEARLY WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE ACT:— * (a) Public Utilities under Provincial or Municipal Control 28 x (b) Miscellaneous 23 o Total disputes not falling clearly — ~- — within the scope of the Act 51 i Total all classes 374 24 'Twelfth [1919] Report of the Registrar of Boards of Conciliation and Investigation, p. 75. NEGATIVE DISCUSSION STATEMENT OF SAMUEL GOMPERS' Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, of the subject of a general investigation into the cost, into the sub- jects of rights, operation, constitutional guaranties, and all there can really be no objection. I have in mind the fact that at a meeting of the executive council of the American Federation of Labor a resolution was adopted pledging the brotherhoods the cooperation and support of the American Federation of Labor in the effort to establish the eight-hour workday in the rail- road service, and another resolution adopted by our council against any form of compulsory arbitration with compulsory award, or in any way that would take away from the men of the railroad service the rightful ownership of themselves. The individual, industrially, has lost his individuality in modern times. He is simply a cog in the great wheel of indus- try, and all of the workers, as cogs, operate in cooperation with each other, and when that is true individual right is gone. How can individual workmen resent, or an individual work- man resent, any wrong or injustice? The man who works on a railroad for a long time, as a rule, is unfitted for any other service. He has got to apply for work in the railroad service upon other lines, and with the combination of the managers of the railroads an individual workman has a splendid chance of establishing and maintaining his industrial rights. I understand the purpose — that is, if enacted into law the men will be stayed from acting in concert until the commission has made its investigation. But in the meantime concerted ac- tion to stop work is unlawful and punishable. In other words, an American citizen, American workers, have the right not to be compelled to work against their will. ' Statement of Samuel Gompers, President of the American Federa- tion of Labor, at the hearing of the Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce, August 31, 19 16. 254 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF Involuntary service can not be enforced under the Constitution of the United States, and yet when 5, or lo, or 500 or 5,000 propose to exercise their constitutional, guaranteed right to do a thing it is made unlawful, and they are compelled to give involuntary service. Now, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, that may be a very fond wish to tie men to their work, but we have been taught some- thing in these United States, both as natives and as naturalized citizens; that is, that there are some rights to which the mas- ses of the people are entitled, and I can not conceive of their giving up those rights without a protest, an emphatic protest. You may make strikes illegal, may make strikers criminal, but you are not going to avert strikes when strikes are neces- sary in order to express the needs of America's workers for a higher and a better consideration of their rights and of stand- ards of the service which they give to society and without which society itself is imperiled. The experience of the countries that have attempted com- pulsory arbitration and the enforcement of a compulsory award, the experience of countries in which compulsory in- vestigation and the stay of the workers from quitting their employment, has been all to the detriment of the principle in itself of compulsion and a denial of the right of the workers to leave their employment. In the Australasian countries the effort has gone to the fur- thest limit, and I may say to you gentlemen that the Austra- lian compulsory arbitration act was put into existence after a strike almost analogous to the position now before us, except that this is attempted before a strike, before a proposed strike, and out of the desire to tie the men to their work; out of a desire, by law, to make strikes and lockouts impossible — ^the de- nial of rights guaranteed not only by time and Constitution but by common concept have been taken away. In Colorado there exists a law that makes it unlawful for men to strike pending an investigation of the dispute. That law has been not only abortive in preventing strikes, it has not only injured the interests of the workers and interfered and denied their rights, but it has resulted in a revolution of feel- ing to such an extent that at the convention of the organized workers of Colorado, the Colorado State Federation of Labor last month passed a resolution, witli but one dissenting vote, INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 255 against the proposition, demanding the repeal of that law at the hands of the legislature of that State. I have a copy of the Colorado State Federation of Labor resolutions and I submit it as part of my remarks. RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE TWENTY-FIRST ANNUAL CONVENTION OF COLORADO STATE FEDERATION OF LABOR, DECLARING FOR THE REPEAL OF THE INDUS- TRIAL-COMMISSION LAW. The rights and liberties of the wage earners of the State of Colorado have been invaded and usurped by the enactment of the industrial com- mission law. The extensive powers and authority conferred upon the three commissioners provided for in this law transcends and overshadows the power and authority conferred upon all other political departments of the State. The thirteenth amendment to the Federal Constitution provides that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,^ shall exist with- in the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction." In contravention of this amendment, and in defiance of the specific declara- tion against slavery and involuntary servitude, the twentieth General Assembly of Colorado passed the industrial-commission law, which makes it a misdemeanor for employees not to give at least 30 days' notice to the industrial commission when a change affecting conditions of employ- ment with respect to wages and hours is desired, and provides that any offender shall be punished by a fine. With an assumption of power unparalleled in the annals of legislative history, the industrial commission was clothed with the power and au- thority to override and set aside the first amendment to the Federal Constitution, which provides that, "Congress shall make no laws * * * ■ abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or of the right of the people to peacefully assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances. In defiance of this amendment the Colorado General Assembly empowered the industrial commission to forbid any person "To incite or encourage in any _ manner any employee to go or continue on strike contrary to the provisions of the industrial-commission law," and provided a penalty of fine and imprisonment should such employee exer- cise his rights under the Federal Constitution. The law further empowers the industrial commission to invade the meetings of wage earners, thus destroying the right of free assemblage. The industrial commission is given the further power of exercising unlimited authority over the various departments of the State govern- ment which either directly or remotely deal with the conditions, health* or activities of the wage earners of the State. The American Federation of Labor has, during its entire existence, exercised its great influence against the delegation of any of the per- sonal rights of the working people to political commissions, for these rights are fundamental and ,deal_ with their lives and liberties. Government by commission is not a government of or b" the people and is a menace not only to the welfare of the wage earners but to the people as a whole. The industrial commission is not directly responsible to the people of the State, and the power and authority placed in its hands is not in consonance with the spirit of a republican form of government. The fundamental reasons underlying the organizations of labor are found in the almost universal injustice inflicted upon the wage earners. Alleged economists, unfair employers, scheming politicians and corrupt courts have sought, by their machinations and specious arguments, to define labor power as property or as a commodity. The Sherman anti- trust law, passed in 1890, was framed for the specific purpose of regu- lating aggregations of capital, but labor organizations were the first attacked as illegal combinations in restraint of trade. For 24 years the American Federation of Labor heroically fought to secure legislation containing a specific provision drawing a clear line of demarcation be- tween human and property rights. The passage of the labor provisions 2i6 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF of the Clayton antitrust law, containing that now famous declaration, "The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce,*' was the result of its efEorts to restore to the wage earners their rights guaranteed to them under the Constitution of the United States. Almost immediately following the passage of this Federal law, the Colorado General Assembly placed upon its statute books the industrial- commission law, ^ hich, arrogantly defies the legislation enacted by the Federal Congress. The laboring people of the State of Colorado do not propose to_ sub- missively submit to this invasion of their rights. We resent the impu- tation that we are not loyal citizens of the United States and of the State of Colorado, and that it is necessary that we be restrained from exercising any right guaranteed to every other citizen. Upon every page of history there is written the wrongs committed against labor, and wherever it has had the courage and independence to assert its rights and to exercise its economic and political power, there has always fol- lowed subtle schemes of which the industrial-commission law is a coun- _ terpart, to deprive the wage earners of their rights and liberties. So far the power conferred upon the industrial commission has been cautiously employed, with the evident purpose in view of securing the support of the wage earners. With adroitness and clever argument the industrial-commission law has been advertised in other States by its sup- porters as a new solution of the labor problem. The men and women of labor,_ whose bodies bear the imprint of industry's scars, are assured that their rights^ liberties, and interests are safe in the hands of this political commission. The wisdom and judgment of the officials of labor, acquired by long experience, are lightly waived aside by these_ new guardians of labor's vital interests. Already flushed with the wisdom of Btill greater power, the industrial commission, through, its votaries, are clamoring for still more power, although, according to the terms of the law, every statute in the State which relates directly or indirectly to labor comes under the power and authority of the industrial com- mission. Therefore, it is plainly evident that the organized labor movement of the State of Colorado must immediately prepare to protect itself against this invasion of its riffhts and liberties. The continuation of the industrial commission law will eventually strip from the workers of this State every right which they now enjoy, and will destroy the inde- pendence of the trade-unions and make of the working people mere vassals. The industrial commission has already made a record which challenges the fundamental principles of the American Federation of Labor. The industrial commission law places in the hands of three men (whose experience deprives them of a full or even a partial knowledge of the great struggle of the wage earners') the destiny of the working people of this State. In fact, our entire lives would be dominated and controlled by three men. The influence which placed this law upon th.e statute books of the State of Colorado is the same influence that defied the eight-hour law in the coal mines and was responsible for the coal miners* strike. It is the same influence that denied the right of organization to the coal miners of the State. It is the same influence that made it necessary for Congress to select a special committee of investigation to bring to public light the indignities and the brutality exercised by the coal operators in the southern fields. It is the same influence that sought to sacrifice the life of John R. Lawson because he championed the cause of the striking coal miners. It is the same influence that snuffed out the lives of the women and children of Ludlow. It is the same influence that caused the present governor of this State to declare in the public press that if the smelter men on strike in Lead- ville continued their protest, the military arm of the State would be employed to drive them back to work. It is the same influence that converted Huerfano County into a caldron of corruption, and rendered unsafe the^ lives of its citizens, unless they blindly submitted to the absolute dictation of corporation gunmen. It is the same influence that sought to prejudice the minds of the citizenship generally by publicity bureaus. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 257 It is the same influence that is employing every effort to securely fasten this law upon the wage earners of this State in order that its influence may play its part in subjugating the workers of other States. In fact, the wage earners of this State are fully cognizant of the reasons for the introduction and passage of this law, and the influences and desires_ of those who were responsible for its enactment. In the light of these facts, and with a full confidence in the courage, loyalty, and ability of the wage earners of this State, the State feder- ation of labor, in twenty-first annual convention assembled, does hereby declare : That the workers will not relinquish the right to strike whenever and wherever that course may be deemed advisable by the men and women of labor. The right to strike is the only distinguishing mark between free men and slaves, and we shall unflinchingly make every sacrifice to retain our freedom. That we shall resist to the uttermost any attempt upon the part of the industrial commission to wrest from us any of those rights and liberties guaranteed by the organic law of our country. That the unqualified repeal of the industrial-commission law, every section and paragraph, shall be made the paramount issue of the com- ing campaign, and that we shall hold to strict accountability the men and political parties of Colorado who and which ask for the suiTrage of the citizens of our State. That the workmen's compensation law be amended in such a manner as to provide for officers to administer that law. Conscious of the great wrong committed in attempting to deprive the wealth producers of this State of their rights and liberties, yet un- daunted in our xi.ght for justice, freedom, democracy, and humanity, we confidently submit our course to the sympathetic consideration and co- operation of our fellow workers and fellow citizens of Colorado. Adopted August 17, 1916. In Canada, under the law of which the pending bill is prop- erly a replica, Mr. Garretson has already referred to several instances. Let me say, in one instance an American officer sent the benefits provided by the constitution of the United Mine Workers of America to the representative of the general organ- ization in Canada, and when he undertook to pay these coal miners the benefits for which they had contributed before any trouble arose, he was haled before the courts and punished. At present in Hamilton, Ontario, the machinists are on strike to enforce an award under the act and compulsory in- vestigation and expression of opinion of the commission. The commissioners refused publicitjf even to the conditions of the investigation and the conditions of labor. The Hydro-Electric Co., of Toronto recently rejected an award. The electricians struck to enforce the award, and, be- cause of the time the companies had to gather strike breakers and to prepare for any eventuality, the men were defeated. It may not be amiss to say that in Canada this compulsory in- vestigation act, a stay of the rights of the workers to leave their employment, is not called by the name of its author; it is no longer called the LeMeaux act; it is called the "lemmon act." 258 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF Now, I think that I have the right to say that I have, with my fellows, endeavored to be of service to our people and to help avoid and evade strikes and industrial conflicts. I think 1 am justified, without any appearance of vanity, to say that I have contributed something, that I have contributed as much as any other man in America to try to avoid strikes. Mr. Chair- man and gentlemen, there are some things that are worse than strikes. Manhood which has been deteriorated and undermined when it comes to the question of giving compulsory service is of far greater importance than a strike. The history of the world for centuries has been to make the workers free. The four years of Civil War, costing hundreds of thousands of the best blood of our country at the time on both sides was fought out in order that slavery should be abolished. What is the difference between a slave and a free workman? The slave must work when his master wills, and when the State behind the master directs and enforces that will and whim. What constitutes freedom of men that work except that they own themselves and have the right to determine when they will or will not work? I do not undertake now, and will not undertake at any time, to underestimate the suffering which will come to many and the inconvenience which all will suffer if a strike is inau- gurated on the railroads. But I ask you gentlemen — we have got to live as the Republic of the United States when that strike is gone and is over and it is a part of history — shall we then find upon the statute books of the United States a law that for one moment declares that a man may not fold his arms and say, "I will not work," or to find that when he and two or more others shall agree that they will fold their arms, that thereby they have become criminals and susceptible to be tried and convicted and sentenced to imprisonment? Such a con- dition is intolerable and in conflict with the principles of a free republic. I trust that this legislation will not be enacted by the Con- gress of the United States. It is too serious a question. It is so fundamentally repugnant to every conception of human liberty that the Congress of the United States should stay its hand and not attempt to go back — go back to its history since its existence in so far as white workmen are concerned, and since the proclamation of independence and the adoption of INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 259 the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States EboHshing human slavery. The interpretation of the Sherman antitrust law by the courts of our country by which that law was made applicable to the voluntary associations of the workers, organized not for profit, has been reversed by the solemn enactment of certain provisions in the Clayton law and the phrase, though it may be seemingly a phrase, yet the phrase is a declaration enacted into the law of the United States, the first sentence of section 6 of the Clayton Act declares that the labor of a human being is not a commodity or an article of commerce. That language is quite familiar to the Senator who sits at your left, Mr. Chairman- Senator Cummins ; it is his language which was incorporated intd that law. And you undertake by the provisions of this measure now under consideration to repeal in effect that declaration and the provisions of that law, and you make of the labor of a human being a commodity or an article of commerce, and undertake to determine by law, with all its punishment, that the labor of human beings shall be regarded as a commodity and be held in abeyance and stay, the human being to stay his activity, and compel him to work for a particular period against his will. I ask you, gentlemen, under the provisions of the bill — I an- ticipate that, of course, its provisions are subject to change and to meet any technical objection which may be urged — I am not urging the technical objections; I am urging fundamental ob- jections. We shall suppose — and I hope I shall not have justification for verification — that you will enact this law, and you say that the companies and the men shall stay their activities and not act in concert, but each for his own side — that is, to inaugu- rate a lockout or to inaugurate a concerted cessation of work. Now, take any of the railroad companies, or all of them, if you please, and the president and the vice presidents and the general managers and the superintendents shall, after you have enacted the law, resign rather than obey the provisions of the law. They will not inaugurate a strike or a lockout, but they will resign their positions. Is there any law that you con- template putting upon the statute books compelling them to give their services to the companies? Can you enact a law that will prevent them from resigning their positions? And yet it 26o COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF is contemplated that if the men in the active service of operating the railway trains, that if they resign they are amenable to the law. Gentlemen, in my judgment (and a judgment not biased or confirmed, but one the result of a lifelong experience of this great industrial problem) you are going the wrong way in trying to accomplish a desirable result — to prevent and avoid strikes and conflicts of this character. You are not going to prevent them, I repeat. But bear this in mind, gentlemen, that there is now going on over the whole civilized world a move- ment by which the workers, the masses of the people, are de- termined that they shall have a larger part in the activities and the privileges as well as the responsibilities of life — a devel- opment which is coming and is now at our doors. There is but one tangible way in which this can be accomphshed, and that ts through a larger intelligence and cohesiveness among the masses of the people. A new order— the concept of human rights and human welfare and the full recognition of equality and equality of opportunity — must be recognized. OPINION OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR' The two essential features of the President's legislative pro- posals were the eight-hour workday and compulsory govern- mental institutions to regulate industrial relations in an occupa- tion not owned or operated by the government itself. The representatives of the railroad organizations felt the seriousness of the situation which confronted them. The proposal to estab- lish compulsory institutions is a matter that involves and affects the interests of all the wage-earners in the country. It is a revolutionary proposition totally out of harmony with our pre- vailing institutions and out of harmony with our philosophy of government. The representatives of the Railroad Brotherhoods asked for a conference with the representative men of the A. F. of L. then in Washington. This conference was the first held in the A. F. of L. new office building. Its importance is evident. In that conference the Railroad Brotherhoods were again as- sured of the syipport and the cooperation of the A. F. of L. in ' Report of the Executive Council, American Federation of Labor, to the Thirty-Sixth Annual Convention, NoTcmber 13, 1916. p. 67.9. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 261 their struggle, and in the hearing which took place before the Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce August 31, upon the legislation which President Wilson had recommended for enact- ment by Congress, the wishes and the demands of the wage- earners were presented by the representatives of the railroad organizations and by the President of the A. F. of L. The eight- hour workday was secured for the railroad men but the propo- sition providing for "compulsory investigation" carrying with it compulsory service, was not enacted. The bill introduced in Congress for the declared purpose of preventing strikes and interruption of transportation, is modeled after the Canadian Compulsory Investigations Act. It provides that during a period when the demands for changed conditions are under consideration it would be unlawful for the railroad workers to strike. During this specified period it is the purpose of this law to compel railroad men to work even against their will. ,1 This effort to again subject wage-earners to involuntary servitude has aroused the determined resistance of wage- earners generally. To their declarations against involuntary servitude the proponents of the legislation have replied that although a strike would be made illegal under the proposed law and strikers criminals, yet individual workers were not deprived of the right to quit work. This is a curious kind of reasoning that may make an appeal • to those who have no definite knowledge of industrial condi- tions, but wage-earners know that individuals have ceased to exist from the standpoint of modern industry. The individual worker is a mere cog in industrial machinery, without voice in determining conditions that affect his work or his relations with his employer, and for an individual to quit work would have no effect at all except to leave him without employment. The individual worker has neither the power nor the opportunity to secure redress for his industrial wrongs or to establish justice. It is only through organized effort that wage-earners have the rights and opportunities of individuals or have any hope to establish better industrial conditions and standards of indus- trial justice. It is pure sophistry that only augments the sense of injustice that wage-earners may feel for industrial wrongs to allow them by the law the right of individuals to quit work and to declare that they can not agree with fellow-workers, that conditions are so bad that their only hope of justice and fair 262 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF dealing lies in agreeing together to quit work, that is, to refuse to perform their usual tasks — to strike. The distinction between slaves and free men is that slaves must work as their owners will. They have no will of their own which they can enforce. Free men are masters and own- ers of their own labor power. They can not be compelled to work against their will. The exercise of their right not to give service is at their own peril, that is, loss of wages with what they may entail. Such a law providing for making criminals of men who cease work during the period of compulsory investigation of in- dustrial disputes would not prevent strikes. It would only make strikes illegal and strikers criminals. It would revive again the- old conspiracy laws. The only protection that wage-earners have is the right to withhold their labor power — the right to strike. To deprive them of this protection in the name of industrial peace would only result in increasing their feeling of injustice and in con- verting governmental agencies and institutions into agencies that bind them powerless against employers, however rapacious and inhumane. Compulsory institutions to prevent strikes are not new. They have been tried in other countries and found wanting. New Zealand established compulsory arbitration in 1894 after the • close of a maritime strike that practically stopped transporta- tion on the island. The compulsory arbitration law was a desperate effort to protect the so-called public. But strikes have not been abolished in New Zealand; many bitterly fought strikes have occurred. It was only last year that another general strike occurred, again tying up transporta- tion agencies. This strike was characterized by the most cruel and brutal conduct on the part of the so-called public. Many farmers joined gunmen, gangsters, and professional strike- breakers, armed themselves with pitchforks and other agricul- tural implements and marched against the striking workmen. Compulsory institutions either in the form of arbitration or wages boards have been established in all of the states of Australia and for the Commonwealth, but in none of the states or in the Commonwealth have strikes been abolished or is there any reason to feel that this principle has solved the industrial problem. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 263 The wage-earners of the United States will oppose any proposition to impose upon them compulsory institutions which disguise involuntary servitude. They hold that the principle in- volved in voluntary institutions is the key to personal and in- dustrial freedom and that this principle is of more importance to them than any other consideration. The immediate problem involved is a class problem but the principle involved in compulsory institutions, even for a class in our Republic, is of concern to the whole Republic, for we know that the Republic can not be maintained part free and part slave. Involuntary and compulsory labor once enforced, even for a single hour, will not halt at its temporary enforcement but will go on and become permanent. In human institutions when a wrongful course has been pur- sued it inevitably is held or driven on to its logical conclusion of error. There then is no retrieving except by a convulsion brought about by a revolution. The human labor power which this law compels wage- earners to give to employers against their will is inseparable from the body and the personality of the wage-earners. It is~ part of the men and women themselves. They can not be forced to work for an employer against their wills without re- ducing them to the legal condition of slaves and transforming their minds and spirits into those of slaves. No more dan- gerous proposition has ever been proposed than this compul- sory investigation measure. Problems of industrial justice and redress for industrial wrongs can not be worked out by laws. Human relationships are involved and these can be adjusted on a basis of equity only through cooperation and mutual consent. Neither employers nor wage-earners can be forced by law to a state of mind and cooperation necessary for the protection of the rights and in- terests of the human element in production, transportation, and distribution. The institutions for achieving industrial justice and indus- trial freedom must be agencies that permit of the freest and best development of the people, for establishment of justice and freedom come only through the growth and development of right thinking and right living so that opportunities for freedom and justice are used for the best interests of all, 264 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF In only one state of the Republic has there been a law pro- viding for compulsory investigation of industrial disputes. That law was enacted in Colorado in 1915 and has been discussed in the following issues of the American Pederaiionist: October, 1915; December, 191S; June, 1916; October, 1916. As a result of their experiences under this law the trade unionists of Colorado in their convention held at Colorado Springs in August, 1916, declared emphatically against the law by practically unanimous vote — that is, with only one dissenting voice^and have pledged themselves to work for the repeal of the law. It should be our aim to aid our fellow-workers of Colorado in their laudable purpose. The action taken by the Colorado trade unionists in August is identical with that taken by the Canadian trade unionists in their Trades and Labor Congress held in September, 1916. For many years those who were personally affected by the operation of the Canadian law have denounced the principle upon which it was based, but the opinion never became general enough in Canada to become the demand of the organized labor movement until the Canadian law had been extended by an administrative act to apply to a greatly increased number of workers in Canada. The experience of the workers during the past year under the extended application of the Le Meaux Act resulted in a practically unanimous demand on the part of the Dominion Congress that the law be repealed. This action of the Canadian trade unionists is dealt with in the report of the Secretary of the Canadian Trades and Labor Congress which is in the appendix to this report. We recommend that this convention taken an unequivocal position against compulsory institutions and in favor of the maintenance of institutions and opportunities for freedom. STATEMENT OF A. B. GARRETSON' The Canadian industrial disputes act was originally known as the "Le Meaux," and it is very largely referred to in that language on the other side. These four organizations [Railroad ' Statement of A. B. Garretson, President of the Brotherhood of Railway Conductors, at the hearing of the Senate Committee on Inter- state Commerce, August 31, 1916. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 265 Unions] exercise international jurisdiction. We have been Le Meauxed almost as often as we have been Erdmanized, and the consequence is we speak from knowledge and not from hear- say. Our experience with the Le Meaux act is this : From the day it became effective I was in conference, and at a very crucial point, with the Canadian Pacific Railway. I was threat- ened with its provisions and it was so unknown to the presi- dent of the railway how it might work that that question was passed over on account of what he feared might come from the act. Afterwards he expressed his regrets to me that he had not waited and worked under it, while on the other hand I had burned a few candles before I learned what it meant. Here is what it has done : In 1910 Mr. Lee, of the Trainmen, and myself started the first of these collective bargainings in the East. We made the same demand upon all the railways east of Chicago and north of the Ohio River, including the Canadian lines east of Port William and Winnipeg. There were three Canadian lines, the C. P. R., the Canadian Northern, and G. T. About, I think it was, the 7th of January we commenced ne- gotiations with the first line in the States. Our two Canadian vice presidents were assigned on the day following to take charge of the three Canadian properties, leaving 73 on this side of the line. There was no collective deal. We took up each line by itself. On the first line the Federal mediators were called in and effected a friendly settlement. We then settled the second property on exactly the same basis without any out- side influence. On the third large line in the States we agreed to arbitrate, and the arbitration proceeding on that line con- sumed about 90 days. All of the other properties were handled individually. On the 19th day of July following we settled the last of the 77 properties in the United States, and on that night, at 6 o'clock p. m., the men left the service of the Grand Trunk road, and no one of the three is settled yet. That was the effect of the Le Meaux act. The Grand Trunk road seized the opportunity to reenforce itself with the hope of utterly defeating the demand of the men, and it has been the record of every industry to which it has been applied that we are the only men on the other side of the line who con- formed to its provisions. The other classes of labor utterly scorn acceptance of it unless they have an object to attain. They did not investigate. They struck and would let them 266 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF investigate afterwards. It is made of Canadian workingmen a nation of lawbreakers, and it has bred a contempt for the law that is a menace to good citizenship. Moreover, the minister of labor, who was the real author of that bill, W. L. McKen- zie King, testified before the late Federal Industrial Commis- sion that there were not jails enough in Canada to hold the men who had violated it. There is indisputable testimony. Is it intended to make the American workingmen a class that have contempt for law, or is it intended by enactment to breed respect for the law? That is a question that you have to meet, because that phase of it is directly ahead of you, if such legislation is either con- templated or made effective. If you will stop to remember, the law is a weak paraphrase of a certain New Zealand enactment, where it was said to be successful and to have the approval of labor, and it has. But what are the conditions there where it had its birth, where it has had successful application, when contrasted with those places to where it has either been trans- planted or it is proposed to transplant it? In the Govern- ment of New Zealand every agency, exclusive of the administra- tive, legislative, and judicial, is prolabor. It is a labor govern- ment from top to bottom, the only exception being the Gover- nor General ; but you are sufficiently conversant with the status of the English dependencies that are members of the imperial federation to know what real power a governor general exercises in such a colony. He is an interesting factor iii a Crown dependency, but he exercises virtually no power in any vital question. It is a law that with all its agencies is actively favoring labor. How different a result can be obtained when you transplant it into Canada, or here, where every existing agency of government is passively or actively in great accord with the existing order. There is the difference. Every un- seen influence that has been referred to as all the elements of invisible government are hopelessly against it. Its fair ap- plication to many of the agencies of a visible government have in the past been likewise utilized. I do not know that I am a special alarmist in these things, but when a man has gone through the experience that I have in connection with questions of this character, I will admit that he does not acquire as high an opinion of the moral impulses and the active force of the consciences of a good many men as INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 267 he started out with. There may be a great many men who are in possession of one of the qualifications at least that Caesar described as necessary for his wife to possess. They may be pure, but there is a great doubt if they are above reproach. I want to place on record here the protest of every laboring man represented by these brotherhoods against the possible pas- sage of anything that savors of making men stay at work dur- ing the period of what would happen here with the existing causes between the railways and their employees, assuming for the moment that a certain amount of disintegration would take place on the other side, or that they should play the game for all it is worth. NINE YEARS OF THE CANADIAN ACT' Comment in the United States on the Canadian industrial disputes investigation act within the last six months has been at once abundant and diverse. "The wisest and most success- ful labor legislation anywhere adopted," Charles W. Eliot wrote of it. "A false step, reactionary, un-American," is the verdict of Samuel Gorapers on its application to this country. These two remarks typify the discussion that has been going on since President Wilson first recommended to Congress that it pass an act similar in principle to the Canadian law. In the dominion, as in the United States, opinion is divided. As in this country, public officials and employers are lined up in favor of the act; but, contrary to the status of opinion in this country, organized labor is not unanimous in condemning it ; nor do those groups of workers in Canada who criticize the act, follow the same line of argument as their fellow workers in this country. Interested citizens with hardly any exception approve the law. "The act has not been a panacea," said an editor of a large Canadian newspaper, "but it is a pretty good thing. It postpones the occurrence of a strike and gives sober-minded people a chance to exert moral influence in bringing the two parties to an amicable settlement." "The act is based on the principle of arbitration," declared a prominent prelate, "and; 1 The experience with Compulsory Investigation and its application to the United States. Ben M. Selekman. Survey 37:746-54-. March 31, 1917. 268 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF therefore, is a very fine thing. It tries to do away with the strike altogether, because it brings the employer and employe together and in this way helps toward an understanding be- tween them before a strike may occur." The degree of public approval accorded the act can be meas- ured effectively by the attitude of political parties. The Lib- eral Party is responsible for its existence, but the Conserva- tive Party, now in power, has declared, through the minister of labor, that it will not repeal the law in spite of some objec- tion from organized labor. It intends, rather, to amend and perfect it in order to insure more equitable and effective ope- ration. Executives of public utility companies reinforce the general argument of public men with their own first-hand experiences. "The act is all right," declared a representative of the Ship- ping Federation of Canada, "because it prevents hasty action," and he went on to explain how it has helped to maintain a peaceful relationship between longshoremen and shippers in Montreal. "Now, suppose two or three labor leaders come in here,'' said an executive of a large railroad, illustrating the benefits of the act, "and they have a thousand men behind them. They put certain demands up to us and say: 'Here, you, give these to us or we'll strike by such and such a time.' Well, we can say to them: 'There is a disputes act on the statutes; you'll have to apply for a board or violate the law,' and thus they are pre- vented from taking precipitate action against us. "We had a recent case," he continued by way of concrete illustration. "The men demanded certain increase in their wages, and we informed them that we could not grant the rates desired. They then applied for a board and the report of the board was in their favor. For a time we hesitated to accept the report But after considering everything — the condition of the labor market, etc., we decided to accept the award, because we knew that if the men struck, they would win. That's the beauty of the act. It gives us a chance to think over and consider all these things." Mining operators, on the other hand, while commending its principle, complain that the act does not work equitably for them, because the penal clauses cannot be enforced against their employes when the latter violate the law. INDUSTiUAL DISPUTES 269 So far as labor is concerned, the Canadian Federation of Labour has gone definitely on record as not only approving the law but favoring an extension of its provisions. At its last convention a resolution was adopted favoring compulsory awards. This body is, however, a small organization; its mem- bership consists of about 7,000. The international unions, on the other hand — those affiliated with labor organizations in this country — number over 100,000 wage-earners. We must look to the body representing these unions, the Trades and Labour Con- gress, which is affiliated with and corresponds to the American Federation of Labor and to the railway unions, for a more rep- resentative body of opinion. The maintenance-of-way employes and railroad telegraphers, who both singly and jointly have had the greatest experience with the act, are most enthusiastic proponents of it. So much are they in favor of it that, in 1912, they severed their affilia- tion with the Trades and Labour Congress because, in igii, the latter went on record as desiring its repeal. "As one who has had possibly the greatest experience with the act . . . ," A. B. Low, the former president of the Order of Main- tenance-of-Way Men wrote in 1914, "I do not think it would be right for me to let an opportunity go by of saying a good word for the act. . . . We have invoked [it] in nine cases ... in which, when conferences between the ofilicials and the representative of the employes failed to reach an agreement, a board was applied for an award made and accepted. . -. . That our organization on both, sides of the line knows by practical experience the beneiit of the act may be judged by the fact that, at the Atlanta convention of the American Federation of Labor, our delegates introduced a resolution asking that similar legisla- tion be advocated , . . and passed upon by the Senate and Con- gress of the United States; and that, I am sure, is the opinion of our membership still." A prominent Canadian official of the Order of Railroad Telegraphers spoke to me in the same vein: "I feel that the act has been of distinct advantage to our organiza- tion. We have always secured favorable results by reference of disputes to boards. It has been especially helpful in case of small railroads. Last year, I negotiated twentv trade agreements. The existence of the act with its threat of publicity was a great help to me in getting these agreements. In not ^ one case did I have to take a strike vote, while officials of my organization in the states had to take many strike votes in their efforts to get similar agreements." The Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen in Canada is friendly to the principle of the act, but desires some changes in it. "Certainly in the case of public utilities," a prominent official of the Dominion Legislative Board of this union explained, "the public interest is so vital that there ought to be an investigation before a strike or lock- out shall occur and the public ought to have an opportunity to acquaint itself with the facts. I am absolutely opposed to compulsory arbitration. 270 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF That robs the workers of all their strength. But compulsory investigation is different. ... It may be that the disputes act has injured the interest of the workers. But that has nothing to do with the principle of the act. If there has been unfairness in its operation, the law ought to be amended." The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers on the other hand, is a most bitter opponent of the act. Its legislative board expressed itself in no unmistakable language last November in this resolution: "That this board do all in its power to have the industrial disputes investigation act wiped off the statute books." "The opinion against it was practically unanimous/' an official of this board explained. ''While some of the men spoke of some minor bene- fits, yet all of them thought that there were no real benefits from the operation of the act. It simply caused a lot of delay and expense. Many times, when an adjustment committee would go to the railroad manager and' say that they wanted to negotiate a new agreement, the manager would simply say: "Go and apply for a conciliation board under the dis- putes act." The Trades and Labour Congress, which includes within its membership the other craftsmen coming within the scope of the act, such as miners, machinists and sliopmen employed on railways, street-car employes and longshoremen, also adopted an unfavorable resolution at its convention last November: "That we go on record as opposing the Lemieux [disputes] act in its entirety." This is a change from the original attitude of this body. When the act was first introduced in Parliament, it had the endorsement of the president of the congress, who was a member of Parliament, and in the convention of that year the principle of the bill was endorsed by a vote of eighty-one to nineteen. In every year following 1907 until 191 1, amendments were asked for to improve the administration of the law. In ipil, for the first time, the organization went on record as desiring its repeal, by adopting the following resolution unan- imously : Repeal Asked for by Labor "While this congress still believes in the principle of investigation and conciliation, and while recognizing that benefits have accrued »t times to bodies of workmen under the operation of the Lemieux [dis- putes] act, yet in view of decisions and rulings and delays of the De- partment of Labour in connection with the administration of the act, and in consequence of judicial decisions like that of Judge Townsend, in the province of Nova Scotia, determining that feeding a starving man on strike [i.e., giving strike benefits] contrary to the art, is an offence under the act: Be it resolved, that this congress ask for the repeal of the act." In 1912 the resolution adopted in the previous year was repeated by the labor congress. In 1913, 1914 and 1915, the INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 271 congress madified its position and went on record as desiring amendments, but in 1916, after long and heated discussion, they asked again for the repeal of the law. "The principle of the act is all right," one prominent union o£Bcial remarked in explaining the last action of this body, "but you can boil it all down to a question of administration. The minister of labour has refused to establish boards in one or two cases and that men feel that he is not administering the law in their favor." "The delegates were so worked up over their grievances," writes a prominent representative of organized labor, also referring to the reso- lution "that they were in no mood to distinguish between the principle of the act and its administration." The extent to which this is true can be inferred from the fact that the delegates rejected, without calm consideration or criticism, the measure drafted by their own solicitor as a sub- stitute for the present one, in order to meet the objections pre- viously raised by them. Representatives of this organization, together with members of the railway labor unions, complain about the difficulty of securing a report favorable to labor. "The very personnel of the boards are against the interests of the workers," said an official of the Machinists Union. "The chairman casts the deciding vote on these boards. In ninety-nine out of one hun- dred cases, the two members appointed by the employer and the men cannot agree upon a mutually suitable person. The minister of labor has to choose him, and he usually selects a judge or some professional man whose point of view is capitalistic and who has no sympathy for the working class. As a result, from the very beginning the chances are against getting a favorable decision for the workers. The ■ chairman almost invariably lines up with the representative of the employer." It is interesting and significant that hardly any of the Ca- nadian trade unionists advance the argument heard in this country against President Wilson's measure — that such a law means compulsory servitude for the wage-earners. On the contrary, most of them approve of the principle of the law, and direct their criticism purely against administrative defects. Their objections are chiefly that the minister of labor has re- fused to appoint a board on one or two occasions upon the application of a local union ; that delays have often charac- terized the appointment and the hearings of the boards; and that it is difficult for them to secure a favorable decision. Procedure Under the Act — Conciliation To understand the objections of organized labor in Canada, we ought to know the nature of the procedure under the act. Contrary to the common conception in this country, the dis- putes act has operated not as a "compulsory investigation," but 27a COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF as a "conciliation'' measure. That is, the machinery of the law is used to bring together the opposing parties under public aus- pices and to adjust their difficulties. The compulsory features of the act which impose a penalty for violation and the definite rules of procedure have not been emphasized in its administra- tion. For this reason, the use of stenographers at the hearings held in the presence of the boards has always been discouraged. "Experience in the administration of the act," says the registrar of the boards appointed under the act, in one of his reports, "has appeared to show that it is more effectively operated when freed, so far as pos- sible from the formal procedure suggestive of the ordinary judicial court. The taking of sworn evidence with stenographer's report has been particularly discouraged as having"^ proved far from conducive to an amicable adjustment of difficulties. . . . The most obvious virtue of the act lies ... in bringing the parties together before three fellow-citizens of standing and repute . . . where a free and frank discussion of the differences may take place and the dispute may ^be threshed out. . . . Granting that such discussion and investigation take place before a strike or lockout has been declared and that the board acts with proper discretion and tact, the chances are believed to be largely in favor of an amicable adjustment. . . ." The minister of labor prefers to have the law operate as a flexible, conciliation measure. He has taken the position that he will not establish a board when the cause of the dispute is the desire for recognition of a union on the part of the em- ployes. He will not grant one when the workers of several employing companies apply for one, and when these companies will not agree upon a joint representative; and in cases where two unions may be organized and struggling for supremacy, if one of these organizations objects to such procedure. The conciliatory spirit and flexible manner in which the act has been administered has probably been responsible for the de- lays of which organized labor complains. The ofBcial reports of the Canadian Department of Labor indicates that at times long periods have elapsed between the application for boards, their constitution and the rendering of their reports. Ninety per cent of the boards established have been applied for by employes, whose custom is to recommend, usually, their representative in the application. Under the law, five days are given to the employers for the nomination of their representa- tive. Five additional days are allowed the two members so ap- pointed to select a chairman. The board should be completdj established within fifteen days after receipt of appIicatioiL The minister of labor has discretionary power to extend the length of these periods and generally does so. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 273 Thus of the i6l boards that have been constituted in the last nine years, only sixty were established within the fifteen days. It took between sixteen and thirty-one days for sixty- six and between thirty-one and forty-six days for twenty-one boards to be constituted. For six boards, between forty-six and sixty-one days and for eight boards, more than sixty-one days elapsed. The workers think their cause suffers also from long periods elapsing between the application for boards and the filing of their reports. For only twelve, or about 8 per cent of the dis- putes, was this period less than thirty-one days; for forty it was thirty-one to forty-six days; for thirty-six, between forty- six and sixty-one days; for eighteen, between sixty-one and seventy-six days. For an additional twenty-two, between seventy-six and ninety-one days; and for thirty, or about 19 per cent of the cases, more than ninety-one days, or three months, were consumed between the application for a board and the rendering of the final report. For three cases this infor- mation is not available. In reply to the complaints of organized labor with reference to these delays, officials of the Department of Labour main- tain that, considering the vast distances over which they have to operate, the boards are appointed quite promptly. If delays do occur, they are in accordance with the conciliatory spirit in which the act is administered. Files in the department show that employers very fre- quently delay the procedure by asking for extensions of time. "But we don't want to ride rough-shod over a company," ex- plained a prominent official of the department. "If they say that they will not appoint a representative, we tell them they must do so, and we try to reason with them that they should comply with the law. If they ask for an extension of time, we grant it to them and try to hurry the proceedings on as fast as pos- sible." How far these delays constitute a real grievance should be indicated to some extent by the character of the reports, when they are finally rendered. They should also show whether, as many trade union officials contend, it is difficult for labor to secure a favorable report because of the bias of the chairman, who, according to them, is chosen almost always by the minister of labor. 2/4 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF For the nine-year period ending March 31, 1916, there were altogether 161 fully established boards which conducted hear- ings.'^ In ninety-two of these disputes, or over one-half, the reports were unanimous. In only thirty-five cases did the em- ployes' representative dissent from the majority report, and in twenty, the employers' representative dissented. In three cases both dissented from certain features of the reports, and in the remaining eleven either no decision was rendered or the nature of the report is not clearly indicated. This record seems to show that the unions need to revise their claim that it has been difficult for them to secure favor- able decisions. In only twenty cases did strikes occur or continue after the dispute had come within the scope of the act. In some in- stances, moreover, a basis of collective bargaining has been es- tablished between employers and their men, leading to the sign- ing of long-term agreements. Nor is it correct to say that the representatives of em- ployers and employes usually fail to agree on the third person to be nominated as chairman, thus leaving the choice to the minister of labor. In nearly one-half, or seventy-five, of the 161 boards which were fully established, the appointment was made on the recommendations of the two other members of the board. Although the proportion of failures to agree on the nomination of chairmen seems large, the facts do not seem to bear out the contention that the administration of the act has injured organized labor in Canada to any great extent. So far, however, we have been considering the success of the act on the sole basis of those disputes which have been referred to it. It is here that the greatest danger of error lies. Most comments in this country on the operafion of the act are based on the reports of the register of the boards. But these docu- ments contain an account mainly of those disputes which have been referred for adjustment under the act; they do not give the complete facts about the frequency and the importance of all the strikes which have occurred in those industries com- ing within its scope. For this information we must go to the special report on strikes and lockouts (covering the years 1901- ^ The total number of application for boards has been 191. In twenty- two cases no boards were established; in eight they were partially estab- lished. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 275 12) and the subsequent annual reports issued by the Depart- ment of Labour. This department was established in igoo and has kept a rec- ord of industrial disputes which have occurred from January I, 1901, to March 22, 1916. Because of war conditions there have been few strikes in Canada in the last two years {ie., to March 31, 1916) and none of them has been serious. The disputes act became a law on March 22, 1907, and it will, there- fore, be possible to compare the importance of strikes in fairly equal periods before and after its operation. One difficulty must necessarily be encountered in using the comparative figures of the period before and after the act was passed as a measure of its success. It is all but impossible to say whether there would have been more or fewer strikes in the last nine years on public utilities were the act not in existence. Would those trade unions which have applied for boards have declared strikes more frequently, or would the usual methods of collective bargaining have averted the occurrence of indus- trial disputes? Or might not more strikes have been called by these organizations if the act did not provide a simple ma- chinery for the adjustment of difficulties? These questions must be borne in mind in judging the degree to which this law has helped to establish industrial peace in Canada. The particular problem for which the act was devised was industrial unrest in coal mines. In igo6 a prolonged strike occurred in the western coal fields threatening a fuel famine just when the usually severe winter was approaching. In the province of Saskatchewan the coal supply had been almost ex- hausted and the settlers scattered in the small towns and large prairies were facing the danger of freezing to death. The local authorities could do nothing to end the dispute and finally ap- pealed for federal intervention. W. L. Mackenzie King, then deputy-minister of labor, was sent by the government and suc- ceeded in bringing about a settlement. So much was he im- pressed with the suffering that a prolonged strike in this region might cause that he recommended the enactment of a law by means of which "all questions in dispute might be referred to a board empowered to conduct an investigation under oath, with the additional feature, perhaps, that such reference should not be optional, but obligatory, and pending the investigation and 276 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF until the board has issued its finding the parties be restrained, on pain of penalty, from declaring a lockout or strike." Working Days Lost in Mining Through Strikes No. in thousands Per cent, of days of days lost in all industries 1901 56 9 xgo2 10 8 1903 440 36 1904 10 4 1905 114 53 igo6 18S 52 1907 203 33 1908 16 2 1909 711 82 1910 377 53 1911 1. 593 79 1912 89 8 1913 703 55 1914 169 39 1915 17 16 Persons Employed in Mining Per cent, of persons No. in thousands in all industries 1901 37 2.1 19 1 z 64 2.4 The act was thus devised with particular reference to strikes in coal mines. A very important test of its efficacy is, there- fore, its success in diminishing the social cost of industrial dis- turbances in this industry. The period during which the act has been in operation has been practically simultaneous with the one in which the United Mine Workers have attempted to extend their organization in the important coal fields of Canada. These coal areas are the Crowsnest Pass region, which embraces the southwestern por- tion of Alberta and the eastern portion of British Columbia; Vancouver Island, on the extreme western end of British Co- lumbia; and Nova Scotia, the extreme eastern portion of the dominion. From the point of view of production the eastern and western coal fields are almost of equal importance, but from the point of view of consumption a strike in the western coal fields causes much greater suffering than does one in Nova Scotia. The winters are much colder and the per capita con- sumption of coal higher in the western provinces. The trans- continental railroads are largely dependent on these western mines for their fuel; without them, it would be almost im- INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 277 possible to move the large wheat crops, the chief asset of the dominion. Serious Strikes in the West It is in this western district, the Crowsnest Pass region, that the most serious coal strikes have taken place, both before and after the act was passed. The United Mine Workers of Amer- ica entered Canada in 1902 and began organizing the miners in this region. In 1906 the first strike, under their auspices, the one which resulted in the passage of the disputes act, was called. The agreement which brought this strike to an end expired on April 1, 1907. On April 9, these western miners applied for a board, and on April 16, while it was being constituted, they struck, this being the first violation to be charged against them. The board could do very little, but the deputy minister was again instrumental in bringing about a settlement. An im- portant coal-mining strike also occurred in Nova Scotia — not under the auspices, however, of the United Mine Workers — over rates of pay. The total time losses for strikes in coal mines for the year, the first after the act was passed, amounted to 188,360 days, or 30.3 per cent of the total days lost in all strikes in Canada for the year.2 An agreement was signed in the Crowsnest Pass region for two years, but when it expired in March, 1909, a strike was again called "over the renewal of the working agreement in which were involved certain fine points of recognition rela- ting to collection of union dues" — the check-off, in other words. Here the use of the act was not invoked until the strike had been on more than a month, and for the second time the miners violated the act. Neither party accepted the report of the board, but after being out on strike for three months, the men re- turned to work and an agreement extending to March 31, 191 1, was signed. In this same year, 1909, the United Mine Workers entered into a struggle to gain recognition in Nova Scotia. In this province there had been for a long time a local organization ^ It is the number of men involved and the time wasted that makes a strike costly. The Canadian Department of Laboiir has reached a com- posite and most, satisfactory measurement by multiplying the number of days in which the particular industry was idle by the number of men on strike and has thus worked out what might be called "men-days" or, as they are termed in the Canadian reports, "working days" lost. 278 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF of miners known as the Provincial Workmen's Association, and it appears that the strike resulted in a fight for supremacy between the two unions, with the operators favoring the local rather than the international organization. The strike was centered in three places. Glace Bay, Spring- hill and Inverness. In the first two places the men applied for boards before they ceased working, but in Inverness the act was completely ignored. In the latter place the strike lasted for some months, at Glace Bay from. July, 1909, to April 1910, and at Springhill from August, 1909, to May, 191 1, a period of almost two years. In all three of these places riots occurred and "troops were stationed for a considerable time at each point." The United Mine Workers were defeated in this fight for recognition, but these serious strikes conducted by them were mainly responsible in 1909 for over four-fifths, and in 1910 for over one-half, of the total time losses of each year. On March 31, 191 1, the agreement signed in 1909 between the United Mine Workers and the operators of the Crowsnest Pass region expired, and 7,000 miners went out on strike again without applying for a board until the strike had been on for some time. "The crucial point, as in 1909, was the 'check- off.' " This strike, together with the one that was prolonged from 1909 in Springhill, N. S., and a few minor ones, made the total time losses in 191 1 for strikes in coal mines 1,592,800 working days, or 78.9 per cent of all the working days lost in all strikes occurring during the year. On September 16, 1912, the disputes act was completely ignored and a struggle began between the United Mine Work- ers and the mine operators of Vancouver Island. The chief demand was "recognition." This strike was not called off until August 19, 1914, nearly two years later. As in Nova Scotia, the United Mine Workers appear to have been defeated, but mainly because of this strike half a million working days were lost in 1913, or 45.7 per cent of all the working days lost in all of the strikes occurring during the year. Thus the act does not seem to have an effective hold on the coal-mining industry of Canada. During 1916 some half- dozen strikes occurred in mines distributed practically over all of the coal fields of Canada. In only one case was the dispute referred to a board for adjustment. In the Crowsnest Pass region, in spite of the fact that the agreement signed between INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 279 the miners and operators did not expire until March i, 1917, they struck twice last year, in complete defiance of the act, for a "war bonus" because of the abnormal rise in the cost of living. In all for the six-year period before the act was passed thirty-eight strikes are recorded in coal mines, involving an average loss per year of 121,331 days or 26.4 per cent of all the working days lost in all strikes. In the nine-year period sub- sequent to the passing of the act, coal miners struck thirty- seven times involving an average loss per year of 419-223 days, or 46.9 per cent of all the working days lost in all strikes. Thus, in the latter period, in spite of the act, the average loss per year of working days in coal-mining strikes is about three and one-half times as great as before the law was passed, and the proportion of that total to all working days lost in all strikes almost doubled. The Act a Failure in Coal-Mining If we consider only the coal-mining industry, the conditions of which gave rise to the act, it has clearly failed to accom- plish its purpose of averting strikes. What proportion, it will be asked in criticism, do the miners constitute of the workers of Canada? If it is large, it should not be surprising that the mining industry is responsible for about one-half of the social cost of strikes. Unfortunately, the Canadian census does not give us this proportion each year. But it does give it for the years 1901 and 191 1, and the facts show very clearly how serious the problem of industrial unrest has been in the coal mines of Canada. In 1901, 2.1 per cent and in 1911, 24 per cent of the total gainfully occupied population were engaged in mining (both coal and metal). In other words, while the miners have constituted only about one-fiftieth to one-fortieth of the gainfully occupied population, and while this proportion has been nearly constant, they have been responsible for more than one-four of the working days lost in industrial disputes during the period 1901 to 1907, and for nearly one- half of the working days lost during the period 1907 to 1916. The facts show that there have been strikes, and that there have been serious strikes in the coal industry in the period during which the act has been in operation. Although the act was intended primarily to prevent strikes in coal mines, it ap- pears that it has failed to remove this sore spot from the in- 28o COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF dustrial organism of Canada. But before reaching a definite conclusion on the basis of these facts, the difficulty of meas- uring the results of such a piece of legislation should be borne in mind. Might there not have been more strikes and more serious ones but for the act? As a partial answer there is the fact that Nova Scotia, where as much coal is mined as in the western coal area, has been comparatively free from serious strikes with the exception of the period during which the United Mine Workers were active in that province. It should also be recalled that this union conducted an extensive cam- paign of organization in Canada during the years 1903 to 1914. There is the additional fact that the Provincial Workmen's Association, which has about 5,000 miners in its membership, has observed the law and has worked under agreements, adopted as a result of the sitting of boards, in disputes between them and the coal operators. There is, however, also the fact that this organization always discouraged strikes even before the act was passed, and for this reason many of its members left it in 1909 to join the ranks of the United Mine Workers. Railroads and Other Public Utilities In Canada, as in this country, there have been few serious strikes on railroads. Only one may be charged to the railroad brotherhoods during the last sixteen years, and that was called in 1910, three years after the act was passed, when the trainmen and conductors on the Grand Truck rejected the majority re- port signed by their own representative. The railroad teleg- raphers have not struck once during this period, and the main- tenance-of-way employes conducted one serious strike in 1901, six years before the statute was passed. So unimportant has been the problem of railway disputes in Canada that, when the first draft of the act was introduced in Parliament, it did not include the railroads within its scope. Since the passage of the act, it is true that there have been seventy-five applications for boards in railway disputes, and in only six of these cases have strikes occurred. The question naturally arises, would the brotherhoods have called strikes more frequently had not boards helped to adjust the difficulties ensuing between them and their employers? This is not an easy question to answer, and yet it is fundamental. It is true also that the applicants must make a statement, when asking for a board, that if the dispute is not referred to a board or ad- INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 281 justed by it, a strike or lockout will, to the best of their knowl- edge, take place. Does this mean that sixty-nine railway strikes have been averted? It is conceivable, in the first place, that employers reluctant to grant the demands of their men would refer them to the act, without going through the complete process of collective bar- gaining with them. In fact this is, as we have seen, one of the chief complaints of the strong unions. In the second place, few strikes occurred in the railroads prior to the enactment of the law. Finally, there is the fact that freight handlers and other unskilled and more or less unorganized workers employed by the Canadian railways have struck in violation of the act. Thus we find that during the last nine years [i.e., 1907-1916] freight handlers have called sixteen strikes. In only three instances did they apply for boards, and that was after they had struck. Most of the representatives of the railroad employes inter- viewed thought that it was not the act which was responsible for the maintenance of industrial peace on the railroads of Canada, but rather the reluctance of the brotherhoods to strike. "I know that in the annual reports," remarked a representative of the locomotive engineers, "the Department of Labour says that so many disputes and that so many strikes have been referred to boards and averted, but that isn't so. As a matter of fact, as far as I can remem- ber, since 1 have been in our organization, it never had a strike, even before the act was passed. It can't be said that there would be strikes if the statute did not exist. The railroad brotherhoods will go to any limits before calling a strike. We are constantly securing new agree- ments without applying for boards." Similarly most of them contended that negotiations between them and the railroad companies would result in the securing of agreements did no legislation exist. The act for them ha.s merely offered the machinery of collective bargaining different in form, but similar in spirit, to their usual practice before it was passed. Street-car strikes show a decrease from ten for the period 1901 to 1907 to four for the period 1907 to 1916. As there have been twenty-one disputes referred to boards from this industi-y, and in only two instances did strikes follow, it does seem that the act has been successful in averting this serious and disas- trous type of dispute. Longshoremen called twelve strikes dur- ing the first period and fourteen during the second. The reports of the Department of Labour show for the first period — that is, before the act was passed — that 60, or 8.4 per cent of all disputes in all industries during that time occurred 282 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF in the industries grouped under the heading "general transport" (including railway employes, freight handlers, longshoremen, coal handlers, teamsters and others commonly employed in transportation). These involved an average loss of 68,684 working days per year, or 15 per cent of all the working days lost in all strikes. For the period after the act was passed, these reports give for the same industries 74 disputes, or 9.6 per cent of all occurring during the last nine years, involving an average loss of 87,776 working days, or 9.8 per cent of all working days lost in all disputes. If we should include strikes in railway construction work (a class of work to which the act has not yet been applied but which is nevertheless a public utility) the proportion of working days lost, while re- maining the same for the first period, rises in the second to 15.7 per cent of the total time losses in all strikes. Considering the fact that the proportion of Canadian workers engaged in transportation increased from 4.8 to 9 per cent between 1901 and 191 1, we find that the proportion of days lost from strikes, after the act was passed, actually decreased. Results Among Public Utilities To summarize for all public utilities, 108, or 15.1 per cent, of the 716 disputes recorded between January i, 1901, and March 22, 1907, the period before the act was passed, occurred in those industries coming within its definition. Between March 23, 1907, and March 22, 1916, the period during which the statute has been in operation, 127, or 16.5 per cent of the total of 768 disputes occurred in these industries. Not only was there a slight increase in the proportionate number of disputes, but working days lost, the best measurement of the price the public pays for strikes, show a much greater increase. For the first period the average loss of working days per year due to strikes on public utilities was 201,502, or 43.9 per cent of the total time losses in all industrial disputes. For the second period the aver- age loss of working days per year was 581,936 (including rail- way construction), or 65.1 per cent of the total time losses in all disputes. Thus even when allowance is made for an increase in the proportion of workers employed, the social cost of strikes on public utilities has not been materially reduced. The analysis of these figures shows that there has been a marked increase in INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 283 loss of time through strikes on coal mines. Transportation be- fore 1907 and since that time has been comparatively free from industrial disturbances. Violations of the Act As a voluntary conciliation measure, the act has been very successful, but the most serious indictment against it as a "com- pulsory investigation" act has been the failure to impose penal- ties for violations. As we have already seen, strikes were not averted or ended in twenty or about one-tenth of the total 191 applications made for boards, but the most serious and impor- tant strikes occurring in the coal industry have been illegal; that is, cessation of work took place either before applying for boards or during proceedings or without involving the act. The Canadian act is a compulsory one mainly because pen- alties are provided for the calling of such illegal strikes, and the essential test of any compulsory law is the extent to which it is enforced. Yet it is in this very important aspect that the act has failed as a compulsory measure. The railway labor or- ganizations are the only ones who have strictly observed the law. In their efforts to organize the coal miners of Canada, the United Mine Workers have conducted their most serious and costly strikes in violation of it. Freight handlers and other un- skilled workers have frequently ignored it. Altogether, approx- imately eighty-four strikes on public utilities may be charged up as illegal, distributed approximately as follows: coal mines thirty- four; metal mines fourteen; railroads four; freight hand- lers sixteen; street cars two; longshoremen fourteen. This may not be an accurate estimate, since the reports do not list strikes as illegal and the facts can only be inferred from the data in two separate documents. That the violations of the law have not been unimportant can best be seen by the fact that the legal disputes in coal mines — the industry for which the act was primarily intended — involved, on the average, about 866 em- ployes, while the illegal strikes involved, on the average, about 890 miners. "If either an employee or an employer violates the law by causing a strike or lockout before an investigation has been held," commented Victor S. Clark in 19 10, after having made a personal inquiry into the operation of the act, "he is practically immune from prosecution unless the other party to the dispute brings action in the court to punish him. In the districts where the law has been violated or evaded in these respects, there is a demand by the party that has suffered . . that the government assume their prosecution. . , . '*This situation . raises 284 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF an important question. If the men can strike with impunity in disregard of the law, what is the value of the latter in preventing or postponing strikes? Will the act not fall in abeyance except in those minor and less acute disputes where there is least call for . . . intervention? Has a law any force at all that operates only by the tolerance of law-breakers? It should be recognized that expediency must constantly be consulted in pediency must constantly be consulted in administering such an act, but administering such an act, but it must constantly be consulted in admin- istering such an act, but it would seem that the latter, though it may retain some residuary value as providing convenient machinery for pub- lic mediation must lose its distinctive character and its interest as ex- perimental legislation unless some way is discovered to secure the ob- servance of the clauses of deferring strikes and lockouts until an in- vestigation is made. Unless these clauses are enforced, the law becomes an ordinary concilation act,, burdened by the discredit of its unenforced provisions." The Department of Labour has taken the position that it will not prosecute for violation of the law. The registrar states the ofi&cial position of the government in the Canadian Law Times for March, 1916: "There has been also, in industries coming under the act, a consi^ erable number of strikes in dilutes which have not gone before a board for investigation. Work ceased in these cases without regard to the act. Many of the serious coal-mining strikes in western Canada during recent years have occurred in this way. "What, it may be asked, becomes of the penalties prescribed for these apparent infringements of the statute? The reply must be that such cases have seldom gone to the courts. It has not been the policy of the successive ministers under whose authority the state has been admin- istered to undertake the enforcement of these provisions. The parties concerned, or the local authorities, have laid information occasionally, and there have been in all eight or ten judicial decisions. The mining industry has been the chief delinquent in the matter of infringements, and there have been occasional derelictions on the part of the lower grades of transport or shipping labour; in the higher grades of railway labour the act has ben well observed." Several prominent Canadians were asked why the United Mine Workers, who have been responsible for the most serious violations of the act, have not been prosecuted. One of them, referring to the situation in the Crowsnest Pass region, gave a typical reply. "In a case of this kind," he said, "the act is powerless; what can you do? Here are about 6,000 men, most of them foreigners. They don't understand the act. They don't care for it. What are you going to do? Fine them? Well, they won't pay. Put them in jail — if you could? The coal won't be mined. As far &s I can see, any legislation in the world wouldn't prevent a strike £rom occurring under these cir- cumstances." The records of the Department of Labour show, up to March 12, 1915, only eight prosecutions. These have been relatively unimportant ones. Three were against employes of metal mines, an industry in which a strike, under ordinary'- circum- stances, does not cause much suffering. Two were against op- erators of small coal mines for illegally declaring a lockout. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 285 One case, in which three coal miners were charged with aiding in calling an illegal strike, was dismissed. In another, at In- verness, N. S., a union official was convicted for giving strike benefits to the men who had ceased working without applying for a board. In one case, four miners employed by a small coal company were each fined $40 and costs or thirty days in jail. Penalties Not Enforced The evidence does not seem to show that an extensive at- tempt has been made to force those responsible for the calling of the important, illegal strikes to pay the penalties provided by the act. "The government has never laid particular stress upon the penalty end of it," W. L. Mackenzie King, the author of the law, explained in 19 14 to the United States Commission on Industrial Relations, "the pen- alty part . . . has , always been treated in much the same li^ht as penalty for trespass. If the party affected wishes to enter an action to recover damages they may do so. . . ." The analogy between the penalties provided in this statute and those placed in a trespass law does not appear to be sound. Trespass law is framed to protect the individual against any infringements that may be made on his property rights. The Disputes act was intended to protect, not an individual party, but the public against the suffering caused by strikes on public utili- ties. A violation of this law is a crime against the public. The person guilty of such a violation should be prosecuted at the instigation of the public authority charged with the administra- tion of the act, in this case, the Department of Labour. "In speaking of the Canadian act as a failure as a 'compulsory in- vestigation' act," a former Canadian official writes on this aspect of its operation, "the alleged failure in compulsion is put down to the non- enforcement of penalties^ whereas it was with a view to compelling in- vestigation where labor wished investigation as a means of securing a redress of wrong, and not compelling penalties, that the act was framed. Let me explain the circumstances that led to the enactment of the com- pulsory investigation features of the measure. In the dispute in Alberta referred to in the article [i.f., the one leading to adoption of the lawl, we spent nearly a week trying to get the parties together. We spent nearly another week finding out from each what they were prepared to do. Meanwhile, settlers and others were freezing in their homes. We had no powers other than that of a voluntary conciliator to fall back upon. Had we had legislation providing powers of compulsory in- vestigatioHf we could have effected in two days what took nearly two weeks. It was this experience, and similar experiences in other strikes, which made us seek to get from Parliament powers of compulsory in- vestigation, which meant to labor, power at the expense of the state, and with the machinery of the state back of it, to choose its own investigator, to summon witnesses, to compel the production of documents, to take evidence under oath, and to ^ive to the public the fullest possible kind of a view of the case, including any injustices under which it might be 286 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF suffering. This is the really important compulsory investigation feature of the act, not the penalties which relate to strikes and lockouts. Never from the time the act was passed when I had to do with it as registrar or as minister was there a single instance, that I can now recall in which when this compulsory investigation feature was invoked on behalf of labor, that it was not enforceable and applied. As a compulsory investi- gation act — that is to say, investigation of a dispute under compulsion at the request of either of the parties, labor or capital— never once dur- ing the liberal administration did its provisions in this particular fail, and where investigation took place, the results were for the most part not only beneficial to the parties, but very greatly so to the public as well. I think the same has been true under the present administration." THE CANADIAN DISPUTES ACT' For several years a number of well-meaning persons not members of labor organizations, have been advocating the pas- sage of legislation looking toward compulsory investigation in labor disputes, particularly when applied to what is known as public utilities. The subject has been brought more forcibly to the attention of the public mind during the past year because of the controversy between the four railway brotherhoods and the .railway companies. The advocates of compulsory investiga- tion point out the wonderful success that has been obtained in Canada through the Canadian industrial disputes act, which law provides that no strike or lockout can take place until the gov- ernment has had opportunity to investigate. Violators of the law are subject to fines and imprisonment. To the casual reader compulsory investigation before a strike or lockout can take place, seems like a fair and equitable prop- osition and labor seems to have nothing to lose but much to gain under such a law. But the fact is that there is no equality of opportunity while investigation of a dispute is being made. The mere statement that a strike or lockout can not occur pending investigation would imply that the responsibility on both sides was equal — such is not the case. Labor is prevented from striking and the employer is supposedly prevented from locking out his workmen, but the employer can close his plant for any reason sufficient to himself. He may hold that his op- erations are unprofitable. He may hold that it is impossible for him to secure material. He may hold that shipping facilities can not be secured. He may hold that new contracts are not avail- able, and many other reasons may be given showing the neces- ^ James O'Connell, Second Vice-President American Federation of Labor, in Survey. 37:756-7. March 31, 1917. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 287 sity of either closing his plant or materially reducing his force of workmen, thus laying oflf the leaders and active men whom he thinks are responsible for the agitation to improve conditions of employment. Again, the employer enjoys an opportunity under com- pulsory investigation to prepare for a strike. He has thirty days or longer for that purpose, while the workmen can in no way fortify themselves, their position being practical- ly the same at the end of an investigation as at the be- ginning. There is, therefore, no equality of opportunity. Organized labor in the United States has declared unalter- ably against compulsion of any kind in labor disputes. We hold that labor should have the right to quit the employer for any reason or no reason. We hold that this view is in conformity with the constitution of the United States which prohibits com- pulsory servitude. If a man is. therefore compelled to work for any period of time against his will, it is a violation of the con- stitution of the United States. He could no more be punished for the violation of a law that would compel him to work against his will than the violators of the Canadian law have been punished. It is a well known fact that no attempt has been made to punish a single workman in Canada. Thousands of workmen in Canada have violated the Cana- dian law, have gone on strike without notifying the government or requesting an investigation under the law. Others have struck while investigations were being made, and still others totally disregarded the awards and quit work. Not one of these workmen was fined or imprisoned. If all who violated the Canadian law were to be punished, the penal institutions of Canada would have to be enlarged. To compare Canada with the United States in population or in the number of its industries is either treating the matter as a joke or is an attempt to impose upon the intelligence of our people. What might work fairly well in Canada with its popula- tion of approximately seven million, all of one nationality, would not work in the United States with its one hundred mil- lion population made up of all nationalities. New York City is equal in population to the entire Dominion of Canada. More workmen are involved in one labor dispute in Greater New York than have been involved in all disputes and investigations that have ^aken place during the entire life of the 288 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF Canadian compulsory investigation law. More adj ustments have been reached in disputes between the employers and the em- ployes from voluntary mediation, conciliation and arbitration in Greater New York in one year than has been accomplished dur- ing the entire period the Canadian law has been in existence. Organized labor believes in voluntary conciliation, mediation and arbitration. If the employers will meet their workmen in a spirit of fairness, concede them the right of association and representation, then strikes will be reduced to a minimum. But the employers want compulsory investigation only because it de- lays strikes, thus placing themselves in a position to fortify and prepare in every way to defeat the workmen in their demands. If this were not so why do they not meet their employes before the strikes or lockouts take place without having a law to com- pel them to do so? We decline to be a party to the enactment of any law that will for one moment take away from us the right to quit work for either real or imaginary causes. The advocates of compulsory investigation say "there is a third party interested whose rights should receive consideration and protection." This third party is the public. If the public interested itself all the time, whether strikes were on or being threatened, this claim might hold true. The fact is, however, the public as a rule is not interested in the conditions under which workmen are employed, nor does it give much thought, if any, whether or not employers deal fairly or humanely with their workmen. It gives little thought to the question of the hours of labor, wages paid labor, or the conditions under which labor is employed. It interests itself little, if at all, in the proper inspection of factories, work shops, or mines. It cares little whether or not employers properly protect their machinery so that life and limb may be spared. It is not intensely interested in whether or not children are employed or in how they are em- ployed. It makes little or no investigation as to the employ- ment of women in factories, work shops, or sweated industries. Its only aim is to see the trains running so that it may not be inconvenienced in traveling from one city to another. It sees only the smoke coming from factories but never looks within. It sees only products coming from the mill but never stops to think how these products are produced. It sees only the coal coming from the mines but never asks the conditions under which it is being mined. The public may be an interested party but it is an extremely selfish one. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 289 Why should organized labor cheerfully and willingly declare for voluntary servitude if it has practically nothing to gain and on the other hand much to lose? Under compulsory investiga- tion the employer has all the advantage; unlimited time to pre- pare for the strike; right to discharge an employe; right of reducing his force, thus giving him an unequal advantage over his workmen. At best compulsory investigation and- awards are only a compromise. This much, organized labor has always been able to secure. The public, as indicated above, is interested only in peace and does not care whether labor secures just treat- ment or not. Its slogan is, non-interruption and non-interfer- ence with business, commerce, finance and industry. THE RIGHT TO STRIKE' The President desires the enactment of a law, not for the compulsory investigation of strikes, as many suppose, but for the investigation of the conditions that have brought the pos- sibility or the probability of a strike, before it can take place. He desires the enactment of a law containing pro- visions similar to those in the Canadian Industrial Disputes Act, which make it illegal for a strike or lockout to be ordered by either employee or employer before the causes leading to it have been investigated by the government. At its last annual meeting the Canadian Trade and Labor Con- gress — the A. F. of L. of Canada — passed a resolution, almost unanimously condemning it for the reason that it pinches only one foot, binds only one side of the industrial struggle. As such legislation actually works out, as is evidenced under the Canadian act, the employer invariably utilizes the period of delay that is specified for investigation to make preparations for a strike, hiring strike breakers, even import- ing them, in defiance of alien laws, so that when the period of involuntary service required under the act has elapsed he is in position, if the finding of the tribunal that has done the investigating upholds the contentions of the men to any de- gree, to repudiate the award, and to replace the forces of the men. In other words the act wholly and absolutely dis- poses of the tactical advantage that may lie with the em- > Austin B. Garretson, President of the Order of Railway Conducton, Independent. 89:142-4. January 22, 1917. 290 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF ployee, who is, of course, in the very nature of a strike, the attacking party. Almost any strike illustrates the fact that there is a psychological moment for striking — one that is just as important in industrial warfare as in international warfare; just as important to a strike, often, as Japan's attack upon the Russian fleet was to the Russo-Japanese war. An act of this kind renders valueless the greater part of the weapons of the laboring man. It is on that acount, primarily, that there is such widespread opposition to the enactment of laws of this character. In a word, it gives the employing side a great advantage. Strategically, this advantage works to the good of the other side in railroad strikes especially. In the first place this is true because the railroads are adept at providing on short notice a mass of statistical evidence that often over- whelms investigators who are dealing with matters as cov.i- plex as the compensation given railroad employees, and the conditions under which they serve. This evidence, mce- over, is often so skillfully presented that it is deceptive. In the second place, the railroad brotherhoods have always gone forward on the theory and practise of compromise. In dealing with their employers they have been content with almost any appreciable proportion of that which was de- manded. The willingness of the brotherhoods to compro- mise in this manner (growing out of the quasi-public char- acter of the service) has often brought upon them the criti- cism of other crafts, some of whom condemn such willing- ness to exert every means toward settlement before ap- pealing to the strike. This situation is reflected also in the fact that the experience of the railroad brotherhoods in strikes is very limited. The two great strikes in America, in 1893 and 1877, were not conducted under the auspices of the brotherhoods. There has been nothing aproaching a general tie-up since. The influence of every combination of men in this country who are employers of labor and of men who are in the con- duct of enterprises commercial in their character, from which profit is derived, is lent to the enactment of a measure which will permit the continuance of profits without actually in- teresting themselves as to the facts of whether or not the welfare of the worker is safeguarded thereby. To such men INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 291 the acme of success is the continuance of profits or the in- creasing of them. And as what may be described as "the master class'' is in control of most of the journals through which public opinion is exprest and by which public opinion is formed, it becomes readily apparent that the real will, the real desire and the real purpose of the great majority of the citizens of the republic rarely come to the surface at all and then only in fragmentary form. When industrial strife creates suffering and hardship, complaints as to these hard- ships seldom originate with those who suffer real hardship, but almost wholly from those who suffer nothing but diminution of profit. When there is a cessation of street car service in a great city the demand for resumption of peace, regardless of the terms of settlement upon which resump- tion may be founded, comes not from the working people who are compelled to walk or avail themselves of make- shift transportation, although they make up nine-tenths of those who supply the revenue of the street car companies, but almost wholly from those whose profit suffers by the inability of the purchasing class to continue to contribute to the endless chain of merchandizing or manufacturing. It is significant, in other words, that in these cases and in most other cases where the public interest is at stake a cry is always made in the name of the suffering public, when in fact the actual suffering public voices no protest and accepts the hardship as part of the heritage of men wlio labor. This cry on behalf of the suffering public has been raised by the employing class in behalf of the enactment of the President's proposed bill. What labor men resent in this proposed bill is the utiliza-- tion of forces of any character whatsoever as weapons by one side or the other in a strike because labor has learned that the interest of the government is in peace and in profits. The police forces and the military, both state and national, in- stead of being utilized only for the purpose of seeing that each of the combatants in industrial strife uses only legiti- mate means, are almost invariably used as weapons for the purpose of furthering the interest of the employing class at the expense of the employee. Out of this long established practise grows the feeling on the part of the laboring man against the expansion of military power either upon the part 292 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF of the state or nation. Experience has taught the laboring man that military power is more often directed against him, to break down his resistance to oppressive conditions than against any outside foe. He therefore regards any legisla- tion that makes possible any greater measure of oppression as directly inequitable, as, in fact, the worst form of pre- paredness. The correctness or incorrectness of this view on the part of labor is easily tested by one rule — by an examina- tion of the arrests and convictions made in strikes for a class of offenses that if no strike were in existence would not be considered as offenses. This examination will show you how the peace power of state and city are pressed into in- dustrial conflict against the weaker side. The same use of the supposed peace power is indicated by the existence of a large number of agencies which veil their real purpose under the name of detective associations, yet draw the larger i art of their revenue from and find their principal field of activity in the furnishing of either professional strike breakers or armed -guards, all of whom usually carry arms in utter de- fiance of the statutes of the various states in which their ac- tivities are exercised and against whom no legal action is taken. Taking these facts in conjunction with those previously referred to, one need not seek further to find causes for the hostility of laboring men generally, both union and non- union, to the enactment of further legislation formulated for the purpose, as they believe, of further limiting the abilities of the working man to better his own condition. The greatest difficulty that confronts final disposition of the strike between the man who has and the man who has not lies in our methods in dealing with it, and in our refusal to look issues squarely in the face. Indisputable evidence of the existence of that fundamental error is found in the fact that now, at a period of unprecedented prosperity in this very metropolis, one-twelfth of the funerals end at the potter's field. That almost unbelievable thing is fact. It is needless to go further than this grewsome fact to establish the reason for the existence in the minds of men from the paths of labor as to the inadequacy of the present method of the distribution of the results of labor, and it is not difficiilt to understand that the mass of men who realize INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 293 that they have not received what they believe to be a fair recognition for their work will hold that democracy as ex- emplified in our government has been a failure. To rrien seeing things from this point of view it is inevitable that the theory of direct action would have great appeal in the face of the enactment of laws such as the president recommends, or of any law that adds to the machinery by which they be- lieve that their rights are disavowed, their efforts nullified and their reward for toil made non-existent. Much has been said and written about the surrender of government to an oligarchy of labor. Capital has been made of the fact that Congress passed the Adamson law in the interest of a little group of 400,000 men, yet in the years gone bj"-, legislation of the character of special privilege has been passed by the supreme legisla- tive body at the behest and in the interests of groups of men composed of not one-one-hundredth part as many as are represented here. Millions of acres of land, the world's supply of standing timber, water rights, charters for utilities, deposits of coal, a supply of oil to serve the world, have been exploited by these very self-elected spokesmen of a long suflfering public, now raising their voices in denunciation of an act humanitarian in its character, secured, it is true, through the efforts of 400,000 men, but insuring to the bene- fit of untold millions who now labor hours still out of all proportion to the stipend paid. This proposed law is a step backward. The Adamson law was a step forward even though it has brought forth, as all laws do that are passed in the interest of others than the chosen few, a plentiful crop of criticism as to its unfairness, its injustice and its impracticability. It seems inevitable that in the future there must be more legislation of similar char- acter, and less of the kind that guarantees to Shylock his pound of flesh. For the tendency of the age is toward recog- nition of the rights, not the privileges, of the common man, regardless of the powers of either invisible government or entrenched privilege, and the coming years surely will see the enactment of laws which will make impossible the condi- tion that in a period of unrivaled prosperity contributes its benefits to the privileged few while the great body of citizens are in a more depressing condition because of high prices 294 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF than they were in preceding periods of depression. The Adamson law is such a law. Any law that deprives either side of the opportunity to exercize to the fullest every leiti- mate energy it possesses is not. THE OBJECTIONS OF ORGANIZED LABOR TO COMPULSORY ARBITRATION^ I have been requested to make a statement, wherein will be set forth the objections of organized labor to compulsory ar- bitration. The objections that I shall offer are specifically ob- jections to compulsory arbitration, and may or may not include objections to the Canadian Act or similar laws upon the sub- ject. You will notice that in my remarks I refer to the mental attitude of the arbitrator and state that as a basis of objection to arbitration; in fact, as evidence that arbitration is not an equitable manner of disposing of wage questions, because so much depends upon the mental attitude of the individual whose judgment is asked. Railroad employees, and all people who work for wages, are opposed to so-called compulsory arbitration because it is but an ill-concealed effort on the part of the master class to deprive labor of its economic power. Under the guise of abitration it is proposed to fix wages and working conditions by judicial com- pulsion. Whenever and wherever by judicial process labor has been controlled, the employer has become a master and his employee a peon, serf or slave; for now, heretofore and hereafter the master class molds the mind of the judiciary. An arbitrator created by law is no less a judge, and where appointed by gov- ernmental authority becomes a dictator. Should his dictum be enforced by law his reign is no less that of a tyrant, though he may be a benevolent tyrant. The American constitution may be cited as the first award of an arbitration of labor's rights. A majority of the colonies represented at the Philadelphia convention had abolished slavery. Most of the delegates regarded the slave institutions with abhor- rence, yet the class consciousness of those same delegates • W. S. Carter, President, Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen. Proceedings. Academy of Political Science. 7:36-43. January, 1917. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 295 caused them to refuse to interfere with the business interests of the employers in the remaining colonies where slave labor was a source of profit to the master class, and slavery was made an American institution by constitutional law. Until the civil war the American master class maintained the right of owner- ship in human beings. It has not been long since railway employees favored legal measures for conducting voluntary arbitrations of wage dis- putes. The first federal arbitration law, known as the Erdman Act, was favored by railroad employees, although opposed as a dangerous precedent by workers in other crafts. Its succes- sor, the present Neyvlands Act, was earnestly supported by rep- resentatives of railroad employees. Yet practically all railroad employees now look upon the law with fear and suspicion. They have learned by bitter experience that arbitration under the federal law is not fair to the employees. Through disastrous arbitrations they have discovered that this insidious class con- sciousness of business interests permeates ovir whole social structure. They have learned that in the selection of arbitrators only those of the master class, or sympathetic therewith, are eligible, and that a financial interest in the results of an arbitra- tion better fits a man to serve as arbitrator. Ifvthe eight-hour day, questions of wages and other such controversies are to be adjusted by arbitration, and there is an earnest desire to secure an unbiased award, no person connected with or in sympathy with the workers or the servant class would probably be appointed as a "neutral." No person connected with the employers or in sympathy with the master class could be truly neutral. Now that the master class provides princely sums for endowment and pensions in the great educational institu- tions, we find learned men summarily discharged for partisan leanings toward the servant class. Who is there left? In the last arbitration conducted under the present law we found a gentleman selected as a neutral arbitrator whose social, business and political standing was such as gave credit and dis- tinction to the proceedings. Subsequently, but before the award was made, we discovered that as trustee or director he had great financial interest in the matter he was to adjudicate. We learned that as director of one trust company he held $12,500,- 000 of first mortgage bonds of one of the railroads party to the arbitration. In similar manner vast amounts of securities of the 296 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF railroads interested in the arbitration were owned or controlled by financial institutions with which he was officially connected. Having knowledge of his utter lack of sympathy for the contentions of the employees, we filed a protest with the Federal board of mediation and conciliation against his continuance on the arbitration board. In reply we were informed that "a knowledge of that fact would have been favorable rather than otherwise to his appointment, and nothing has been brought to our notice since his appointment as an arbitrator which, in our opinion, disqualifies him as an arbitrator." A public opinion has recently been created through the lav- ish expenditure of money by a junta of railroad financial in- terests, with their headquarters in this city, that makes it almost impossible for railroad employees to secure justice through any tribunal. In their efforts to convince the American people that railroad employees should not secure an eight-hour day, we have reason to believe that many millions of dollars were ex- pended in an attempt to suborn the public press of the nation. 'We have evidence that in this publicity campaign these railroad financial directors employed the advertising pages of more than 3000 daily and more than 14,000 weekly papers. Before these millions were poured into the advertising coffers of these news- papers, many were friendly to our cause and a majority were at worst neutral. Almost immediately the editorial opinions of these same newspapers voiced sentiments similar to those ex- pressed in their advertising pages. Thus we see that with an effort to impose an arbitration of wage disputes the railroads seek to create a public opinion that will win for them the decision thereunder. If arbitration is to be enforced against railroad employees, the law should prohibit the use of money by rail- roads in thus "packing the jury." Aside from the fact that an arbitration award depends al- most entirely upon the mental attitude of the so-called neutral arbitrator, an award favorable to employees is never applied justly. In any arbitration of a controversy between railroad employees and their employers the latter administer the award. What would be thought of the effectiveness of a court judg- ment enforced only by one of the litigants? Yet this is how arbitration awards are put into effect. What are intended to be wage increases are juggled into wage reductions by railroad officials, whose authority in the matter has never been ques- tioned. IxN'DUSTIilAL DISPUTES 297 To surn up the objections of working people to any form of compulsory arbitration, I may brief them as follows: (i) It is but a scheme by which the employer hopes to gain a mastery over his employees: (a) By making strikes illegal, and thus depriving work- ing people of their only economic power. (b) By suppressing labor organization, through depriv- ing them of the power to effect their purpose. (c) By creating conditions of labor through judicial process, which process the master class always has in- fluenced and always will greatly influence. (2) It is but the expression of a selfish desire: (a) To avoid the personal inconvenience incidental to all strikes, without regard to the injustice against which the workers are struggling. (b) To avoid the financial loss to business interests en- gaged in production and transportation, regardless of the financial loss that may fall on the workers. (3) It is but a symptom of the mental and moral degenera- tion through which all great and prosperous nations have passed when: (a) Fundamental principles of individual liberty are forgotten. (b) That for which the founders of liberty were hon- ored becomes a social menace. (c) The struggle for wealth overshadows all else, with consequent disregard for the rights of the working classes. (4) It is a deliberate effort to deprive working people of their economic power: (a) Through legislation nominally to preserve public peace. (b) Through an artificial public opinion, largely created by those who control the public press. (c) Through a presumption that for public con- venience the federal judiciary will find a method of depriving all working people of their constitutional right to escape involuntary servitude except as punishment for crime. This sums up the objections not only of organized labor, but of all labor against compulsory arbitration. Some of 298 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF these statements I believe to be extreme, perhaps not founded on fact; nevertheless many, many working people believe them to be true, and so believing, have a right to object vigorously to compulsory arbitration. Pardon me if I dravsf a parallel. There is a general pub- lic demand that there be no strikes such as to bring upon the country what has been described as disaster; therefore, a law is sought to suppress industrial unrest that may result in these disastrous strikes. That is the theory of all mon- archial forms of government with regard to political unrest. If that theory could have been enforced during the War of the revolution there would have been no United States of America. From a British point of view the social unrest that may result from a strike is not comparable with the political unrest that resulted in the formation of these United States. Any effort to secure political liberty would have been suppressed for identically the same reasons and with just as good argument as any effort to secure indus- trial liberty. In America we have a democratic form of government whereby presumably every citizen votes his will. 1 am glad to say that we had many more citizens voting during the last election than ever before. I refer to the women. There- fore, in this country political unrest is perhaps satisfied by the opportunity to go to the polls and change that against which we protest or complain. But in monarchial forms of government, in past centuries, and still today in some coun- tries, no such opportunity was given to the people. The governing class, who have always been the master class, truly believed that they were better qualified to legislate for the masses than were the masses themselves. In order to prevent the masses from attempting to legislate for them- selves, they deprived them of all legislative authority; and in order to preserve the peace of the land they shot as traitors any persons who attempted to gain liberty beyond that which the government had accorded them. Now I sub- mit to you that an eflfort in this country to deprive labor of its economic power to better its condition, receives its impetus in the same desire for peace that has held back the political rights of the human race for so many centuries. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 299 There is a demand among all of us for peace. We would rather suffer untold wrongs than to engage in war, political or industrial. We are so constituted — and when I say "we" I mean the great mass of people — that we would rather see the workers deprived of that which is justly due them than be inconvenienced by a great strike that perhaps may prove a calamity. Whenever a nation reaches that point where the public convenience is used to suppress the individual rights of the people, then that nation has reached its zenith, and is on the downward path. If you and I are unwilling to suffer an inconvenience in order that someone may improve his industrial condition, then this nation has not fulfilled the purposes of those who created it. If during the present period the American public will agree to an evasion of the thirteenth amendment of the constitution and without protest see railroad employees sub- jected to involuntary servitude, then I predict that the day is not far distant when these same peace-loving people will submit to a loss of political liberty rather than make militant protest against that loss. I have not lost faith in the ju- diciary, as many working people have. I yet believe that an attempt to enforce compulsory arbitration upon the working people of this country, even those that are employed by the railroads, will be frustrated by the Supreme Court of this land. I do not believe that the Supreme Court of the United States will permit an evasion of the thirteenth amendment of the constitution, even though it be for the preservation of industrial peace. BRIEF EXCERPTS The Canadian law has no provision preventing employers from bringing in strike-breakers during the investigation. — Outlook. 94 : 648. March 26, 1910. Twice as many labor disputes, involving five times as many employees, are settled by voluntary boards in New York City every year as all the disputes that, the Canadian Compulsory Investigation Act has disposed of during its en- tire lifetime. — Ralph M. Easley, Review of Reviews. 55: 190 February, 1917. 30O COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF In my judgment the holding of any person in custody, whether in jail or by an officer of the law, against his will, for the purpose of compelling him to render personal ser- vice to another in a private business, places the person so held in custody in a condition of involuntary servitude for- bidden by the constitution of the United States. — Dissenting opinion of Justice Harlan in the Arago case. The compulsory feature of the Canadian Act has made more law breakers than all the jails in the Dominion of Canada could hold. In the nine years during which this act has been in existence, it has, according to official reports, dealt with disputes involving altogether only one hundred and forty six thousand employes, thirty two thousand of whom went on strike despite the law. — Bellman. 22 : 35. Janwiry 13. 191 7. A major strike of railroad employees is a species of civil warfare, and it is doubtful if it is a thing which public policy should tolerate, but I think that we have not yet reached the point where punitive enactments would have had nation- wide support or would have produced any better result than the machinery for investigation and full publicity which the [Esch-Cummins] Act provides. — Ray Morris, World's Work. 39 : 547. April, 1920. The right to strike for the purpose of improving working and living conditions has been recognized as a natural right to labor by all peoples from the dawn of civilization until comparatively recently. In the last analysis it is the only weapon with which labor can fight its battles for justice and human rights. It is the thing above all others which marks the distinction between industrial freedom and serfdom. Today, almost for the first time, it is seriously questioned. — F. C. Canfield, President Iowa State Federation of Labor. Iowa Unionist, January 15, 1920. Moreover, arbitration may be voluntary or compulsory. Both the reference of the dispute to an arbitrator and the acquiescence in the terms of his award may be voluntary; or the reference may be voluntary and the award compulsory; or both the reference and the award may be compulsory. It is only arbitration providing for decree binding upon the disputants with which wc are concerned. Arbitration with INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 301 voluntary award is a whim. An award unsatisfactory to either party becomes binding upon neither. — Wilson Compton, American Economic Review. 6 : 325. June, 1916. If it came to me as an international officer of a union to recommend to the membership of our organization in Colo- radb as to whether they would continue employment until an investigation had been made by the state officials, thereby giving the employers an opportunity to recruit new forces to fill their positions, I should not hesitate one moment in say- ing, "Strike, and strike immediately; and we will then take up the question of any law which takes away from you your rights as free men." That frankly is our position in the matter. Peter J. Brady, Secretary Allied Printing Trades Coun- cil. Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science. 7 : 3i|i January, 1917. The antistrike amendment recommended to Congress by President Wilson ... is wholly to the advantage of the employers' class. A threatened strike would be held up in- definitely or at least until its force was spent in watchful waiting. Under this amendment a strike, if lawfully possible at all, would be robbed of its strategic advantages and doomed to inevitable defeat. A strike held up becomes as futile as a charge held up on a field of battle. But such a law could not be enforced against the will of the labor movement. All the laws and all the courts and governments on earth could not prevent a million organized workers from striking. — Eugene V. Debs, Literary Digest. 53 : 1582. Dec. 16, 1916 Mr. Gompers has said before the Committees in the Senate and in the House what he said in 1916, that anti- strike legislation would not be obeyed, could not be enforced and that he, as President of the American Federation of La- bor, would not lend his influence for obedience to such a law. During the discussion of anti-strike legislation in 1916, Mr. Gompers said: "Law or no law, president or no president, such a law would not be obeyed." And testifying before a committee of Congress this year Mr. Gompers said: "With a full sense of my responsibility, I say that I should have no more hesitancy about participating in a strike after its passage than I do now. It wouldn't stop strikes; it would make law breakers." — Law and Labor, i : 23. December, 1919. 302 COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF If men can strike with impunity in disregard of the law, what is the value of the latter in preventing or postponing strikes? Will the act not fall into abeyance except in those minor and less acute disputes where there is least call for government intervention? Has a law any force at all that operates only by the tolerance of the law-breakers? It should be recognized that expediency must constantly be consulted in administering such an act; but it would seem that the latter, though it may retain some residuary value as providing convenient machinery for public mediation, must lose its distinctive character and its interest as experimental legislation unless some way is discovered to secure the ob- servance of the clauses deferring strikes and lockouts until after an investigation has been held. Unless these clauses are enforced, the law becomes an ordinary conciliation act, burdened by the discredit of its unenforced provisions. — Victor S. Clark. Bulletin U. S. Bureau of Labor. 20 : 19-20. January, 1910. The Canadian statute, does not proceed upon the theory that the Government will adjudicate the merits of the dis- pute or assume any responsibility for the adjudication of the dispute. The Canadian statute proceeds upon the theory that if all the facts are gathered together by a tribunal com- petent for that purpose, and the facts are published, then public opinion will correct the evil which may grow from a strike. Sometimes that is true; sometimes it is not true. I only suggest that there have been more strikes upon the railways in Canada, notwithstanding the statute than there have been in the United States in the same length of time. In the former hearings, when the committee was survey- ing the whole field, the representatives of labor were particu- larly critical of the Canadian statute. They have represented to the committee many times that the efforts of the Canadian government to suppress strikes through the investigating committee, and the publication of its reports, had been a total failure; and I rather accept their judgment with respect to that, in view of the instances which they furnish us of the number of strikes which had occurred under the statute. — Senator A. B. Cummins. Congressional Record, December 18, 1919. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES 303 ILLEGAL STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS AND PROSECUTIONS ^ (In Canada in industries within the scope of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act.) Total strikes Legal strikes Illegal strikes Year and lockouts and lockouts and lockouts Prosecutions 1907 41 2 39 9 190S 19 I 18 4 igog 19 3 j6 I 1910 14 4 10 o 19" 2S I 24 5 igi2 32 2 30 1913 21 . £ 19 3 1914 6 I 5 1915 II I 10 I 1916 34 I 33 o Total.... 222 18 204 33 ^Bulletin 233, U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, p. 121:132-4. STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS 1 (In Canada in industries within the scope of the Industrial Dispute Investigation Act.) Strikes and Establish- Employees Year lockouts ments affected affected Days lost 1907 41 10S+ 19,468 261,415+ 1908 19 19 12,754 446,706-1- 1909 19 29 10,717 725.448 '910 14 17 4,S99+ 458,204 1911 25 13s 14,806 1,684,573 igi2 32 sg 11,152 179,629 igi3 21 27 4,183 736,019 1914 6 6 1,382 173,737 1915 II 20 5,598 38,548 1916 34 78 15,949 134.368 Total.... 222 49S-t- ioo,6o8-|- 4,838,647-1- ' Bulletin 233, U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, p. 24.